Redecorating the Military

One wonders what would happen, just once, if lawmakers, and for that matter, presidents, of both parties, completely ignored the academics who offer them free advice. For one thing, they might contemplate the employment prospects of the students who pay dearly to follow it.

As we have learned from the MBAs who crafted the federal bailouts of 2008, such counsel might cost nothing but the consequences of following it are hardly negligible. Such outcomes may be worth pondering as the Ivory Tower plots to do some social engineering on America’s military.

“As scholars and experts on American civil-military relations, we are keenly aware of the critical balance that it is necessary to maintain between military and civilian leadership,” the so-called Scholars and Experts on U. S. Civil-Military Relations state. “We are concerned about a precedent reflected in the current debate about gays and lesbians in the military involving consultations by U.S. lawmakers of top uniformed personnel.”

“Civilian leaders must, of course, consult with the military before making decisions that affect the men and women who serve in our armed forces and which might affect the national security of the United States.” Here comes the pitch.

“The recent invitation by the Senate and House for the Service Chiefs to offer their best judgment about whether it is time to end the current ban on openly gay troops was therefore appropriate,” the scholars state. “We are concerned, however, that political leaders seem poised to accept advice provided by the Service Chiefs uncritically, advice which does not seem to take into account considerable research that has emerged over the past fifty years about the impact of openly gay service on military effectiveness.”

“Much of that research was conducted by the U.S. military’s own experts.” Here’s an experiment: Try to find existing testimony supporting the ban on USA.gov. It’s easier to find guest lecturers who support the policy who are permitted to give sermons on military bases.

“In particular, we are perplexed by the Chiefs’ claim that they have insufficient data to assess the impact of openly gay service; by their argument that the transition to inclusive policy will be an upheaval that will be difficult to manage; and by their suggestion that because the military is engaged in a two-front war, it is unable to manage that transition,” the scholars state. “(We note, for example, the recent recommendation to allow women on submarines).”

As it happens, veterans will tell you that said recommendation cuts by 30% the amount of space available in already tight quarters.

“Acting on advice which is not grounded in data would be inconsistent with the tradition of civilian control of the armed forces,” the scholars aver. “We hope that the ongoing conversation surrounding this issue will take these concerns into account and that civilian leaders will properly exercise their Constitutional authority to govern the military, rather than the other way around.”

Airbrushing contradictory data out of government websites is a good way to make said “research” look more official. Going outside those channels is a better way to test it.

See, what the Center for Military Readiness found. BTW, here are the “scholars”:

• BG Hugh Aitken, USMC (ret.)
• Professor Deborah Avant, University of California Irvine
• Professor Aaron Belkin, University of California Santa Barbara
• Lt. Col. Alan Bishop, USA (ret.), former professor, U.S. Military Academy at West Point
• Professor Neta C. Crawford, Boston University
• Dr. Carol Cohn, Consortium on Gender, Security and Human Rights Professor
• Martin L. Cook, Admiral James Bond Stockdale Chair of Professional Military Ethics, United States Naval War College*
• Dr. Lynn Eden, Stanford University
• Professor Mark Eitelberg, Naval Postgraduate School*
• Professor Cynthia Enloe, Clark University
• Eugene R. Fidell, Senior Researcher in Law and Florence Rogatz Lecture in Law, Yale Law School
• Professor Gregory D. Foster, National Defense University*
• Professor Hugh Gusterson, George Mason University
• Professor Elizabeth Hillman, University of California Hastings
• John D. Hutson, RADM, JAGC, USN (ret.), President and Dean, Franklin Pierce Law Center
• Professor Richard H. Kohn, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• Professor Janice Laurence, Temple University
• Professor Catherine Lutz, Brown University
• Professor Diane H. Mazur, University of Florida College of Law
• Professor George Reed, University of San Diego, former Director of Command and Leadership Studies, U.S. Army War College
• Professor Steven M. Samuels, United States Air Force Academy*
• Professor David R. Segal, University of Maryland
• Professor Michael S. Sherry, Northwestern University
• Professor David Vine, American University [USA]

* “The views expressed by faculty at US Government Agencies are those of the individuals and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of their Service, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government,” the scholars tell us.

Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.