The Five Conservative Generals

[corbe]

The Five Conservative Generals
Roger Kaplan
December 9, 2016, 12:05 am


Why discriminate against general officers in (re)designing U.S. foreign policy? Being the third of a TAS occasional series on a crucial issue.


Of the individuals mentioned as candidates for Secretary of State, what reassures is that they all are serious, prudent men. The question occurs, therefore, why the Washington yak-yak classes should raise their collective eyebrow at the possibility that with the choice by the President-elect of such as David Petraeus (USA, Ret.) or Stanley McChrystal (USA, Ret.) to join John Kelley (USMC, Ret.), Michael Flynn (USA, Ret.), and, perhaps most importantly, James Mattis (USMC, Ret.), the Republic would have a team of old soldiers in the key national security Cabinet positions.


It may be that their having served in the uniforms of the United States armed forces for more than a century between them has a discomfiting effect on the yak-yaks. Many members of this class are military veterans, but they partake of a mindset that shares a peculiar conception of the purposes of military power. They fear a quartet of ex-generals in high positions of responsibility for national security would upset the comforts and advantages that come with this conception.

The primary purpose of military power, from time immemorial until after World War II in the U.S., is to deter aggression. Si vis pacem para bellum and all that — “If you want peace, prepare for war” happens to be a truism, but it’s a very good one. It worked pretty well against the Soviet Union, until the latter broke down. But it is difficult to escape the thought that it would have worked even better and saved a hundred thousand American lives — Korea, Vietnam — had it not been twisted by what is most certainly not a truism, namely, that if you want to make friends, in international affairs, be nice to them.

This led, when push came to shove and shove proved to be effective, to a kind of anti-military victory mission creep. Go after the root causes of enmity between nations; spread democracy even over reluctant societies; restrict your power, use graduated responses — all these ideas, no doubt, have their time and place. But they are counterproductive, as our recent experiences in the Middle East and Afghanistan show, when they supplant the traditional forms of prevailing militarily. Worse, they subvert aims that were well within our grasp.

Generals are often polite to a fault, but nice toward America’s enemies, no. This attitude, when followed consistently, deters war. Maintains the peace. Saves lives.

On the other side, the perverse strategic conceptions of peace-without-strength have led, continue to lead, to all manners of strategic contradictions that serve our country not at all, though they certainly help keep a large chunk of the yak-yak classes employed. A condition of their prosperity is that the views of professional soldiers be muted, kept within narrow spheres. At the popular level, this comes out as a twisted interpretation of the time-honored and constitutional tradition of civilian control over the military.

But it is not that at all, in fact. David Petraeus and Stanley McChrystal are civilians. So is, for that matter, James Webb, the former Virginia senator; he did not attain the rank of general in the Marine Corps, but he retired a highly decorated colonel and served in a high DoD position (Secretary of the Navy) in the Reagan administration. He was, still is, a Democrat, but primarily, he is a patriot and by all accounts an able administrator. So why, while we are at it, should he not be in the running for Secretary of State?

For the same reason that the appointment of retired Marine general John Kelley to Homeland Security may sink retired Army general and CIA Director David Petraeus’ chances: notwithstanding their records as managers and thinkers in civilian positions, Petraeus’s, Webb’s, McChrystal’s years in uniform render them suspect of… but of what?

Here, liberal bloody-minded hypocrisy surely offers a clue. While no one on the liberal side would for a moment think of disparaging “the uniforms that guard us,” they affect to believe, and maybe they even do believe, that having worn the uniform for the better part of one’s working life is ipso facto a disqualification for high-government leadership, with the possible exception of the presidency itself.


<..snip..>

https://spectator.org/the-five-conservative-generals/

[Night Hides Not]

I think the title is wrong: all five of these retired generals are not conservatives IMO. For example, Petraeus is pushing gun control with Gabby Giffords' husband.

The obvious rejoinder to liberals complaining about retired generals is Wesley Clark, who was hailed for his support of liberal causes, and his support of Hillary Clinton.