Summary: Michael Cohen draws our attention to this chilling quote from Chandrasekaran’s new book. It’s a natural development, still in its early stages, and long predicted on the FM website (and elsewhere). This is chapter 3 in a series. At the end are links to the previous chapters and other posts about this trend.
{A}s I stood sadly at my country’s boundary and looked longingly into the unknown country, which was so near me and yet so far away, some little revelation might be vouchsafed to me…
— From Either/Or by Danish philosopher Søren Kierkegaard (1843)
A quote highlighted by Michael Cohen from Little America: The War Within the War for Afghanistan by Rajiv Chandrasekaran, page 322:
The military vision was far more expansive than what the president had outlined in the six-page terms sheet he had given Petraeus, Stan McChrystal, and Admiral Mullen when he had approved the surge in late 2009. “This approach is not fully resourced counterinsurgency or nation building,” Obama had written, “but a narrower approach tied more tightly to the core goal of disrupting, dismantling, and eventually defeating Al Qaeda.”
Several months later, I asked one of Petraeus’s aides how he had reconciled the general’s plan with the president’s goal. “We didnâ’t pay much attention to that memo,” he said.
Here are a few observations about this poignant passage.
(1) It should not surprise us
Many people saw this coming, even decades ago. Many saw this split as it developed or afterwards. As in this quote from a guest post by Bernard Finel:
Third, can we once and for all stop the nonsense about how Petraeus is just doing what the President wants? How much evidence do we need that Petraeus is a free agent here, a policy entrepreneur pursuing his own foreign policy preferences? Look, the guy is a smart guy. Smarter than me I am sure. But his conduct is not appropriate for a general officer. I like this bit (from here):
During a flight in May, after a glass of wine, Petraeus told his own staffers that the administration was “[expletive] with the wrong guy.”
(2) This is a natural development, which historians might see as inevitable
.
Consider the relative strengths of the military vs. the rest of the government.
- Conducting information operations is a core competency (see these posts).
- The military has retired senior officiers well-placed in industry and the media
- DoD has greater discretionary resources than any other government agency — by far.
- We’re in year 11 of a long wars, and wars usually shift power from civilian to military hands.
- The military (serving & vets) have a tribal-like identity and cohesion unlike anything else in government or civilian life.
- The public has fare more confidence in the military than in the President and Congress.
The last point might prove the most important. This graphic shows the change from 2002 to 2011 in Gallup’s Confidence in Institutions survey.
The results are more striking from the their first survey in 1999 to the 2011 survey. Confidence in almost every institution has declined. Especially note the loss of confidence in the three branches of government.
- the medical system: -1%
- public schools: -2%
- newspapers: -5%
- organized labor: -7%
- TV news: -7%
- church: -10%
- big business: -11%
- the presidency: -12%
- Congress: -14%
- the supreme court: -14%
- banks: -20%
Our confidence has increased in a few institutions.
- the police: +2%
- the criminal justice system: +5%
- the military: +10%
(3) My guess about our future
Under the stress of the events that lie in our future, this split will widen. We can close our eyes to their approach, but a weak passive people will be ruled. The more passive the people, the stronger the rulers. A plutocrat – military alliance has happened to so many nations for logical reasons. The rapid growth of the government’s internal surveillance and security services will make the transition easier.
If we’re sufficiently passive, the outward forms of the Second Republic will be retained — as they were in the early days of the Roman Empire. Children will say the pledge, we’ll sing the anthem at baseball games, the titles will remain the same in Washington. What about our patriotic gun owners? My guess is that many will cheer. Some will become eager recruits to the security services. Most will passively acquiesce.
If we do not passively accept the new order, then there will be turmoil. We might follow the past trend by Latin American nations from the 1930s onwards, loss of social cohesion leading to poverty. Or the fires might, like the Civil War, result in a stronger Second Republic — or an even better Third Republic.
But these are all just guesses, as extrapolations about the future must be. The future is an unknown country.
Other Chapters in this series
- A look at the future of the Republic: we will choose leaders that we trust, 14 May 2012 — Today’s post is an expanded version of this.
- A look at the future of the Republic: we will choose leaders that we trust, not the ones we need (part 2), 15 May 2012
Another expert who has written about our frayed civilian-military relations
Bernard Finel of the National War College. Here are some of his articles about this:
- The Petraeus Doctrine, 1 October 2009
- Celebrity Generals, 8 July 2010
- McChrystal and MacArthur: A Brief History Lesson, 23 June 2010
- On Civil-Military Relations, 2 July 2010
- Which Voids Need to be Filled?, 20 August 2010
- Return of Normal Civ-Mil Relations, 17 July 2012
For more about this malign trend see these posts
- Who is to blame for our civil-military dysfunction?, 5 September 2010 — Guest post by Bernard Finel
- The insurgency widens – another crack in civilian control of our military, 7 October 2010
- A Washington Insider looks at America, but does not understand what he sees, 7 September 2011
- America is the new Rome. Late Republican Rome (not the best of times), 13 October 2011
- What will replace the Constitution in Americans’ hearts? Let’s check for Fascism., 29 March 2012