Counter-point: While I concur that the military must remain apolitical in the execution of its function as well as in appearance, I would remind the author and all concerned, that every U.S. citizen has the Consitutional right and responsibilty to be engaged in the political affairs of our nation as an individual and collectively - even active, reserve and retired military citizens.

If one agrees with your ideal that it is ultimately better for the nation if the military stays out of politics, perhaps it would not be too much to ask other groups to remain apolitical as well:
1. newspapers and related media organizations -- whose function is provide objective reporting or information;
2. doctors, scientists, educators, and professors -- their functions certainly should be professional and not political in nature!
3. Hollywood -- if retired military shouldn't be allowed to throw their weight around with respect to their profession, neither should the overpaid entertaniment elite be able to throw their weight around or considerable money for that matter;
4. For that matter, why should anyone who is not a career politician be involved in politcs at all -- Joe and Jane Citizen are clearly unqualified to participate or in the political process, not being a politician!

Need I say more?

P.S. - The promotion lists of flag/general officers are required to be screened and approved by Congress. Additionally, all flag/general officers are required to restate their oaths upon promotion, which includes an oath to Congress. (If this isn't political, then I don't know what is.)

To Kotzabasis: Agreeable, and agreed.

Frank, thank you for that link. And of course you are right that members of the military in service cannot endorse a president or a political party nor can participate in campaign events. But that was not the context of my argument.

plainfacto

I did not consider for one moment that you defamed my character nor would I defame yours by speaking straightforward to you. And Clausewitz is very close to Machiavelli.

I stand corrected on this point. Thank You, Frank..

A vote for McCain is a vote for war...

any war, anywhere and anytime. This man has never seen a war that he did not like.

Is it any wonder then that warhawks generals would give him their overwhelming support?

Interestingly enough, it took him a long time to come around and support a day that represented peace, MLK's birthday.

Hmm! I wonder how many of these generals can perceive of peace as a viable alternative to slaughtering other innocent human beings?

To McCain's credit, give him credit for this, at least he will go, as well as send his kids to fight in the concocted wars that he supports!

Oops!

I was wrong when I wrote earlier " So military members are allowed to participate in campaign events, campaigning, protests, rallys, and any other functions/gatherings afforded US citizens."

A closer reading of the DoD regulation prohibits military members from participating on some of those activities, regardless of whether they're in uniform or not.

Also, the regulation is derived from legislation (Section 973 and Chapter 47 of Title 10.) The law is aligned in spirit and intend with the oath I mentioned earlier.

Sorry 'bout that.

kotzbasis and plainfacto,

The DoD regulation regarding military member participation in political activities can be found at:

www.dtic.mil/whs/directives/corres/rtf/134410x.rtf

kotzabasis and justplainfacto,

Of course military members can vote ... and are encouraged to do! In fact, during my 27 years in the military, I never failed once to vote via absentee ballot.

That said. Voting is considered to be private, and not something done in an 'official capacity'.

To clear up a point. As someone elsewhere commented earier -- you don't put down the cloak of citizenship when you put on the uniform. So military members are allowed to participate in campaign events, campaigning, protests, rallys, and any other functions/gatherings afforded US citizens. Active duty military members just can't do so in an 'official capacity' where 'official capacity' generally refers to participation where it might be construed that the US military is endorsing one view of a political issue over another (e.g., while in uniform, or using rank/rate to identify oneself).

This regulation/tradition is grounded in the oath each member of the Armed Services takes. The oath is not to blindly follow the President (a product a political process) but rather "to protect and defend the Constitution" (e.g., the governmental process and what it represents). This allegiance to the process, and not a person (or political party), is a fundamental difference between the US military and most other military organizations around the world. And so, to keep the integrity of that oath intact, active duty military cannot use their 'official capacity' to endorse (either implicitly or explicitly) a political view. While in an 'official capacity', by tradition and regulation, they are to remain apolitical.

For the same reason, campaign events, fundraisers, or any event which might be considered to support a particular political agenda are not allowed on military reservations.

Mr Arkin,

You write "...men and women in uniform can no longer be assumed to be non-partisan professionals."

There is a long history of military leaders becoming political candidates, elected officials or appointed leaders: Washington, Grant, Eisenhower, Marshall, MacArthur, Powell, and Clark to name only a few. It is naïve and sophistic to opine for the non partisan military of the past. It never existed.

The Republic does face a serious strategic issue in the political polarization of the military.

Termination of the draft and implementation of the all volunteer force creates an unintended screen... where predominantly, individuals with a sense of duty, tradition of military service and similar worldview join and acquire military experience.

We no longer draw on a broad cross section of the population to fill military leadership ranks, rather on a volunteer pool of like minded individuals. This is producing a more polarized military which is even beginning to creep into fitness reports.

To be honest kotzabasis - you haven't made yourself exactly clear. I am sure that I wouldn't have jumped so quickly to defame your character as you have to me; let's try it again. Perhaps you still need to make your point a lttle more clear. You brought up Clausewitz - but now you are acting like Machiavelli. What are you trying to say; don't hedge - please.

plainfacto

You shifting your ground to another area to make your point and that shows lack of intellectual integrity. I was clearly referring to the military in general that while in service they have the right to vote and "take sides", to quote Frank, NOT to "members of the military command", which is the new ground you selected to build your point But it's obvious that neither you nor Frank can answer my three questions, with which you opened your post, with the power of logic.

>>Don't members of the military in an official capacity cast their vote during elections? And don't they 'take sides' when they do so? Can you then say that their vote is "apolitical"?<<

No, they cannot vote - they are not allowed to vote when they are members of the military command. They can only discuss and evaluate their findings together before they submit it to Congress. It is based upon their staff's findings, facts, and recommendations; not politics.

Only 'retired' Generals, Admirals, and Commandants can inject advice and vote. What they say is not allowed or represented into Petraues' report.

If the retired guys say anything - it has to be before or after the report is submitted; it has no bearing on Petreaus' report to Congress.

Frank

Don't members of the military in an official capacity cast their vote during elections? And don't they 'take sides' when they do so? Can you then say that their vote is "apolitical"?

This is absurd! You cannot put the political beliefs and values or the minds of the military in the straitjacket of an UNREALISTIC RULE.

Moreover, Arkin's argument included retired military personnel as well.

Again, I agree with Frank...

For a long time, but especially since 2001, the top generals and admirals have been forced by the administration to publicly defend the administration's decisions, often when they privately disagreed with them. And now when they are finally out of the military, we should tell them that they can't tell us what they really think? Either they have to keep quiet all the time, or they can speak up whenever they want. Nothing in between, please.

kotzabasis writes:

"Therefore the "rule" that decrees that the military should not be engaged in politics is an oxymoron."

The rule is not meant to preclude the military from engaging in the governmental process (which is inherently political), but rather it is meant to ensure that military members, while in an official capacity, remain apolitical (e.g., don't take sides).

plainfacto

I used Clausewitz's dictum to illustrate that one cannot separate war from politics if the military arm which is engaged in hostilities is going to be successful in defeating an enemy. Politicians to make the right decisions about a war must rely for their concrete data from those engaged in war, i.e., the military. Therefore the "rule" that decrees that the military should not be engaged in politics is an oxymoron.

It's a farcical rule and goes against the grain of all experience. A perfect admittance of this experience was the questioning of General Petraeus by Congress, on the former's MILITARY REPORT of Iraq, when its democrat representatives, and indeed, many from the media and the anti-War movement, accused Petraeus of being involved in politics, since they all considered his report of being politically biased as it purportedly supported the policy of the Bush administration on Iraq.

Ironically, the critics of Petaeus while upholding the fiction that the military should not be engaged in politics were admitting at the same time that the general's MILITARY REPORT was influencing POLITICS.

The only thing these ex-generals can do is advise - and vote. Do you want to take that away from this country - too? They are a valuable asset - with or without a war.

And they have helped to protect us so that we can speak our minds as we are doing now. Do you like to make it a habit to bite the hand that helps to feed you? Whet are we argueing about?

I have been hearing from Dems that are against this array of established and trusted individuals because they don't apperciate the fact the sooo many Generals, Admirals, and Commandants have lined up behind McCain.

Sour grapes - anyone?

The Military and military veterans...

These folks are looking for a champion to get them what they want when they are in uniform, and when they are later out of uniform. I don't totally begrudge them for wanting someone like John McCain to represent them.

Having said that, the rest of us be sover and recognize that the military is only a part of of what makes America work - they have their own agenda. The gun-toters believe that they are, exclusively, what makes America work.

The high ranking officers shouldn't worry so much about their present or future, for when the high ranking military officials leave the military, they will go to work for a military contractor, a lobbyist group or run for office. They will get there's in the end.

It is the low-level military veteran who have something to worry about. Just think about it, what has the President or John McCain done for them lately? And besides they can't join the officers club.

And just out of curiousity, what will John McCain do to help non-heterosexuals, who serve and have served in the military?

sceptonomist writes;

--You overlook a possible motive of military officers, in that they may be looking for the candidate who will treat the military best ... --

Perhaps. Though a stretch considering the Flag and General Officers Arkin is upset with are retired, and no longer a direct interest in the military.

You overlook a possible motive of military officers, in that they may be looking for the candidate who will treat the military best and most knowledgeably and one with whom they intuitively identify, rather than the one whose policies they agree with. None of the other leading candidates has a military background.

Completely agree with Kevin: "'military's tradition of nonpartisanship' applies to active duty personel not retired." Mr. Arkin needs to brush up on his histrory.

"Inscribed inside the apse of the Memorial Amphitheater adjoining the Tomb of the Unknowns at Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia are words from General George Washington's letter to the Provincial Congress dated June 26, 1775:'When we assumed the soldier we did not lay aside the citizen.' Washington's remark is as profound in its meaning as it is simple in its structure, for it articulates the essence of the American military officer's ethos. Washington's life indicates that he would also conclude that when the soldier lays down his arms, he does not relinquish the obligations of citizenship."--including participating in the democratic process once he leaves military service.

I notice I haven't denied anything...

Hey 'Kotzabasis' - could you expand yourself a bit more?
Explain - please...

If Clausewitz's dictum is correct that 'war is the continuation of politics by other means', then Arkin's "dictum" that 'the military...stays out of politics,' is a caricature of reality.

Hey 'real Dimitry'; you're real initials wouldn't be 'FSB' - would it! (chuckle, snicker!) I know that it is not; don't bust a blood vessel on my attempt of humor...

==I love the military-- the Russian military.==

A classic. Try to "harass" an opponent by posting in his name.

It's amazing that VRIOs don't get tired of this old school technique.

I guess, a reference to "False Dimitry" would be wasted on them...

There is a proverb that states; 'do not despise the gray hairs of your seniors'(paraphrased).

When these Generals had the responsibility of command; they were not afforded the luxury of the democratic proccess. Now that they are no longer restrained by their chain of command to speak politics, they can now speak with their well-kept tongues.

Give them an ample dose of credit; they can speak as they had wanted to do for so many years. We would do well to listen to them and weigh each word carefully. It is seasoned by temperment and flavored with vast experience.

In other words - it is the right time to sit down, shut up, listen, and take notes; then LEARN! If one can do this - you can understand a wealth of knowledge.
Do not dispise it....

The American People Have Moved On...

Americans are more concerned about quality of life in America for Americans, and repairing the breeches. The Iraq debacle has been seen for what it was!

The current Administration in Washington does not understand, and John McCain and 'the military is the answer to everything crowd', certainly cannot comprehend reality either. The latter is simply a self-perpetating and self-sustaining-bring back the glory days, old boys club.

Has anyone ever visited some of the Country Clubs that exist on huge military bases that are spread out around the country? Golf anyone?

How do we get these primitive crustaceans to understand that sooner or later, they will have to rejoin the real world?

McCain has some sort of love affair with septuagenarians in uniform. It's getting a little sickening. His mawkish victory rhetoric about Iraq, his fetishistic preoccupation with "the troops," his Boy Scout Oath-esque duty/honor/country shtick .. maybe this plays well among the sentimental and simple-minded but it make me want to hurl.

Anyone who sincerely cares about the troops wants them home safe, not thrown away in Bush's vanity wars.

Did Mr. Arkin oppose all the retired generals who were against Bush and said so all over CNN and the NY Times?

For uncensored news please bookmark:

www.wsws.org
www.takingaimradio.com
www.onlinejournal.com
www.globalreseach.ca
otherside123.blogspot.com

Culling the herd

By Sheila Samples
Online Journal Contributing Writer

"Everything you can imagine is real" --Pablo Picasso

In 1974, a year after orchestrating a mass terror bombing of Cambodia -- after being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize -- Secretary of State Henry Kissinger and his National Security Council completed "National Security Study Memo 200: Implications of Worldwide Population Growth for U.S. Security and Overseas Interests." This document, whose sharp edges are dulled by page after leaden page of how to reduce overpopulation in the Third World through birth control and "other" population-reduction programs, was classified until 1989, but was almost immediately accepted as US policy, and remains the US blueprint for ethnic cleansing today.

It is difficult to imagine the staggering number of innocent humans who have perished through war or famine as a direct result of Kissinger's half-century obsession with, and lust for, genocide. It's even more difficult to imagine the cruel indifference with which Kissinger, and those like him in positions of political and corporate power -- the elite -- continue to plan the elimination of millions, even billions. All under the guise of national security, or to spread freedom . . . democracy . . .

Kissinger targeted a number of "key countries" whose populations, he said, must be curtailed and controlled lest they gain economic, political and military strength, and thus threaten US strategic interests. "Depopulation should be the highest priority of foreign policy towards the Third World," Kissinger said, "because the US economy will require large and increasing amounts of minerals from abroad, especially from less developed countries."

Then, as now, any nation refusing to surrender its natural resources was an ominous threat to our national security and was dealt with initially through birth control and other population-reduction programs such as food rationing. But that was too slow for Kissinger, for Brent Scowcroft who replaced Kissinger as national security adviser and was put in charge of thinning out the Third World population, and for his eager enabler, CIA Director George H.W. Bush who trotted like a love-starved puppy at Kissinger's heels for decades.

At first, they used food as "an instrument of national power" to coerce the dumb masses to stop copulating and populating, and then as a deadly weapon because widespread famine not only dealt death quicker, but it was cost-effective. And it made more sense. Like Kissinger said, "To give food aid to a country just because they [sic] are starving is a pretty weak reason."

If we could imagine the suffering endured by victims of such perverse inhumanity, we might feel a twinge of outrage or, as George Washington so succinctly put it, a "little spark of celestial fire called conscience." Or not. Perhaps we are so far removed from reality because our minds cannot grasp the horror of that reality. Those who seek to destroy the denizens of this planet are totally without compassion or remorse. They are grotesque mutants who kill indiscriminately in their relentless drive for world conquest and domination.

It's naive to think the carnage will stop once predators such as Kissinger, Alexander Haig, Robert McNamara, George H.W. Bush, and other One World advocates, many of whom are in their 80s or 90s, are no longer in our midst. With the release of thousands of tons of depleted uranium in both Bush Gulf wars and Afghanistan, they have poisoned food, water and air, and turned the entire region into massive radioactive death camps. Without fear of accountability, they have ensured the slow, agonizing extermination of entire populations, to include the American military, whom Kissinger views as "dumb, stupid animals to be used as pawns for foreign policy" -- and their families -- that will continue for many generations.

For the rest please go to:

http://onlinejournal.com/artman/publish/article_2757.shtml

"military's tradition of nonpartisanship" applies to active duty personel not retired.

I love the military-- the Russian military.

Arkin, are you likewise suggesting that candidates, out of respect for the purported non-partisanship of newspaper and news organizations, shy away from the endorsement of newspaper editorial boards?

And what arguments, facts, and historical context do you have to support your assertion that it's better for the nation if retired military officers stay out of politics?

I can provide a whole list of retired/ex-military whose participation in politics .. starting with Washington ... led to the betterment, not the detriment, of this country.

Oh by the way, seems to me that it was the professional politician (G.W. Bush) - and not the professional military officer (Colin Powell) - who screwed up the Iraq decision.

Here's why he's hangin' with the generals & admirals, and endless war, and police state-ism. Guns... No butter:

[December 19 2007] Travus T. Hipp Morning News & Commentary: It Was A Nice Idea At The Time - Mike Gravel Says 'American Democracy Was A Noble Experiment That Didn't Work'... A Sitrep

http://leighm.net/wp/2007/12/19/tth_071219/