The article makes good points, and I certainly agree that we should not allow the military to become more partisan. But I find it a little hard to accept this statement at face value: Is there any...
The article makes good points, and I certainly agree that we should not allow the military to become more partisan. But I find it a little hard to accept this statement at face value:
Today, military leaders strive to be impartial in offering advice to the president, lawmakers, and other civilian officials about the use of force. In the future, they may instead tailor their recommendations to the interests of their preferred political party.
Is there any evidence to support the impartiality of military leaders? That their recommendations have had nothing to do with politics? It seems naive to believe that wholesale.
There are definitely exceptions (Flynn), but overall military leaders do indeed strive to be impartial. There's a good article on General Milley, the general who was photographed with Trump...
Is there any evidence to support the impartiality of military leaders? That their recommendations have had nothing to do with politics? It seems naive to believe that wholesale.
There are definitely exceptions (Flynn), but overall military leaders do indeed strive to be impartial. There's a good article on General Milley, the general who was photographed with Trump outside that church. In it, Milley fervently insists that being present for the photo op was unintentional. Even if you think he's lying, that he is trying so hard to spin it as unintentional demonstrates that the expectation is that generals will be apolitical. Similarly, look at General Mattis - when he finally criticized Trump,, his comments were roundly called "extraordinary."
This dates back to George Washington, who famously bowed to civilian control over his military and then gave up power. Ever since, nearly every American military text that discusses the role of the military has talked about the importance of generals not being political.
As a former officer in the US Military (Air Force) one of the things I respected about my leadership is that I can never recall a time where senior leadership felt like they were steering things...
As a former officer in the US Military (Air Force) one of the things I respected about my leadership is that I can never recall a time where senior leadership felt like they were steering things in a partisan way. Senior leadership always gave the outward appearance of not picking sides. At least in my career field, that was seen as unprofessional and unbecoming.
Now that never stopped the personal side chats. We are still human after all. I was in an education post when Trump got elected. The grumbling and disappointment was there amongst the civilian staff (they tend to get upset with constant threats of shutdowns and budget cuts) But my leadership always kept a cool head and never pushed a political agenda one way or the other. They had a bigger mission to accomplish and none of that involved being political.
I imagine impartiality gets more difficult the more one party dives into greed, sabotaging efforts and slandering government employees to appease dictators that would love to see our country burn....
I imagine impartiality gets more difficult the more one party dives into greed, sabotaging efforts and slandering government employees to appease dictators that would love to see our country burn.
Attacking members of the military for their identities, weaponizing them politically and physically against their domestic opponents and American citizens.
When the options go from two differing opinions on ways to defend American interests to one wanting to strengthen our influence and one deliberately sabotaging it to make a quick buck or hurt the other party, it makes me wonder how trying to keep the middle road could be undermining the armed forces' obligations.
That's the thing: impartiality doesn't mean "keep[ing] the middle road," it means upholding principles that are independent of ideology. In this case, that would mean adhering to the Constitution,...
... it makes me wonder how trying to keep the middle road could be undermining the armed forces' obligations.
That's the thing: impartiality doesn't mean "keep[ing] the middle road," it means upholding principles that are independent of ideology. In this case, that would mean adhering to the Constitution, which is strongly implied in service members' oaths to uphold it. Interpretations of what the Constitution implies can differ; that's OK, but simply splitting the difference between the two dominant ideologies is not.
I strongly dislike this misconception people have that "impartial" means splitting the difference between the two established parties for many reasons. This is the kind of shallow conception of impartiality that's led news outlets to give a bullhorn to radical viewpoints, even if "both sides" are in no way equivalent factually. It's also the sophistry that radical fundamentalists use to justify teaching their religious dogmas as equivalent to science, and the logical fallacy that conspiracy theorists leverage to sow paranoia.
I suppose you're probably just using that expression as a shorthand, or perhaps it wasn't quite what you intended, but what you could put your lexical hands on in the moment. I still think it worth addressing, because I don't see this misconception diminishing in influence, and I see it as pernicious.
The article makes good points, and I certainly agree that we should not allow the military to become more partisan. But I find it a little hard to accept this statement at face value:
Is there any evidence to support the impartiality of military leaders? That their recommendations have had nothing to do with politics? It seems naive to believe that wholesale.
There are definitely exceptions (Flynn), but overall military leaders do indeed strive to be impartial. There's a good article on General Milley, the general who was photographed with Trump outside that church. In it, Milley fervently insists that being present for the photo op was unintentional. Even if you think he's lying, that he is trying so hard to spin it as unintentional demonstrates that the expectation is that generals will be apolitical. Similarly, look at General Mattis - when he finally criticized Trump,, his comments were roundly called "extraordinary."
This dates back to George Washington, who famously bowed to civilian control over his military and then gave up power. Ever since, nearly every American military text that discusses the role of the military has talked about the importance of generals not being political.
As a former officer in the US Military (Air Force) one of the things I respected about my leadership is that I can never recall a time where senior leadership felt like they were steering things in a partisan way. Senior leadership always gave the outward appearance of not picking sides. At least in my career field, that was seen as unprofessional and unbecoming.
Now that never stopped the personal side chats. We are still human after all. I was in an education post when Trump got elected. The grumbling and disappointment was there amongst the civilian staff (they tend to get upset with constant threats of shutdowns and budget cuts) But my leadership always kept a cool head and never pushed a political agenda one way or the other. They had a bigger mission to accomplish and none of that involved being political.
I imagine impartiality gets more difficult the more one party dives into greed, sabotaging efforts and slandering government employees to appease dictators that would love to see our country burn.
Attacking members of the military for their identities, weaponizing them politically and physically against their domestic opponents and American citizens.
When the options go from two differing opinions on ways to defend American interests to one wanting to strengthen our influence and one deliberately sabotaging it to make a quick buck or hurt the other party, it makes me wonder how trying to keep the middle road could be undermining the armed forces' obligations.
That's the thing: impartiality doesn't mean "keep[ing] the middle road," it means upholding principles that are independent of ideology. In this case, that would mean adhering to the Constitution, which is strongly implied in service members' oaths to uphold it. Interpretations of what the Constitution implies can differ; that's OK, but simply splitting the difference between the two dominant ideologies is not.
I strongly dislike this misconception people have that "impartial" means splitting the difference between the two established parties for many reasons. This is the kind of shallow conception of impartiality that's led news outlets to give a bullhorn to radical viewpoints, even if "both sides" are in no way equivalent factually. It's also the sophistry that radical fundamentalists use to justify teaching their religious dogmas as equivalent to science, and the logical fallacy that conspiracy theorists leverage to sow paranoia.
I suppose you're probably just using that expression as a shorthand, or perhaps it wasn't quite what you intended, but what you could put your lexical hands on in the moment. I still think it worth addressing, because I don't see this misconception diminishing in influence, and I see it as pernicious.