Remembering Clausewitz: Restoring the Civil-Military Relationship

We know our roles as soldiers

I am an active duty Army officer attending a mid-level officer training course called Intermediate Level Education (ILE). Our military leadership requires us to study the paradoxical trinity Clausewitz writes about. We study and reflect often about the relationship between passion, reason, and chance. The people of our great nation provide the passion, our political leaders provide the reason, and the military manages chance based on how we fight the fight. We in the military clearly understand that the military is just an extension of policy and the importance of unequal dialogue. I feel that your comment stating "the generals, willingly or not, seem to be the guiding hand in decisions of broad strategic importance" reflects that we are above the political leaders. I feel this comment inaccurately reflects the attitude of our military leadership.

Our National Command Authority is responsible for the National Security Strategy. From the National Security Strategy we develop our National Defense Strategy and National Military Strategy. So it is the dog wagging the tail, not the tail wagging the dog. We have learned that unequal dialogue is a good thing. Many military leaders both past and present believe that it was the lack of unequal dialogue that led to our failure in Vietnam. That military leadership was given an open checkbook. (By the way, the curriculum in this course has a significant influence from General Petraeus, Commander, U.S. Central Command).

Our military leadership understands the importance of winning the "hearts and minds" of both our people and the local people in Iraq and Afghanistan, as they provide the passion Clausewitz refers to which is a critical piece in the paradoxical trinity. Passion will drive policy, as witnessed in the latest presidential election. Now, President Obama is well concerned with not completely losing the passion of the people by allowing greater transparency of the military and publishing timelines and end states.

I write this article in hopes of eliminating a false perception that we the military are above politics. We understand that we are just an extension of policy. We understand that we are one of four instruments of national power and defense is the most costly. Recent actions by Defense Secretary Gates reflect our acknowledgement of the need to align more with civilian interagency counterparts. (Look at the appointment of Ambassador Yates as Deputy Commander, US AFRICOM)

We are a great nation with great leaders. The goal of the military is to support our elected leaders and not to drive strategy but to execute a successful strategy. As I finish my schooling in the next few months and head out on another deployment to the Middle East, I understand that my role is to execute the strategy of the Commander in Chief. If the intent is clear, execution and decision making on the ground are easier for those of us at the end of the tail.

Insightful commentary

Terrific analysis, yet again, from US News. Let's hope our new administration heeds these authors and builds on the "highly complex, integrated efforts" that so far have best been carried out by international agencies. Perhaps finally the U.S. can rejoin the international community with some dignity.

Love it!

Your conversation is rational and references one of the major strategists in the 19th century that guided some in the 20th.

The media is often too shy about history and foreign models. Though we may not adopt them, they serve as great touch points from which to spin off our own views.

Thanks for really adding tothe conversation. A refreshing switch!