Political Grandstanding on the Military Coattails

We are observing a line of thought being forwarded in many places, and what makes it interesting is that nobody seems to notice or care to note it due to partisanship. We are not political observers, we aren't very good at being partisan nor do we care enough about politics to promote some individual ideological position that doesn't quite fit neatly with either side of politics in America today anyway. We do however attempt to stay informed and follow the trends, and when we see something that isn't quite right we intend to speak up during this campaign season. This is one of those times.

The latest set of talking points started with the DoD press conference by Admiral Mullen on July 2nd. These comments, which aren't new for him nor the SECDEF, have become the political news.

First on Afghanistan:

Let me also say just a word about Afghanistan. I am and have been for some time now deeply troubled by the increasing violence there. The Taliban and their supporters have, without question, grown more effective and more aggressive in recent weeks and as the casualty figures clearly demonstrate. The United States and NATO leadership -- and I had the chance to meet with my NATO counterparts last week in Brussels -- are very focused on the challenges there, particularly in the east and the south.

We are exploring a number of options and opportunities to get a better understanding of the scope of the threat and the best means with which to counter it. I've made no secret of my desire to flow more forces, U.S. forces, to Afghanistan just as soon as I can, nor have I been shy about saying that those forces will not be available unless or until the situation in Iraq permits us to do so. It's a very complex problem, and it's tied to the drug trade, a faltering economy and, as I've said many times, the porous border region with Pakistan.

Then on Iran:

I -- we haven't had much of a dialogue with the Iranians for a long time, and I think if I were just to take the high stakes that were -- that we -- I just talked about a minute ago, part of the results of that engagement or lack of engagement, I think, is there.

What is interesting is that the press jumped on these comments and threw them into politics. Noah Shachtman used the Afghanistan comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama, while NBC news jumped on the Iran comments to suggest Admiral Mullen sounds like Obama. They are both wrong.

As Thomas Barnett pointed out, Admiral Mullen isn't following Obama, rather Admiral Mullen is following Admiral Fallon's footsteps here. To a greater degree, the talking points that have become the position of Obama and already represents the position of McCain, are not being driven by political ideologies, rather the policy talking points of the current military leadership. From our perspective, it looks like the Secretary of Defense is now driving the campaign conversation talking points on both wars and the fragile peace regarding Iran.

There are two ways to look at this, either the political leadership running for president is so absent strategic thinking that they must rely on the current military leadership to establish a credible strategic position for them, or the political leadership believes the current military leadership is doing such a great job they are intentionally following their direction. The first implies two disappointing candidates, while the the second would highlight a military with a bit too much control regarding the direction of the national political debate. One thing is plainly obvious though, both Barack Obama and John McCain have both conceded the position of the nations wars to the military, essentially adopting the positions of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, which by extension were the positions of Admiral Fallon.

The position of Secretary Gates and Admiral Mullen, despite being top figures in the Bush Administration, are not publicly considered to be holding the same political line that the Bush Administration is. This has given both candidates the ability to accumulate plenty of credibility on the issues, essentially citing the same things military leaders are saying, which allows them to politically be in an alternative position of the administration while also shielding them from political heat from their opponents. Indeed Barack Obama is taking more heat from his supporters with his new position than he is by Republicans, and John McCain's message has been completely replaced by the talking points of the military. It makes sense though, the military is more popular among Americans than either candidate, and the military leadership sounds smarter than both candidates. McCain is still confusing religious sects in Iraq, and no one in recent memory can offer so little insight on strategy or policy with so many words like Obama.

What does this tell us? Everyone can decide on their own, but we keep thinking it can't be an accident that Bush has made the most politically safe position on the war for both the Democrat and Republican nominee the position of current military leadership. Has Bush united the country behind the military leadership position on both wars and virtually all foreign policy issues right before our eyes, at his own expense but also to the credit of his policy positions? Ahh the nuance of politics during a campaign season.

One thing is plainly clear though, Obama and McCain both have no voice in either military affairs or foreign policy right now, because all they both do is repeat what Gates and Mullen are saying.

It's also too bad Admiral Fallon isn't running for President.