The Chairman of the Joint Chiefs thinks that “If
someone uses the uniform, whatever uniform, for partisan politics, I am
disappointed because I think it does erode that bond of trust we have with the
American people.” This is in response to some citizens – all of whom have served
the nation either in uniform or as intelligence officers, none of whom are now
working for the government – who castigated the Administration for what they
believed was using the actions of military personnel (and in particular the
raid on Abbottabad that resulted in the death of Usama bin Ladin) for political
gain, while leaking operational details that they believe place at risk US
personnel.
There are several points that need to be made. The first is that whoever was advising
President Obama to say what he said, and use the phraseology that he did, in
regard to the raid, belongs on Ted Mack’s Amateur Hour. Every President gets the chance to
shine in the glow generated by the deeds of others – it goes with the job. But if they want to take advantage of
it to best effect, the answer is to say a whole lot about ‘them’ and ‘those
guys’ and point at a bunch of folks around you who did all the real work, and
use the word ‘I’ as little as possible.
When someone asks you “What was your role in all this, Mr. President?”
you shrug and say “Me, I didn’t do anything, I just sat there and signed the
order they put in front of me.
These guys did everything.”
And while that is, for the most part, true in every case, everyone will
nod and say “Damn, he’s humble, but they couldn’t ‘a done it without him.” So, for the buffoons in the White House
who let the President do this, go back to high school – you need to start all
over.
Second, while the security and OpSec issue is serious
- glaring, the guys who are running the video suffer from a similar – though
not as egregious – problem: simply put, they look petty by focusing too much on
the President. Forget the
President for just a second; if you hate him, fine, that’s politics and
democracy, we are all free to love or hate our elected officials, and I
certainly don’t have any love lost for the President or many in
Washington. But the issue is OpSec
– not the President. Stick with
the issue, focus on the facts and the events, and if there is ‘stink’ that
should belong on the President or someone else in the administration, it will
eventually find its way there.
Your credibility rests on your professionalism, so, stay professional. You can call for better Opsec, you
should call for better OpSec, you can call for the President to do a better job
providing OpSec, but you maintain the ‘high ground’ by focusing - as a friend of
mine says - ‘like a laser beam on OpSec.'
As for the President (and much like the President’s own statements),
sometimes, understatement of some facets of an issue is the best way to make an
impact. In this particular slice
of the issue, less is more.
That being said, you need to show that the issue is
OpSec. The word has now come out
in the press that a member of the raiding party has written a book about the
raid. Further, it has not been
cleared by either the DOD or CIA, as it must per the documents that everyone
must sign. If these reports are
accurate, that is a violation of the rules and shouldn’t be tolerated. Further, assuming that the book
contains additional details of the raid, it too constitutes a breach of OpSec
and you should condemn it as well (again, assuming that the facts released in
the paper are correct).
As for the Chairman – he sounds like he’s ready to retire. Maybe he hasn’t kept up with US history
but one or two soldiers have run for office in the past, and their comments on
military duty have figured in their campaigns. Some of them were fairly senior officers: Eisenhower,
Grant, Jackson, Taylor, etc.
All were supported by other military personnel as they ran their
campaigns, using their professional reputations for political purposes. Others who served include Kennedy,
Truman, Roosevelt, and well, you get the picture.
And one other point: the guys who are commenting are
not on active duty. They are
citizens. General Dempsey: do you
think that folks who leave active duty shouldn’t be involved in politics? Or that folks who were in the military
and who are now engaged in public life shouldn’t refer to their military
careers to establish their bona fides?
It makes me wonder what planet you are from. And what Constitution you swore to protect.
Here’s a little something from some other general who
led the army in wartime, a fellow who knew a little bit about ethics, and
leading men and a nation through difficult times. Maybe General/Citizen Dempsey has heard of him:
“When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside
the citizen.” - George Washington
No comments:
Post a Comment