Do Generals Ever Shut Up?

(CBS)  Tom Engelhardt, co-founder of the American Empire Project, runs the Nation Institute's TomDispatch.com. His latest book, The American Way of War: How Bush's Wars Became Obama's (Haymarket Books), has just been published. This article originally appeared on TomDispatch.

---

The fall issue of Foreign Policy magazine features Fred Kaplan's "The Transformer," an article-cum-interview with Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.  It received a flurry of attention because Gates indicated he might leave his post "sometime in 2011."  The most significant two lines in the piece, however, were so ordinary that the usual pundits thought them not worth pondering.  Part of a Kaplan summary of Gates's views, they read: "He favors substantial increases in the military budget... He opposes any slacking off in America's global military presence."

Now, if Kaplan had done a similar interview with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, such lines might have been throwaways, since a secretary of state is today little more than a fancy facilitator, ever less central to what that magazine, with its outmoded name, might still call "foreign policy." Remind me: When was the last time you heard anyone use that phrase -- part of a superannuated world in which "diplomats" and "diplomacy" were considered important -- in a meaningful way?  These days "foreign policy" and "global policy" are increasingly a single fused, militarized entity, at least across what used to be called "the Greater Middle East," where what's at stake is neither war nor peace, but that "military presence."

As a result, Gates's message couldn't be clearer: despite two disastrous wars and a global war on terror now considered "multigenerational" by those in the know, trillions of lost dollars, and staggering numbers of deaths (if you happen to include Iraqi and Afghan ones), the U.S. military mustn't in any way slack off.  The option of reducing the global mission -- the one that's never on the table when "all options are on the table" -- should remain nowhere in sight.  That's Gates's bedrock conviction.  And when he opposes any diminution of the global mission, it matters.

Slicing Up the World Like a Pie

As we know from a Peter Baker front-page New York Times
href="http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/29/world/29commander.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print">profile of Barack Obama as commander-in-chief, the 49-year-old president "with no experience in uniform" has "bonded" with Gates, the 66-year-old former spymaster, all-around-apparatchik, and holdover from the last years of the Bush era.  Baker describes Gates as the president's "most important tutor," and on matters military like the Afghan War, the president has reportedly "deferred to him repeatedly."  

Let's face it, though: deference has become the norm for the Pentagon and U.S. military commanders, which is not so surprising.  After all, in terms of where our money goes, the Pentagon is the 800-pound gorilla in just about any room.  It has, for instance, left the State Department in the proverbial dust.  By now, it gets at least $12 dollars for every dollar of funding that goes to the State Department, which in critical areas of the world has become an adjunct of the military.

In addition, the Pentagon has taken under its pilotless predatory wing such previously civilian tasks as delivering humanitarian aid and "nation-building." As Secretary of Defense Gates has pointed out, there are more Americans in U.S. military bands than there are foreign service officers.

If it's true that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, then you can gauge the power of the Pentagon by the fact that, at least in Iraq after 2011, the State Department is planning to become a mini-military -- an armed outfit using equipment borrowed from the Pentagon and an "army" of mercenary guards formed into "quick reaction forces," all housed in a series of new billion-dollar "fortified compounds," no longer called "consulates" but "enduring presence posts" (as the Pentagon once called its giant bases in Iraq "enduring camps").  This level of militarization of what might once have been considered the Department of Peaceful Solutions to Difficult Problems is without precedent and an indicator of the degree to which the government is being militarized.

Similarly, according to the Washington Post, the Pentagon has managed to take control of more than two-thirds of the "intelligence programs" in the vast world of the U.S. Intelligence Community, with its 17 major agencies and organizations.  Ever since the mid-1980s, it has also divided much of the globe like a pie into slices called "commands." (Our own continent joined the crew as the U.S. Northern Command, or Northcom, in 2002, and Africa, as Africom in 2007.)

Before stepping down a notch to become Afghan war commander, General David Petraeus was U.S. Central Command (Centcom) commander, which meant military viceroy for an especially heavily garrisoned expanse of the planet stretching from Egypt to the Chinese border.  Increasingly, in fact, there is no space, including outer space and virtual space, where our military is uninterested in maintaining or establishing a "presence."

On October 1st, for instance, a new Cyber Command headed by a four-star general and staffed by 1,000 "elite military hackers and spies" is to hit the keyboards typing.  And there will be nothing shy about its particular version of "presence" either.  The Bush-era concept of "preventive war" (that is, a war of aggression) may have been discarded by the Obama administration, but the wizards of the new Cyber Command are boldly trying to go where the Bush administration once went.  They are reportedly eager to establish a virtual war-fighting principle (labeled "active defense") under which they could preemptively attack and knock out the computer networks of adversaries.
And the White House and environs haven't been immune to creeping militarization either.  As presidents are now obliged to praise American troops to the skies in any "foreign policy" speech -- "Our troops are the steel in our ship of state" -- they also turn ever more regularly to military figures in civilian life and for civilian posts.  President Obama's National Security Adviser, James Jones, is a retired Marine four-star general, and from the Bush years the president kept on Army Lieutenant General Douglas Lute as "war czar," just as he appointed retired Army Lieutenant General Karl Eikenberry as our ambassador to Afghanistan, and recently replaced retired admiral Dennis Blair with retired Air Force Lieutenant General James Clapper as the Director of National Intelligence.  (He also kept on David Petraeus, George W. Bush's favorite general, and hiked the already staggering Pentagon budget in Bushian fashion.)

And this merely skims the surface of the nonstop growth of the Pentagon and its influence.  One irony of that process: even as the U.S. military has failed repeatedly to win wars, its budgets have grown ever more gargantuan, its sway in Washington ever greater, and its power at home ever more obvious.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next Page »

[K. Daraa]

Tom, I believe you forgot to mentioned that a State Department employee, U.S. Ambassador in Iraq circa 25 July 1990, April Glaspie, let then Iraqi President Saddam Hussein know that the U.S. did not intend "to start an economic war against Iraq". These statements may have caused Saddam to believe he had received a diplomatic green light from the United States to invade Kuwait in summer of 1990.

This certainly doesn't sound like a US Defense Department blunder, or DoD conspiracy, as you seem to believe.

[Bigheader]

mhumphreys_2000

Spent 21 and done. Collect a nice check every month for my efforts and enjoy the socialist medical care I receive. Not only did I live the life, I also spent some time to read and learn. Group think is very common, conformity is the model. The outside the box thinker is not encouraged. Since all is taken care of their really is no need to perform at the highest levels. Nobody gets fired or laid off when business is slow or when things go bad. I have never nor do now believe the Generals or the Admirals. McChrystal lied about Pat Tillman to support a failing war policy. If he would lie about something so insignificant why wouldn?t he lie when things really got bad? The Generals should shut up. It is up to the civilian authority to shut them up. Last time I check they still work for US Government. Really good case, the Generals supported the invasion of Iraq. Still no WMD?S or ties to 911.

[Supersarge53]

Where is George S. Patton when you need him?

[rainbowroosie]

Look at the pastor in Gainesville; why doesn't Obama speak up definitively on the issue???

[mhumphreys_2000]

Tom Engelhardt is completely ignorant of military affairs, national defense or civilian control. Englehardt?s talk is old and tired and doesn?t even begin to approach the truth about the professionalism and humility of U.S. Military service, the sacrifices of servicemembers or the necessary advancements of military technology to defend against a vigilant and adaptive enemy while still respecting Americans? civil rights. I will be concerned about the budget disparity between DoD and DoS when DoS develops a $50 Million armored diplomat that goes 45 miles per hour and with his main gun can talk an extremist out of being a threat but playing nice instead.

Englehardt's portrayal of military public affairs media boot camps as a media embraced Stockholm Syndrome is pretentious, arrogant and short sided as well. Media bootcamps were designed to provide the press with essential self-protection knowledge to allow them unfettered access to military units in a combat zone while ensuring their safety and limiting interference with combat missions, which could get servicemembers or the journalist killed.

There is no more credible and accurate organization than our U.S. Military and there are no better professionals dedicated to good order and discipline within their organization than our U.S. servicemembers regardless of their rank. The penalties are steep for those who do not follow the law and yet reporters like Englehardt continue to ask Admirals and Generals questions on policy for which more often than not they honorably and respectfully deflect only to be criticized over and over again by the likes of Englehard.

I suggest Englehardt "shut up."

[Bigheader]

The military is a money sucking machine. Why should we be building roads in Afghanistan while our own cities fall apart? Go to Davis Mothan Air Base and you will see the wealth of the country all laid out in nice neat rows. Waste of money. The cost of one Alamo class LSD would fund San Diego schools for a year. Why are we still building ships to launch Marines? The last landing by a large Marine force was over 60 years ago at Inchon. The DDG class ship built to fight a navy that no longer exist at close to a billion a copy. The F35 strike fighter build to fight an air force that never existed. We no longer defend America, we attack countries who don't agree. Last time I checked no Iraqis where on the planes and of course no WMDs. China is building roads, schools and factories while we build crap and hospitals to treat our wounded and mentally damage solders. Yet the beat goes on.

Face it folks we are racing toward the bottom. No country ever got richer by building weapons. We need schools, colleges, roads and modern facilities, not bombs, tanks and contractors.

[mhumphreys_2000]

Bigheader,

If you understood anything about your Constitution, the one your military you hate so much is sworn to defend, you might realize that your precious city you say is falling apart is the result of the ineptitude of your city government shared with tribal, county, and state officials. You want to fix that, then lend a hand at home and quit blaming the Federal Government meeting its responsibilities (protection of civil rights, foreign and interstate trade, national defense) for your community?s lack of action and participation. And see what happens when your military desperately NEEDS to close a Post, Base or Station because it sucks defense dollars that should go to training and equipping of our incredible troops only to have your local and State leaders slam the door to those cuts because it costs precious jobs to your community. The money sucking machine comes from your community that is not capable of independent survival without the big Federal Government?s handouts that they have grown addicted too. It isn?t defense spending, which by the way accounts for LESS than 20 percent of the total U.S. expenditures; imagine that, a third of the Federal Government?s ACTUAL Constitutional responsibilities and less than a fifth of the spending.

As for China you say is building a utopia of schools, and hospitals, etc, etc; they are also expanding their Navy, admittedly investing in intercontinental ballistic missile technologies (that they certainly share with North Korea), investing billions of dollars in fighter aircraft from Russia, and not to mention their cyber warfare they have already used repeatedly against our infrastructure, business and technologies.

Regardless of where they are in this world, our military stand at the brink every day guarding the gate that protects your hide from many a vicious wolf. Try having your ?schools, colleges, roads and modern facilities? without them.

[TomColt]

Although I'm sure the writer is very passionate and intended to write a meaningful piece, this article simply lacks substance and logic. I was looking for the author's explanation of why the military exists; his perspective on what kind of world we are facing, what constitutes an absolutely unavoidable threat, and what fundamental military roles should be debated and possibly changed. Instead, he just wants the generals to shut up. Okay. Then what? Silence all the colonels next?

[rainbowroosie]

I fthis is really a matter of national security, the commander in chief should make a clear and straight forward statement to that effect...figure the odds that will occur.

As for generals, they should neither be seen NOR heard...shut up on policy matters.

[tsigili]

The military is being used to distribute misinformation, and propaganda, just as the politicians do. Those who oppose it, become whistle blowers, and get fired.