Posted 4/24/2006 8:42 PM ET
By Nathaniel Fick

 

   The generals are speaking, and many Americans are squirming. As a growing circle of
retired officers publicly criticizes the conduct of the Iraq war, widespread misconceptions
of the military contribute to public unease over whether and when officers should speak
out, and what effect they might have if they do. Two arguments are particularly
misleading.
   Some critics of the Bush administration's Iraq policy laud the generals' candor but ask
why they didn't go public while on active duty, when their arguments could presumably
have had a more beneficial effect on policy. According to this view, our military has
nurtured sycophants prepared to give their lives for their country but not their careers.
Supporters of the administration fire back that public criticism of civilian leaders by
military officers, even in retirement, is wrong. They claim that it undercuts the tradition
of civilian control of the military and hurts troop morale by exposing fissures in a nation
at war.
   The truth is somewhere between these two extremes. Given the special trust and
confidence vested in them, these officers were right not to revolt while in uniform, but
their return to the fray as private citizens fulfills a moral obligation and should hearten
the troops in harm's way.
   Members of America's professional, volunteer military swear no oath to the president or
his policies, but rather "to support and defend the Constitution" and to "faithfully
discharge the duties" of their office. The first and second articles of the Constitution
place military control firmly in civilian hands, and the discharge of those duties is
codified in a federal law called the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Its Article 88
prescribes punishment by court-martial for using "contemptuous words against the
president, the vice president, Congress, the secretary of defense" or other officials.
Article 92 likewise threatens court-martial for failing to obey a lawful order. This is why
the generals did not speak publicly while on active duty, and why no one should expect
those now serving to do so: The law forbids such action.
   Public opinion polls consistently rank the U.S. military as the most trusted organ of our
government, precisely because military leaders are seen as above the political fray. Those
who suggest that serving officers should have risen up in protest before the Iraq invasion
ought to consider how the last showdown between a president and a general turned out.
In 1951, President Truman fired Douglas MacArthur for publicly questioning U.S.
strategy in Korea. Truman suffered in the polls, but history has sided with him.
   The culture of service also opposes resignation. Falling on one's sword forfeits influence
and is often viewed as abandoning troops in the field, for whom resigning is not an
option. Furthermore, one officer's departure can be dismissed as an anomaly. Group
resignations, however, run up against the military's unique personnel challenge: Because
its leaders are grown organically within the services, they take decades to develop, and
the pool of those qualified for the most senior positions is both tiny and slow to replenish.
Having kept their disagreements behind closed doors while on active duty, vocal generals
now find themselves under assault. Supporters of the administration have consistently
claimed that criticism of the Iraq war undermines morale and dishonors the sacrifices of
U.S. service members. This is simply wrong. Troops on the ground execute the lawful
orders of our democratically elected government, and political debates at home will not
erode this dedication to duty. Our soldiers and Marines are focused, quite rightly, on
more immediate concerns: accomplishing their missions and taking care of each other.
If there exists a real culprit in undermining morale and dishonoring sacrifice, it isn't the
war's critics — but rather the majority of Americans who "kept shopping" after 9/11, and
now seem not to realize that 155,000 of their fellow citizens are fighting in Afghanistan
and Iraq. This is not a nation at war. The Army and Marines are at war, and many
military leaders are furious that our government has done nothing to share their burden of
sacrifice. They speak out because the consequences of failure in Iraq are catastrophic,
because our leadership has resisted making the changes needed to win, and because they
know we're losing the battle to keep Americans engaged in this fight.
   The troubling link between these responses to the generals — that active-duty officers
should have revolted, and that their criticism of the war hurts our troops — is a civilmilitary
divide in the USA that has grown over the past half-century. ROTC programs are
now unwelcome on elite campuses, which once sent legions of graduates into public
service. Fewer and fewer elected officials are veterans.
   Military service is not a prerequisite for individual expertise in foreign affairs. Two of
America's greatest wartime presidents — Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Roosevelt —
never served in uniform (although Lincoln spent three months in an Illinois militia). In
the aggregate, however, we benefit from having veterans in every corner of our society:
as presidential advisers, members of Congress and active citizens. Their experience
enables them to ask the right questions, explode specious arguments, and strike a balance
between reaffirming civilian leadership and evaluating military advice.
Having aided and abetted the growth of this schism, some might say we deserve what
befalls us. But active citizenship is the salvation of democratic government. I hope we
hear more from the generals, and soon.

Nathaniel Fick served as a Marine infantryman in Afghanistan and Iraq. He is the author of "One Bullet Away: The Making of a Marine Officer."