Worshipping the Military

By Doug Bandow

On much of the American right the U.S. military has become sacrosanct. But most worthy of respect is America's system of ordered liberty, which the military is tasked to protect.

The democratic republic and larger civilian society surrounding it are the end; the armed services are the means.

The fact that military service is voluntary, highlights the sacrifice made by military personnel. But some on the right are demanding that the military _ as an institution, and its members as individuals _ be placed on pedestals beyond criticism.

Even worse, the right has taken almost any criticism of the war to be an attack on the military. To argue that the war has been hopelessly bungled and the administration's expansive goals have been hopelessly unrealistic is attacked as veritable treason.

This perspective would be silly if it was not so dangerous. An administration, which irresponsibly took the U.S. into an unnecessary war, must not be allowed to exempt itself from criticism in the name of honoring the troops.

As citizens, service personnel must understand that the democracy, which they serve, requires open and robust political debate.

There also is a cultural attitude on the right, which seems to treat the military as an institution superior to civilian organizations. This stands the American experiment on its head.

War is not a high ideal, let alone the highest ideal. War is a hideous monstrosity. While it sometimes leads to the most sublime sacrifice and heroism, it more often results in unparalleled barbarity.

Moreover, military service is not the most honorable human endeavor. Of course, it often means sacrificing to protect one's family, community and country. However, though the modern U.S. military is very good, it is not perfect.

One should recognize the complexities and exigencies of war before rendering judgment on the actions of its participants.

But one still must render judgment on military actions, especially when the military purports to represent the highest ideals in acting for humanitarian purposes.

Indeed, American military action often does nothing to promote the ends officially advanced. In Iraq, as in most other conflicts, war supporters routinely opine that servicemen and women are ``defending our freedom.''

But that is almost never the case. Neither invading nor occupying Iraq had anything to do with preserving the liberty of Americans. So it is with many of America's other wars.

Of course, that doesn't mean military service is not honorable even when the ends determined by politicians are foolish and imprudent. But honorable military service remains a means rather than an end. It is the means to achieve a peaceful, prosperous, virtuous, and free society.

Some people find peace boring. Maybe, but a free society, with people protected from violence at home and abroad, allows people to engage in the many common mundane tasks that give life its meaning.

Defending this system obviously is a high calling. But the most important institutions are civilian. We create a military to defend civilian society. We do not create a civilian society to support the military.

We should never blame those in uniform for the mistakes of their political overseers. Nor should we treat disrespectfully brave men and women ordered to perform unpopular tasks.

But we also should respect servicemen and women enough to acknowledge their moral responsibility for their own decisions.

In particular, patriotic young people should ask whether it makes sense to join when their service is likely to be perverted by those in power. Young Americans should consider working to end unnecessary and unjust wars by refusing to fight them.

Today U.S. foreign policy has virtually nothing to do with defending America. Instead, the U.S. is defending populous and prosperous allies, attempting to violently remake dysfunctional Third World states, and nagging other countries to comply with the whims of Washington policy-makers.

Loving America does not mean loving American foreign policy. Indeed, the latter should be criticized by those who love their country most, including anyone inclined to serve in the military.

The problem of U.S. foreign policy has been exacerbated by the breakdown in constitutional checks and balances. Presidents now routinely claim the right to unilaterally wage war, turning the military into the president's personal guard, available to promote his ideological whims, no matter how fantastic.

The military and its members deserve appreciation, honor and respect. But not worship. The military exists only to protect civilian society, whose members are entitled, even required, to conduct a robust debate over what uses of the military are proper, moral, and prudent.

That debate is particularly important when administration deceptions have been exposed, presidential promises have been unfulfilled, and executive incompetence has been routine. Like in America today.

Doug Bandow is the Robert A. Taft fellow at the American Conservative Defense Alliance and the author of ``Foreign Follies: America's New Global Empire'' (Xulon Press). He is a former special assistant to President Ronald Reagan. He can be reached at ChessSet@aol.com.