Tomorrow will be a big day for a blog about bipartisanship in foreign policy. Or more likely, the “big” posts will start the next day, in the aftermath of the election, when we can try to figure out what the results mean. But even if we are all holding our breath, today’s not exactly the calm before the storm. We have two substantial bits of Iraq-related news to chew on, though they are not on the same scale.

The big news that led all of the major papers this weekend is that the Iraqi court has sentenced Saddam Hussein to death for his role in the murder of 148 Iraqis, retaliation for a 1982 assassination attempt on the dictator (see, for example, the New York Times). This news was hardly unexpected — nor was the sectarian split in the response on the streets of Iraq, for which the Iraqi government prepared by declaring curfews and increasing police presence. Once again, President Bush proclaimed a “landmark event” in Iraq, tired rhetoric after so many other “turning points” that have proven to make little difference. And critics suggested that Bush had somehow engineered the timing for electoral advantage, even though it seems highly unlikely that this announcement could excite anyone to vote one way or the other, since everyone has known for a long time that Saddam was going to be convicted, probably of multiple crimes after multiple trials — assuming that the Iraqis keep him alive long enough to try him repeatedly.

The surprising thing about Bush’s line on the Hussein verdict is that he described it as “a milestone in the Iraqi people’s efforts to replace the rule of a tyrant with the rule of law.” Of course, the tyrant hasn’t been ruling for years, and it’s hard to argue that there’s much “rule of law” in Iraq right now. The Iraqi government doesn’t really function, and the frequency of extra-judicial punishment (usually by grizzly killing) has been increasing. It is hard to imagine that this verdict is going to improve either the functioning of the police that enforce laws in Iraq or the functioning of the legislature that can’t decide on what laws should be enforced. The Hussein trial may be important to history, but surely it is a side-show for modern politics.

Meanwhile, the administration’s spokesmen claim that the other, “smaller” piece of news — an editorial in the Military Times newspapers calling for Defense Secretary Rumsfeld’s resignation — is also old hat. Yes, we’ve heard before that some people in the military are starting to question whether they are making any difference as they carry out their missions in Iraq. And yes, the commanders “in the field” have not called for Rumsfeld to resign. But it is hard to think that the commanders’ judgments about the current state of Iraq — and the trajectory of Iraqi government and security — match those of the political leadership. And the folks at Military Times have a strong connection to the troops, so we shouldn’t take their editorial as just “more of the same” from shrill war critics or a liberal media (although, fortunately, I’m not aware that anyone in the administration has used that particular line of defense).

The new editorial highlights how much things have changed in the past few years. Before 9/11, Secretary Rumsfeld roiled civil-military relations in the U.S. by aggressively asserting civilian control — by moving to shake up established, comfortable routines among the military brass. The military didn’t like that very much, but post-9/11, suddenly everyone was on the same page, fighting the war on terror. Now, though, civil-military relations have returned to the rough patch, but this time because the military leadership is in a difficult position.

The truth is that we don’t want the military to have an influential vote on changing its civilian leadership. In the American system, for good reason, politicians are supposed to set the policy direction — after listening carefully to military advice. And sometimes the civilians are right that military advice is too cautious or is too trapped in “old think,” not recognizing that the situation has changed in ways that civilians understand better than the generals. So the military should not have license to complain — and use their well-earned prestige to get the American public to put new politicians in charge — just because the generals don’t think the civilians took their advice fully to heart.

But what if the military is right? The civilians sometimes assert that we’re in a “whole new world” that civilians understand better than generals, but then the civilians turn out to be wrong. And hewing to the mistaken policy can undermine the long-term health of the military institution. At some point, the military has to have a voice with the American people.

Firing Secretary Rumsfeld is no more likely to right the situation in Iraq than is putting Saddam Hussein to death. But replacing Rumsfeld might restore an aura of accountability that will help the American military institution in the long-run by reminding soldiers that the politicians really do respect not only their efforts in the field but also their professional advice. Both politicians and generals need accountability as part of healthy civil-military relations. And restoring faith in that accountability will remind the military leaders that if they move cautiously in asserting their political power that they can get their voice heard without upsetting the difficult civil-military balance.

Even if the Bush administration continues to resist steps that it could take to promote the long-term health of the military and civil-military relations, American government won’t crumble. We won’t face a military coup or a behind-the-scenes putsch. But our foreign military policy will become increasingly conflictual and difficult to manage, and we all should want to avoid that outcome.

No related posts.