President Obama’s recent visit to Japan,
and Hiroshima, generated vigorous discussion and debate in the various social
media I frequent. Bits and bytes crossed the ether, filling “in-boxes” and blog
comment sections. Both sides of the issue staked out territory, vigorously
defending their cause. Yet, in all the theorizing, Monday-Morning
quarterbacking, and posturing, I noticed a common thread; misunderstanding the
role, or function, of the military in such matters as national defense and
foreign policy. Additionally, I also detected a lack of understanding about the
nature of soldiers; who we are, how we think, what motivates us, and our
feelings or thoughts about such matters as warfare and its effect on the human
spirit. I found the lack of empathy for those in leadership positions, those
shoulders that bear the weight of grim decisions, distressing. When debating
such policy matters we must ensure that we examine the issues from a point of
understanding, not one of stereotype or prejudice.
In our republic, civilians assert
supremacy over the military. Our president serves as “Commander in Chief,” and
as such has no rank. If a general, or officer of lessor rank, is elected they
must resign their commission prior to taking the office of president. As an
officer, whenever I dealt with civilians I always addressed them as “Sir” or
“Ma’am.” Every officer dreads the receipt of a letter from congress. Congress
wields great power over the military. More than once in my career I was the
subject of congressional inquiry; both very unpleasant experiences (in both
cases I was found to have acted appropriately). Until President Reagan,
presidents never returned the honor of a salute as they were civilians. Due to
the importance of the issue of civilian supremacy, I would recommend returning
to the no return salute practice. Besides, every president, no matter their
party affiliation salutes badly. A quick search of internet images reveals a
plethora of poor presidential salutes. We in the military take our orders from
the President, a civilian. Our laws prohibit members of the military acting in
a law-enforcement role; except in cases of extreme national emergency. Our
experience as a colony, complete with colonial military abuses, left an
indelible mark on our national psyche. We keep the military at arm’s length
from the reins of power for good reasons. We in the military, especially career
soldiers, understand this.
Generals do not wake up one morning and
say, “I think I’ll invade _______________________.” Soldiers, especially those
who’ve spent time in combat, know the chaos that unleashing the darker,
deadlier tools of diplomacy brings. To find those responsible for the ills of
armed conflict, look at either end of Pennsylvania Ave. and Wall-Street. We in
the military may not carry out our orders well or to the liking of those who
sent us; but, we follow orders nonetheless. Soldiers bear a great
responsibility for how we carry out orders. Sometimes we must refuse to follow
orders. To serve in the military one must possess two types of courage;
physical courage to enable you to strap on your kit and go outside the wire and
moral courage to tell a superior officer, “No, we cannot do that. It is
immoral.” Without both types of courage one cannot serve their commanders well
or fulfill their oath of office. Occasionally soldiers fail at one or both,
with devastating results. And in this day of near instant communication these
results may exert significant influence, good or ill, on national policy. Whatever
the case, soldiers act on the orders given and though we must account for our
actions, those who give the orders that send men and women into harm’s way must
also account for their actions. When
debating policies, we must keep our gaze fixed upon those nexus of power that
consider employment of force a viable option. Rather than seek support for a
“just war,” perhaps we should focus on only fighting those wars unavoidably
thrust upon us.
Thank you,Matt.
ReplyDelete