YouTube and CivMil Relations Theory -- all out the window? Posted by Heather Hurlburt

This is a fascinating development.  I'm not so sure about the Oliver Stone angle -- and if you watch the submissions from Iraq vets and their families on YouTube, you may like me find them so compelling that you wonder why Stone is needed.

But having significant numbers of veterans speaking out against the war and criticizing the chief executive in a public, media savvy way seems to me likely to change some of the ways we think about civil-military relations forever.

I've written before that it's not clear to me exactly how our old code of military disengagement from politics holds up when anybody can make a Youtube video or write a blog post about his or her experiences and when, as with an unpopular war, those experiences take place in a highly-politicized context.

Great if this helps pressure the Administration and relieves "support the troops" pressure on Democrats; but imagine the tables turned... think about this happening with troops in Kosovo, or Darfur... imagine the challenges of being the non-political authorities over troops in such a situation. 

(And by the way, I was surprised to hear a young officer at a Truman Project event last week castigating military authorities as well as political leadership for what's gone wrong in Iraq -- but this Washington Post article suggests he's got a lot of company.)

Comments

[Joel Patterson]

I don't think these vets speaking out changes the civilian-military relationship forever. We can go back to the rule of the military staying out of politics, with the right President. I think the military would like to do that. In the past, staying out of political decisions benefited the military by getting them support from both parties in the government, and insulated them from political revenge. But now Bush has maintained his war for too long, and he exploited that "military stays out of politics" rule to the detriment of the military members. Why should they keep an agreement with the civilians if it doesn't benefit them?

As soon as the military can trust the civilian leaders to act responsibly, I'd bet they will quiet down. When Jim Webb says that military members trust civilian authorities to be responsible, there's an implication that military people don't want to think too hard about politics or work in a political movement. They didn't choose the career of wonk or politician, but now the civilian leaders put them in a bind and they feel they have to be politically active.

As for how it would challenge civilian leaders in situations like Kosovo or Darfur, that challenge has always been there. Bill Clinton no doubt felt constraints as to what military operations he could order for Kosovo. He could have chosen unwise operations that would have pushed the military too far, but he didn't.