Civilian control of the military and the Afghanistan debate

This piece makes a lot of valid and important points about the need for civilian control over military decisions and the dangers of Republican obsession with deferring to the military, but misses the mark, I think, in applying this to the current Afg...hanistan debate. Civilian control means civilian authorities have the responsibility to decide what is worth fighting for -- war is ultimately an extension of politics by other means. But it should not mean that domestic political considerations make it impossible to hear the military commander's technical assessment of the ground situation because it is inconvenient. McChrystal's analysis is not simply a call for escalation as the author of this piece suggests -- though he is probably right that Republican support for more troops is. The McChrystal report is, instead, a remarkable moment in American history, a recognition if US troops occupy another country they have a responsibility for the lives and safety of the people of the country they are occupying and that NOT recognizing this (allowing a lot of civilian "collateral damage") is self-defeating as well as wrong. The analysis leads to the conclusion that the US should either invest in a strategy that puts the Afghan people first or leave; NOT pursue a "counter-terrorism" strategy of the type being pushed by Biden because that would simply result in more and more collateral damage and political backlash. Either accepting the strategy OR leaving is consistent with civilian control in the right sense of the term. Letting domestic politics lead us to the "counter-terrorism" option is an example of politics interfering in military decisions for the wrong reasons...Read More
Who are "the deciders"? | SalonWho are "the deciders"? | Salon

Shared via AddThis