dagblog - Comments for "Americans’ Blind Faith in the Military Is Dangerous"

Two interesting pieces I

artappraiser — Tue, 04 Dec 2018 13:54:11 +0000

In reply to Americans’ Blind Faith in the Military Is Dangerous

Two interesting pieces I found:

1. Here's a Dec. 2016 op-ed by Sen. Kristen Gillibrand arguing that Mattis should not be Defense Secretary because he's not a civilian:

Civilian Control of the Military Is Fundamental to American Democracy

It was part of a group of op-eds responding to NYTimes editor's question

Is It Wrong to Have a General Run the Pentagon?

The law bars officers from being defense secretary for seven years after service. For Gen. James Mattis, Congress must pass a waiver.

The other two op eds:

Make an Exception for an Exceptional Candidate
PETER D. FEAVER, POLITICAL SCIENTIST
As Deference to Generals Grows, Civilian Control Suffers

JAMES JOYNER, MARINE CORPS COMMAND AND STAFF

-----

2. Here's a WaPo analysis Feb. 2018 by these political scientists

Germán Feierherd is a postdoctoral associate at Yale University’s Program on Democracy and Bright Line Watch.

Noam Lupu is associate professor of political science and associate director of LAPOP at Vanderbilt University.

Susan Stokes is John S. Saden Professor of Political Science at Yale University and a co-founder of Bright Line Watch.

of polls.

A significant minority of Americans say they could support a military takeover of the U.S. government

[....] How we did our research

We analyzed survey data collected by Vanderbilt’s Latin American Public Opinion Project (LAPOP). The U.S. survey of the AmericasBarometer uses online interviews with web-based national samples of about 1,500 respondents. Since 2010, LAPOP has asked: “Some people say that under some circumstances it would be justified for the military of this country to take power by a coup d’état (military coup). In your opinion would a military coup be justified under the following circumstances?”

The possible answers have included “when there is a lot of crime” and “when there is a lot of corruption.” LAPOP has also asked respondents whether they “believe that when the country is facing very difficult times it is justifiable for the president of the country to close the Congress and govern without Congress?”

The LAPOP surveys were conducted in March 2010, April 2012, late June and early July 2014 and May 2017.

A significant minority of Americans would support a military takeover or shutting of Congress in the right circumstances

In 2010, 30 percent to 35 percent of Americans said a military takeover was justified if there were widespread corruption or crime. In 2017, that dropped to roughly 25 percent holding these opinions. These views are not confined to supporters of one or the other of the major parties. In 2017, about 25 percent of Democrats and 30 percent of Republicans said they favored a military intervention if the country faced rampant crime or corruption. The figure below shows the average support for a military coup when there is widespread corruption.

However, the proportion of respondents who said that “very difficult times” would justify closing Congress increased from 9 percent of respondents in 2010 to nearly 15 percent in 2017. In 2017, roughly 11 percent of Democrats and 24 percent of Republicans were in favor of shutting Congress down during difficult times.

Independents express the strongest support for uninterrupted civilian rule. But even among them, more than 1 in 5 say they would support a military takeover in response to corruption or crime. More than 1 in 10 say they would support closing Congress during difficult times.

U.S. public opinion on these questions resembles that of Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, countries with a history of military coups and dictatorships. [.....]

This does not surprise me. Rather, I think: why would they expect U.S. population to be so different on this front?

The way I see it is that the

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 04 Dec 2018 03:41:54 +0000

In reply to While the basic arguments

The way I see it is that the premise of the article is that civilian control of the military is to be preferred and the only debate by those who agree is how far down into operations and tactical control that civilian power should go. The danger described by the title is that the American public is so enamored of the military that they will accept turning the military leaders loose to act on their own and that Trump is, to some extent, doing that. As bad as many military decisions by civilian leadership have been, I certainly do not see allowing military leaders to make political decisions as a better way to go.

If I were reading the title as a stand alone statement I would strongly agree, America [ to a great extent] does have blind faith in its military and that is very dangerous in several ways. And, I am not arguing with the stats, people say what they say, but I cannot think of an easier thing to say with a more hollow phrase than ‘I support the troops’.

While the basic arguments

artappraiser — Tue, 04 Dec 2018 01:00:19 +0000

In reply to Americans’ Blind Faith in the Military Is Dangerous

While the basic arguments here are sound, and I don't have much evidence to back this up, but the title and premise here strikes me as a bit of a disingenuous straw man argument.

I don't hear many people say "support the Pentagon" or "support our generals" too much since like, the lies of Vietnam days and Senator Proxmire's Golden Fleece Awards to the Pentagon.

What I do think a lot of people agree with is "support the troops" meaning: we should support the troops, the grunts, after they've been inserted into a situation which one may or may not agree with. I think attitudes towards "the brass" may very well be a different story

A quick google to look for supporting polls wasn't too fruitful, probably because I am not thinking of the right keywords, but I did find this:

A New Poll Shows the Public Is Overwhelmingly Opposed to Endless US Military Interventions

There is a wide bipartisan majority that seeks an American foreign policy of realism and restraint.

By James Carden @ The Nation, JANUARY 9, 2018