Col. Daniel Smith (U.S. Army, Ret.)
One of the “innovations” of the Soviet Red Army in the post-1917 struggle of the communists to consolidate the party’s control over the former tsarist realms was the introduction of political “commissars.” Their job was three-fold: prevent a counter-coup d’etat; “re-educate” former tsarist officers and enlisted men needed to fill the Red Army’s ranks so it could defend the new Union of Soviet Socialist Republics; and distribute Kremlin propaganda. Until 1942, commissars even had the power to countermand operational orders, undoubtedly as a hedge against any attempted coup. Reforms in the commissar system that year abolished the separate, parallel commissar chain-of-command established by Leon Trotsky and made the commissars “deputy commanders for political affairs.” When the USSR dissolved in 1991, this “commissar” position underwent another title change – to “deputy to the commander for educational work.”
Such blatant mingling of politics with military matters could never happen in the United States, right? After all, the president – a.k.a. the commander-in-chief – has insisted throughout the Iraq and Afghanistan conflicts that the generals in the field, not the politicians in Washington, make battlefield decisions.
Well, don’t bet the farm against domestic politics overriding military judgments even more than in the past. That trend is evident in the latest move by the Bush administration to curtail congressional access to the service men and women who see the fighting where it is “up close and personal.”
In an April 19 Pentagon memo obtained by the “Boston Globe,” the Defense Department’s legislative liaison office told the House Armed Services committee staff that, in the future, the military would determine those it “deemed appropriate” below the rank of full colonel to speak with or brief members of Congress. This was not a case of keeping a tight lid on operational matters such as future troop deployments or sensitive special operations plans that lieutenant colonels and colonels write for approval of the generals. This was an across-the-board ban on anyone below the rank of general or admiral or the occasional colonel testifying before Congress.
Moreover, the Pentagon memo, by Robert Wilkie, formerly a senior program director of President George W. Bush’s National Security Council, listed two further restrictions on those “deemed appropriate.” No transcripts of remarks or answers to questions would be made, and all officers the Pentagon “allowed” to testify had to be accompanied by a political appointee of the administration.
Now in the armed forces, legislative liaison is akin to public affairs, one of three military specialties that I held. The objective of legislative liaison and public affairs is the same: provide the maximum amount of information possible. The only substantive difference is the public’s information has to be unclassified. Yet the military seems incapable of shedding its penchant to slap “confidential” or “secret” on anything and everything that doesn’t move. The result is unnecessary antagonism and costly delays as Congress, in attempting to exercise its oversight responsibilities, is forced to re-establish its authority to require the appearance of long-serving civilian bureaucrats, enlisted, noncommissioned, and junior commissioned officers, plus relevant documents, electronic records, and messages that pertain to the formation of military policy and programs.
The Pentagon memo reeks of conspiracy by politicos to hide the truth from the public about what is going on in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere in the administration’s so-called “war on terror.” When the unvarnished truth is wanted and needed, most people go to experts for information. And the best “experts” on war – any war – are those who have been in-country fighting for extended time periods, who have seen their comrades die, who may themselves have been wounded. Not so useful are senior officers and civilian officials who fly in and out of the country or who work in well-protected headquarters, venturing out from time to time to see how their plans are standing up to the real world.
There has already been one “walk-out” by Pentagon lawyers who refused to let officers testify because, as is the usual practice, a transcript was being made. In the end, however, Congress will win this battle, for it has the power to subpoena people and documents.
A good person to start with is the memo’s author, Robert Wilkie.
