The Problem With Civilian Control of Policy

I already know that people are going to take this post the wrong way and think that I want some Musharraf-style "President for Life" military dude with a sash and a bunch of made up medals running the show in America. Nothing could be further from the truth. This is merely a rant designed to rail against the current people in charge of influencing policy decisions.

City Journal recently had an article (h/t Reason) about a bunch of iconoclasts reminiscing on their radical days from the most important time on earth since Jesus was resurrected: the 1960s. Honestly, I don't think we are ever going to not hear about 60s nostalgia from these aging boomers, even after they have long since retired to old folks homes that offer yoga and an organic garden. The people featured in this article are now quite influential in their own right, and speak with much self-appraisal about the heady days of their youth. While a lot of them talk about the horrors of the Vietnam war, I was surprised that no one mentioned in the article actually served in Vietnam. Perhaps that's why we have to listen to this treasonous douche talk about hanging out with the enemy:

The Americans who showed up in Bratislava were a motley combination of long-haired hippie types from the counterculture and the emerging underground press, earnest community and antiwar organizers, and a handful of New Left journalists and academics. Most were in their mid- to late twenties. Our Vietnamese counterparts were older, hardened revolutionaries, dressed in almost identical black pants and jackets, and they seemed to be under strict Communist Party discipline.

Holy shit! And they let these "Americans" back into the country, who were hanging out with and even idolizing the enemy. I suppose we have our useful idiots in America snapping smileytime photos with Hugo Chavez, but at least Venezuela isn't a government actively at war with the United States. The author goes on about SDS guy, Tom Hayden, who was married to traitor Jane Fonda shown below:








But from day one, it was clear that Hayden and some of his acolytes were trying to move our group toward a more “advanced” position than the one still maintained by the mainstream U.S. peace movement. Hayden wasn’t interested in ending the war so much as making an alliance with the other side. At one of the final plenary sessions, he gave a long speech summarizing the conference’s accomplishments and emphasizing our need to work together for the common objective: a Vietnam liberated and unified—by the Communists.

I'm not going to opine on the justification of the Vietnam war, but if a country goes to war with other nation, and you support the other side, you should probably renounce your citizenship. Instead Tom Hayden is living the dream in America, now focusing on the Iraq war or the "dirty war" as he calls it. His influence on foreign policy is still inherent as he is featured at The Huffington Post on a regular basis, despite the fact that he supported a regime that was killing Americans who got drafted (unlike him).

There seems to be a theme of a relentless quest for power running through these people's diatribes, and if American troops are willing to die at the hands of a "morally superior" enemy in their mind, then clearly the end state will always justify the means in their schemes for the world. That's why I am skeptical when prominent leftists publications, like the NY Times, run articles about the veterans of our generation. This series of articles a few months ago portrayed vets as homicidal maniacs. The end result of this is to marginalize veterans from the current mainstream society as a nuisance and the purpose is clearly overt. The seemingly compassionate pieces about veterans issues such as PTSD, GI suicide, are often merely disguised as such to discredit the current administration's strategy in Iraq and a ploy to further ostracize the veteran community from society. Sure they raise awareness about mental health issues for veterans, but what is really the intent? Most likely to use the politically correct "support the troops" tagline as a political cover. In all fairness, on the other side of the political sphere, you've got guys like Cheney with multiple deferments from the draft, who are now beating the drums for war with Iran. A conflict that could probably be resolved through diplomatic engagement (or at least should be attempted).

So we have people in power seeking to make us look pathetic, while at the same time making horrendous policy decisions (the right got us into the Iraq war, and the left wants to pull us out precipitously, and in Hillary's case, she is of both schools of thought). I'm not saying I have the answers to all of our problems, but the machine is already in motion to make us look like pathetic imbeciles. I give props to civilians who want to see us get good benefits and be taken care of, but you have to question the motivation of those in power. A clever ruse indeed, they almost tricked me. Best to fight it appropriately.

Your future in their eyes?