Michael Crowley of The New Republic frets over a remark by Pres. Bush during today’s press conference, in response to a question on whether ordering a troop “surge” in Baghdad may go against the wishes of top military brass. Bush called this “a dangerous hypothetical.” Crowley wonders: “When was the last time even the whiff of military insubordination was in the air during wartime? Truman-MacArthur? Seems we’re flirting with some uncharted territory–and it’s all a bit chilling.”
I’ll agree to that last bit, but Crowley could have typed the word “insubordination” into TNR’s search engine and found this, from 2002, when TNR was supporting Bush’s war posture. Back then, some U.S. military figures were already sounding prescient alarms. TNR’s editors wrote:
…timidity is one thing; insubordination is another [my emphasis]… Of course, senior officers have every right to voice their concerns and reservations–at least until the president makes a final decision. But they don’t have the right to use the media to create a political environment that forecloses the president’s options.
The editors were right, of course, to note that civilian control of the military is a cornerstone of democratic rule. But as they’ve acknowledged, they were dead wrong about the Iraq invasion. What Crowley has forgotten is that his magazine contributed to a climate of pre-invasion political bullying.
[Disclosure: I contributed several pieces to TNR in 2004-2005.]
Comments are closed.