September 17, 2013
It Isn’t the Military’s Place to Weigh in on the Syria Debate

America’s generals and admirals, junior officers, and enlisted people overwhelmingly oppose military intervention in Syria. We should not know that.
Two weeks ago, Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star and former commandant of the Army War College, took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, writing that “after personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days,” he could confidently assert that ” the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals” was vehemently against strikes. And that, “They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it.” Further, “They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our ‘responsibility to protect’ the world’s innocents.” Not only that: “They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about ‘red lines.’”
A recent and completely unscientific Military Times survey found 75 percent of troops opposed to air strikes and 80 percent believing intervention in the war at all is not in America’s national-security interests. Along with some choice words from a few senior non-commissioned officers, the report quotes a Navy lieutenant commander declaring, “With our financial problems at home, we need to save money and try to fix ourselves before we start fixing everybody else” and an Army captain philosophizing, “To say that we can take military action and there will be no reaction … is the same faulty thinking that thought we could do ‘shock and awe’ [in Iraq] and be done in a year.”
Read more. [Image: Reuters]

It Isn’t the Military’s Place to Weigh in on the Syria Debate

America’s generals and admirals, junior officers, and enlisted people overwhelmingly oppose military intervention in Syria. We should not know that.

Two weeks ago, Robert Scales, a retired Army two-star and former commandant of the Army War College, took to the op-ed pages of the Washington Post, writing that “after personal exchanges with dozens of active and retired soldiers in recent days,” he could confidently assert that ” the overwhelming opinion of serving professionals” was vehemently against strikes. And that, “They are embarrassed to be associated with the amateurism of the Obama administration’s attempts to craft a plan that makes strategic sense. None of the White House staff has any experience in war or understands it.” Further, “They are repelled by the hypocrisy of a media blitz that warns against the return of Hitlerism but privately acknowledges that the motive for risking American lives is our ‘responsibility to protect’ the world’s innocents.” Not only that: “They are outraged by the fact that what may happen is an act of war and a willingness to risk American lives to make up for a slip of the tongue about ‘red lines.’”

A recent and completely unscientific Military Times survey found 75 percent of troops opposed to air strikes and 80 percent believing intervention in the war at all is not in America’s national-security interests. Along with some choice words from a few senior non-commissioned officers, the report quotes a Navy lieutenant commander declaring, “With our financial problems at home, we need to save money and try to fix ourselves before we start fixing everybody else” and an Army captain philosophizing, “To say that we can take military action and there will be no reaction … is the same faulty thinking that thought we could do ‘shock and awe’ [in Iraq] and be done in a year.”

Read more. [Image: Reuters]

  1. manicmac reblogged this from theatlantic
  2. viviian reblogged this from theatlantic
  3. mandokamuscular reblogged this from quoms
  4. uthman-ma reblogged this from theatlantic
  5. ouridunjohnsson reblogged this from theatlantic
  6. nomorewalksinthewood reblogged this from landmine-spring
  7. lepetitjournaliste reblogged this from theatlantic
  8. sirnaff reblogged this from mollierodriguez
  9. mollierodriguez reblogged this from theatlantic
  10. lwstevens reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    I’m against intervention in Syria, in fact, I’m against war simply because I’m sick of my class, the working class, and...
  11. landmine-spring reblogged this from theatlantic
  12. the-electric-boogaloo reblogged this from theatlantic
  13. dickysbint reblogged this from theatlantic
  14. liberalbubblehead reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    I completely agree with this. While I was on active duty, I never spoke about, much less criticized political actions.
  15. alls-well-with-the-world reblogged this from theatlantic
  16. trixibe reblogged this from theatlantic
  17. dragonfirekai reblogged this from theatlantic and added:
    It’s the military’s place to carry out the orders of the civilian government, regardless of political ideology. But do...
  18. jaynajaynajayna reblogged this from theatlantic