Who’s really trying to politicize the military?

The linchpin of a republic under civilian rule — as well as faith in the armed services by a cross-section of Americans — is an apolitical military.

So declares self-styled constitutional scholar Glenn Greenwald.
Greenwald has an earlier post here in which he makes the same argument.
In the traditional, World War II sense, “apolitical” meant staying out of ordinary domestic partisan politics. Military leaders tend to shy away from making political endorsements, and thus Eisenhower would have been unlikely to tell the troops which party to vote for, notwithstanding his personal beliefs.
However, because it is the job of the military to fight and win wars, matters that go to the heart of the war — such as wartime propaganda — are not ordinary partisan politics. For example, in World War II, the United States had to contend with enemy propaganda, and enemy propagandists. Tokyo Rose and Lord Haw-Haw are two examples. It is always the job of the military to oppose and counter enemy propaganda by any means possible. This is all the more true in a propaganda war, which the current war is.
Factor in the maxim that war is the continuation of politics by other means, and Greenwald’s sanctimonious moral posture becomes questionable, if not disingenuous.
What bothers me the most about Greenwald’s argument is that he goes out of his way to take the side of an accused enemy propagandist, Bilal Hussein, who has been detained in Iraq for being a suspected terrorist agent.

After right-wing blogs loudly complained for months about the supposedly Terrorist-sympathizing journalism of Associated Press photographer Bilal Hussein in Iraq, the U.S. military in Iraq detained him with no charges (and, just by the way, continues to detain him for a year-and-a-half now with no charges). While the military refused to talk to A.P. or any other press outlets about its photojournalist, they leaked the story of his detention to Michelle Malkin — one of the principal agitators who had spent months calling Hussein a Terrorist-lover and calling for his arrest — and then, with her military-delivered scoop, she excitedly announced his detention.

The idea that “right wing blogs” give the military their marching orders and tell them who to arrest is so absurd on its face that I don’t think it requires extended comment. Except Greenwald is making it, and presumably there are people who agree with him.
Hmm…
I guess that means I should at least disabuse readers of the idea that Hussein was arrested pursuant to some order issued by General Malkin. According to the Wiki entry, Michele Malkin was not even present at the scene of his capture, but only blogged about it later (presumably from the United States). Moreover, the military claims to have found Hussein with an al-Qaida leader:

The military said that Hussein was found with two insurgents, including Hamid Hamad Motib, an alleged leader of al-Qaida forces in Iraq.[1] According to a May 7, 2006 e-mail from U.S. Army Major General Jack Gardner, “He has close relationships with persons known to be responsible for kidnappings, smuggling, improvised explosive device (IED) attacks and other attacks on coalition forces.”[1] Gardner continued, “The information available establishes that he has relationships with insurgents and is afforded access to insurgent activities outside the normal scope afforded to journalists conducting legitimate activities.”[1]

Now, I don’t know what access Greenwald has to classified material. I have none, and not only do I lack a security clearance, I’m not what anyone would call a “war blogger,” although I am a war supporter. I have to assume that Greenwald is in no more position to know the facts of the Hussein capture than any other blogger, because he doesn’t cite any special evidence for his position that the military detention of Bilal Hussein is wrong other than the recital that there are “no charges.” I don’t know whether that’s true, but I would note that prisoners of war are also typically held with “no charges.” Other than that, he asserts a connection between the following:

  • “right wing bloggers” complained; and
  • the military detained this guy.
  • To Greenwald, this is evidence that the military has been “politicized.”
    OK, let’s look at the “sides” in this political partisanship equation. On one “side” are the supporters of Bilal Hussein, and on the other are those who think that he should be released because the military has no right to hold him.
    Sorry, but I don’t think these two “sides” constitute political partisanship — certainly not in the traditional context. Let’s compare Bilal Hussein to Tokyo Rose. While she was arrested — and “detained for a year by the U.S. military” — this was after World War II had ended. But let’s suppose that she’d been grabbed earlier, and detained. Without charges. Suppose some anti-war group had formed a “Tokyo Rose Freedom Committee.” While that could have been considered “politics,” I submit that to call it the sort of politics implicated in the “apolitical” tradition Greenwald invokes is to torture the primary role of the military in war, which is to win.
    I realize that the debate over the war is inherently political, but I don’t think the debate over how the military fights war propaganda (or propaganda which helps the enemy) is quite the same thing. Yet Greenwald claims that support for an enemy propagandist constitutes “politics,” and that by taking action against a suspected enemy propagandist (and by refusing to cooperate with his sympathizers), the military is being partisan.
    Would it have been “partisan politics” for the military to refuse to cooperate with, say, reporters for the German American Bund during World War II, or Communist reporters (say, the People’s Daily) during the Korean or Vietnam wars? I don’t see how.
    An additional problem is the reduction of this issue to “right wing” and “left wing.”
    How, pray tell, is Greenwald defining right wing blogs? Pro-military blogs that wants the United States to succeed in the war? Greenwald gives a clear hint that he defines right wing as pro-war when he complains that “the military had even been providing conference calls and other briefing sessions seemingly reserved exclusively for right-wing, pro-war bloggers.”
    Does this mean that if the military does not want to deal with anti-military, anti-war blogs that wants the United States to fail in the war, that they are behaving in a political manner?
    I have a question about right wing versus left wing.
    How is support for this war any more “right wing” than support for the war against Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?
    Are Democrats who support this war to be considered right wing also? This is no exercise in sophistry or rhetorical hair-splitting, and not only because there are still a number of pro-war Democrats.
    Yesterday, I wrote a post about the right wing anti-war movement, which is growing. There are the Buchananites, the MSU-YAF people, the Ron Paul people, the libertarian Antiwar.com people, and there are a number of right wing 9/11 Truther types. All of these groups (and I’m sure there are more) are right wing, and anti-war.
    On top of that, look at the inherent nature of the enemy. People who want to impose a fundamentalist theocratic dictatorship which oppresses women, executes gays, forbids theater, film, and music and all sorts of personal freedom can be called a lot of things. I call them “Islamofascists,” and while I realize not everyone uses that word, they are certainly far right in the conventional sense of the word, and I see no way that any reasonable person could consider them left wing. Thus, it is fully legitimate to say that the U.S. military is to the left of the enemy it is fighting.
    For all these reasons, I think the claim that “pro-war” is synonymous with “right wing” is bogus and misleading.
    However, if the goal is to accuse the military of being politicized, then by all means it is necessary to insinuate right versus left into these things.
    Considering the totality of the circumstances, is it entirely fair to consider Glenn Greenwald a left wing shill?
    Seriously, can’t he also be seen as a right wing shill?
    I really think he can. (Although it’s getting tougher and tougher to know the difference between reality and sarcasm.)
    On the other hand, I hate to further politicize what Greenwald is already doing his best to politicize.
    But then, I’m not the one who declared that supporting the war is “right wing.”
    UPDATE: Anyone who thinks being pro-war or anti-war comes down to a neat little question of Republican versus Democrat should read this:

    White was one of about 300 people who attended the anti-war rally in downtown Orlando. Many at the rally said Democrats need to do more to bring the troops home.
    “I’m at a loss,” said Nancy O’Byrne, a Democrat from St. Augustine who attended the United for Peace and Justice rally. “Democrats aren’t any better on the war issue than the Republicans. Very few would get our troops out and home and not leave any behind. A lot of candidates are backpedaling on their stance on the war and I’m not sure why. Seventy percent of Americans want this war to end.”

    (Via Glenn Reynolds.) I’m sure most Republicans want it to end.
    The question is under what circumstances. Most Democrats supported this war when it started…..
    UPDATE: Thanks to Lance at A Second Hand Conjecture for the link!


    Posted

    in

    by

    Tags:

    Comments

    9 responses to “Who’s really trying to politicize the military?”

    1. JLawson Avatar

      How is support for this war any more “right wing” than support for the war against Nazi Germany or imperial Japan?
      It isn’t, in so far as the end desired is an actual victory. One unfortunate thing that seems to be forgotten is that war is indeed very painful – even for the winning side – and it’s the side which makes the fewest, least costly mistakes that ends up winning. And the cost isn’t necessarily measured in dollars – Al Quaeda in Iraq is losing high-level people it can’t replace, much like losing Eisenhower, Montgomery and Patton in 1944 would have been a crippling blow in the European theater. They’ve also managed to lose the hearts and minds of the Iraqi people, who’ve found out that the help their ‘brothers’ were giving to ‘free’ them from the ‘infidel occupier’ was basically to kill Iraqis until we gave up and went home. That’s bound to piss off the locals a bit.
      “I’m sure most Republicans want it to end.”
      Damn straight. But I don’t want it to end in our defeat. And leaving like we did in Viet Nam (with a promise to support the South Vietnamese that got forgotten in a short period of time, leading to a cutoff of support and funding) would be seen as a defeat.
      So perhaps Greenwald could be seen as a defeatist shill, instead of left or right? Seems to me that’s more what he’s promoting, and I’ve got to admit that with the news of progress out of Iraq there might not be much more time before such a result isn’t possible.
      J.

    2. the wolf Avatar
      the wolf

      Greenwald is one who likes to advance the “chickenhawk” argument. Which is ironic, since he is against the politicization of the military but appears to support the militarization of the political class.

    3. IntelVet Avatar
      IntelVet

      Eric,
      You talk about Eisenhower as being apolitical yet forget to mention his abject aversion to wearing a uniform once out of the military as well as his relative purity to staging events in a military setting, something our present moron in chief seems to wallow in.
      Also, the journalists in question are being held without charges or any kind of formal accusation, a concept considered criminal until recent times. Your implication that they must be guilty of something, as evidenced by your continued reference to “suspected terrorist agent” leads me to believe you know something the rest of us don’t. If so, where are the charges? Let us see evidence that would lead to detention.
      “the wolf”
      For the record, the “political class”, in a democracy, is the citizen. It is not some elite class, above the rough and tumble of war, unless you are talking about facism or a monarchy.
      and J.
      As a vet of some consequence I take offense at your immature and, hopefully, naive views of war.
      By leaving Vietnam (I was one of the last out) we extricated ourselves from a meat-grinder, a no-win ever situation, which became a win in my book.
      We are now in a similar situation in Iraq, thanks to moronic “leadership”. It took the US a week to “win in Iraq”. It is now taking the US years to realize that by staying, the US has turned a “win” into a loss. The US will take a long time to realize what is obvious to other countries, by staying, it lost.
      and if defending the Constitution means we force our government to live by the rules they swore to and it means the government has to “fish or cut bait” with due process and if that makes me a terrorist sympathizer then you need to have me arrested. I just will not go quietly.

    4. vividu Avatar
      vividu

      Due Process forever.

    5. ice9 Avatar
      ice9

      If you advocate the violation of the central tenets of our republic, you are not a patriot. If you rely on ad hominem attacks, you are not arguing in good faith, which puts you on the fringe.
      ice

    6. PC Avatar
      PC

      Glenn’s comments refer to the neo-con tactic of politicizing the military with the end result of pitting American against American. You know, the simplistic either you’re with us or against us” refrain. And of course, you have to conform EXACTLY to what the Neo-Cons have decided is “American”, or you aren’t American.
      Let’s quickly examine how this differs from the World War II reference you made to Tokyo Rose.
      Tokyo Roses propaganda was considered comedy by 99.9% of US troops. Some actually tuned in just to fill their grim lives with a laugh, so preposterous and amateurish were their efforts. And it was the propaganda of one warring nation against its enemies soldiers.
      Please explain how in the hell this compares to modern politicization as Greenwald has pointed out in which one American (neo-con) is “Tokyo Rosing” another American?
      If I had simple pie-charts to help further explain this to you and your nuance-challenged readers, I would.

    7. Anonymous Avatar
      Anonymous

      Red Flag: “…he [Greenwald] goes out of his way to take the side of an accused enemy propagandist, Bilal Hussein…”
      You’re full of shit. I read Greenwald’s piece and he takes the side of the concept of due process.

    8. Singularity Avatar
      Singularity

      Classic that you should use the Tokyo Rose analogy. The most famous “Tokyo Rose” was Iva Toguri, an American of Japanese descent who was stranded in Japan while visiting relatives when the Imperial Navy bombed Pearl Harbor. For refusing to renounce her citizenship, she was denied a ration card by the Japanese and took work as a radio announcer. She never broadcast anti-American propaganda, but after the war, right-wing radio perosnality Walter Winchell used his platform to goad the government into pursuing charges against her. She was convicted of one of eight charges of treason. After he trial, it was discovered that federal agents had suborned perjury by two witnesses against her. As a result she received a full Presidential pardon from Gerald Ford in 1977.
      So, an innocent victim is railroaded by a Conservative federal government cheered on by right-wing media looking for a propaganda vidtory to use against political enemies. That does sound very familiar.
      And by the way, you should at least read the articles you link to. The Wikipedia entry you reference is an indictment of your argument, not evidence for it.

    9. buddyryan's dog Avatar
      buddyryan’s dog

      you make a lot of logical leaps. to address them all would take pages.
      but one that was particularly ominous was your “guilt by association” that you seem to posit as a legitimate argument.
      as for greenwald, or whoever it was “taking the side of,” that is an extremely flawed, and highly misleading argument. he is taking the side of due process, which is a critical concept in a civilized and just society.
      you also seem to misconstruct one of his same arguments. it seemed from your quotes that he was making the point that so called right wing blogs apparently made a big fuss about this alleged “journalist non journalist whatever he was.” and after months of this fuss, there was official action taken against him. maybe it was a strained argument, maybe not, but the facts he recites allows one to make that determination.
      another argument that you postulate, is a bit unsettling: “because he doesn’t cite any special evidence for his position that the military detention of Bilal Hussein is wrong other than the recital that there are ‘no charges.’”
      “No charges” makes it wrong. this idea that one is an enemy combatant not subject to the rules of due process because we use the moniker “war on terror” essentially renders anyone of any country to be apprehended without charge. it is an enormous leap that are supporting, and it is not quite clear that you have completely thought it through.
      a serial killer, or someone who commits domestic acts of depraved mayhem, is no less reprehensible. yet it is fair and reasonable for same to be accused of a crime. because we apply the magical term “war on terror” does not change this basic. note that this does not undermine our efforts in the least, but provides some degree of check over using it wantonly.
      interesting that you consider yourself such a right wing blogger, but yet have such a profound trust of government. and that because we are “good people” such power would not inevitably be abused, even though every great society (including ours) was founded upon the notion that it would be, and to prevent it.
      same outcome, just some checks, that’s all.