RECENTLY General Petraeus, a commander of the Iraqi occupation, spoke to Congress. He was attacked by the extreme left. The attacks were, in essence, that he was being political and (to put it mildly) deceptive. The Conservatives felt obligated to defend him, arguing that he was not both, or either. Had they understood the reality, they would have admitted that he should have been not only political but also lying as much as possible. But then the reason why I write this, and why they make such mistakes, is that I am smarter than thou. Do you see why he was obligated to be what he was accused of being?
Let me deal with the political charge now, and deal with the lying charge at a later date. To state the very obvious, war is political. Politics is the way in which a state determines what its laws and policies are, how these are enforced, and how the state is ruled and regulated. Politics is also how a government is chosen and empowered. Wars, as opposed to crimes, involve conflicting political systems, each trying to achieve mutually exclusive goals. All of this is obvious, very obvious, or should be.
The current US administration (which is by nature necessarily totally political) has decided to support a particular government (which also is by nature totally political) in ruling Iraq. Other then encouraging total anarchy, the USA has no choice but to select one government group and back it. As long as the Bush Administration does not change this policy, then the military is completely OBLIGATED to support this totally political goal. This is because the military has the obligation to support the political goals of whatever administration is in power.
In other words, the generals, and privates, are all fighting for a particular group of Iraqi and American politicians. They are trying to keep them alive, and trying to kill their personal enemies. To keep this abstract, this has as much to do with right or wrong, noble (or mean) causes, as has an “intra-family” war within the Mafia. The Iraqi effort is a noble cause, but this is irrelevant.
Again a loyal and honorable military has the absolute obligation to obey the political decisions of a political group. By definition of their “primary directive” its members are not permitted to obey only the orders to which they give consent. They have to be, literally, party loyalists, blind robots, partisan fanatics (unto death!). Therefore, when any general testifies he has an obligation to present, in as favorable a light as possible, his goals, which are political. This serves his supreme goal.
If this is not yet clear, let me put it this way. He is fighting a “war.” His job, and his obligation to his men, is to win the war, while losing a few of his men as possible. Morale is a factor in both of these goals. Keeping morale high is a function, at least in part, of “making a good show” or “showing support” or “selling the case.” This is what lawyers do when they defend serial killers. Should a general give a “depressing” evaluation of the situation (whether to Congress or anyone else) then he would no longer be obeying his first obligation: to do what you can to win.
A general can no more stop being political than a zebra can change his spots.
Next time I shall explain why honorable men need to lie.
And, in the meantime, you should subscribe to "Analysis and Explanations," where insights like this one are exposed all the time. A year’s subscription costs $30 per year.