Skip to main content.
February 29th, 2008

Killing with a Purpose

     Dr. Bernard Brodie, military thinker, author, and UCLA professor, offered that “war without a political purpose is killing for killing’s sake,” an aphorism demonstrated most cruelly in World War I. To this day, students of the Great War cannot pin down its cause, noting that the carnage of Verdun, the Somme, Passchendaele and two or three dozen more massive engagements served no political purpose, at least none that could justify the wanton waste of life and limb evident throughout the War to end all wars. Military killing, on a grand or small scale, must have a purpose distinct from the battle. “Take that hill” must be informed with a cause greater than real estate acquisition.

     Italy’s Benito Mussolini is a shining example of politically vacant military pursuit. Thrusting his ill-equipped, poorly led, and badly prepared troops into the North African desert early in World War II, Il Duce had no more in mind than self-aggrandizement. Believing England and France were about to be defeated, Mussolini sent his military to North Africa hoping for Italian casualties. “I only need a few thousand dead so I can sit at the peace conference as a man who has fought,” said the little man. He got his wish and then some.    

     In contrast to the mixing of military and political roles predominant in dictatorships of all stripes, the armed forces of the United States maintain a remarkable tradition of political non-involvement. Of the many causes of stability and security in America, perhaps none is more important than the military’s consistent willingness to submit to civilian administration. Through difficult wars, enduring poor political leadership, and at times serving a less than appreciative citizenry, there is nevertheless not a single instance of attempted insubordination on anything approaching a grand scale. The unfailing deference of the armed forces to civilian control, the utter absence of any evidence of rebellion, has rendered military coups in the United States unthinkable. We don’t know how lucky we are. 

     Since 2003, our fighting men and women have made enormous sacrifices in Iraq. About 4,000 have died and approximately 20,000 have been injured, many grievously. Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of soldiers and marines want to stay the course and finish the fight. Those on the ground in Iraq, not on a days-long fact finding mission, but for months at a time, know better than anyone we now can achieve the goal of an independent and self-secured Iraq. Leaving too soon or too fast would jeopardize the mission and threaten to waste the sacrifices of so many brave Americans. ”I do worry about a rapid withdrawal,” said one high-ranking military officer, fearing a quick exit would “undermine recent security gains.” Nevertheless, should the political ground shift in Washington and new leaders order a withdrawal of any magnitude, he would comply immediately.  

     This remarkable willingness to obey distasteful orders was expressed this week by the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Navy Admiral Michael G. Mullen: “We need to be the solid foundation, totally apolitical in our view, totally supportive of the president of the United States, no matter who he or she might be…We take our orders from them and we march off.” Such a neutral political stance is “crucial to retaining the trust and confidence of political leaders and the public,” added the Admiral. Imagining the opposite – our military refusing to take orders – gives us a hint of what Peruvians must feel all the time.

     We arrive, then, at the inescapable conclusion that American misadventures in war cannot be laid at the feet of the military. Strategic and sometimes tactical blunders in Korea, Vietnam and Iraq are the fault of politicians, not generals. This is good news for American citizens. We can vote out a politician; we never need to oust a general, thank God.

     This coming November, voters have a clear choice. Both remaining Democratic presidential hopefuls, Senators Clinton and Obama, have pledged rapid redeployment of American forces from Iraq. Senator John McCain will stay the course. Whichever leader the nation chooses, we can count on our military to execute the orders of the Commander-in-Chief with speed, precision, and matchless effectiveness, one more reason it’s great to live in America.

     And one more reason to always respect and support the troops.          

If you're new here, you may want to subscribe to my RSS feed. Thanks for visiting!

Posted by Jerry Pomeroy in Military, Politics, Video

This entry was posted on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 4:34 pm and is filed under Military, Politics, Video. You can follow any responses to this entry through the comments RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

One Response to “Killing with a Purpose”

  1. howard pomeroy says:

    Hi Bro. Jerry,
    Submit to civilian control? You write that as though, it is out of the goodness of the soldiers’ hearts that they obey orders. I think the military is following the Constitution in such matters. One wonders about the private army which the Bush administration is using in Iraq. Do they feel as duty bound to civil control as they regular military and what happens if they decide to alter course?
    From some recent reading I have been doing, I think it is goinf way too far to suggest that the American grunt “wants” to stay in Iraq and “finish the job.” Most soldiers in our current military are there to protect their fellow soldiers. They don’t give one hot damn for the Iraqui people nor whether Iraq is a democracy or a kingdom or whatever. What they want is to get out of there without getting their ass shot off and helping to protect their buddies as well.
    The term you use “a less than appreciative citizenry” is interesting. What does that mean? What if the American people could tell a President, “Sorry we want this current situation handled without war. Find another way, and that Mr President is an order!” Would McCain still be interested in running for the Presidency? I think that McCain’s statement about being in Iraq for the next 100 years pretty much sums up why many Americans won’t vote for him. There will not be peace in Iraq until Americans are GONE. What happens after that is the Iraquis problem. American forces gave them the opportunity to be free of dictatorship. Now they resent our being there and want to settle their problems their own way.
    And finally, the surge only worked because our government is bribing various persons and groups in Iraq to cooperate with us. Take away the money and the payees quickly become terrorists in their own land, including stealing the weapons we have given them, which they use on our forces.
    Good blog Jerry
    Isn’t it discouraging how misinformed I can be?
    See ya, Bro. Howard

Leave a Reply

XHTML: You can use these tags: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>