January 8, 2013 It's About Time That an Enlisted Man Ran the Military Karl Marlantes As a writer of fiction,

and a fellow veteran of the Vietnam War, I can't help bu t appreciate the deep symbolic meaning of President Obama's nomination of Chuck Hagel for defense secretary. Hagel will undoubtedly have an impact on the polici es of the Pentagon if his nomination is confirmed by the Senate. But as the firs t former enlisted soldier to be nominated to run the military, Hagel could also signal less tangible, though equally profound, potential changes to the way the United States understands the requirements of national security. The first change would be to the long-growing divide between the military and ci vilian leadership. Up until the 1990s, many political appointees and around half of Congress had served in the military and many of those had seen combat. Today , those with military service are a small minority and those with combat experie nce a handful. This leads to an increasing lack of understanding, and in some ca ses downright distrust, between our political and our military leaders. Those in the military are often frustrated by civilian lack of understanding of what the y do and what is required to accomplish their goals. People without military exp erience are more prone to either opposing what they don t understand or accepting blindly what a military leader proposes because they are overawed by rank and ex perience. As a former enlisted soldier who earned two Purple Hearts leading an infantry sq uad in Vietnam as a sergeant (E-5), Hagel could upend this dynamic. Someone with combat experience can call bullshit on ill-conceived military action without fe ar of being called unpatriotic. (It would be really stupid to call a man with tw o purple hearts unpatriotic.) Combat veterans can also call bullshit on self-ser ving generals and admirals without being vulnerable to trust us, we re the experts o r intimidated by rank and experience. In return, professional military people ar e probably far more inclined to talk turkey with someone who has experienced wha t they have. Such trust is absolutely critical when the policy in question involves killing o r maiming our nation s youth as well as innocent civilians caught up in the ensuin g war. Being a veteran does not necessarily make one pro-war, or anti-war. In mo st cases, it makes one anti-stupid war. The only member of Parliament who wept w hen Britain declared war on Germany in 1914 was Winston Churchill, one of the mo st combative political leaders of the last century, a man who had fought against the Pathans in the then British Crown Colony of India, who witnessed and partic ipated in the horrific slaughter at the Battle of Omdurman, and the anguish of t he Boer War. It was a career soldier, Dwight D. Eisenhower, who warned us agains t the now seemingly intractable conflict of interest faced by politicians who vo te on our military budget, yet represent constituents and whole communities who earn their livings by manufacturing military equipment or serving local military bases. Chuck Hagel was part of a tiny minority of political leaders who spoke o ut against the war in Iraq, not because he s a pacifist, but because he thought it was an ill-conceived use of force. If Hagel, a Republican, is nominated by a Democratic president, this would also be a clear signal to the nation that decisions about military spending need to b e bi-partisan. Certainly there is a guns-or-butter choice to be made, but debati ng expenditures on non-military programs primarily involves economic consequence s for those who are affected. Debating expenditures on military programs involve s the lives of those who are affected. It also involves the protection of all of us and our commonly held ideals. The two debates need to be approached with dif

ferent attitudes. Congress should agree on the military budget separately and be fore debate on the rest of the budget can begin. Finally, if nominated and confirmed, Chuck Hagel will be the first former enlist ed soldier, as opposed to a former military officer, to become Secretary of Defe nse. Hopefully, this would spur the military to reconsider and, ideally, eliminate m any of the arbitrary status distinctions that exist between commissioned officer s and enlisted personnel. These are the remnants of a time when class structure was rigid and those in the upper classes assumed their right to command, qualifi ed by birth. Current arbitrary social distinctions such as enlisted personnel not being able to go to the same clubs or live in the same neighborhoods as officers h ampers informal communication and the effective employment of the more flattened management structures needed to respond to rapid change. They also contribute t o resentment and misunderstanding. I m not suggesting that Hagel consider the elimination of all hierarchies in the m ilitary. But I do think that as a former enlisted soldier he is uniquely qualifi ed to understand how the current system negatively impacts those of lower rank a nd overall unit cohesiveness. Where other Pentagon leaders have seen a military tradition, Hagel may feel compelled to consider solutions. One easy way to impro ve unit cohesiveness, for example, would be if all military personnel entered th e military through the same boot camp of their individual branch of service. Onl y after a couple of years of experiencing military life in the lower ranks, woul d individuals be selected to attend our military academies and other current pat hs to a commission (such as ROTC or Officer Candidate School). Those seeking com missions will be more connected to those who they will later command and vice vers a. They would have a better understanding of military life and their choice of m ilitary occupational specialty before committing themselves to a military career . This would reduce the significant costs of people leaving after years of expen sive training. Two years of additional maturity wouldn t hurt, either. These problems have been with us a long time. With Hagel's nomination, the publi c can be hopeful that we will finally solve them. Karl Marlantes is the author of Matterhorn: A Novel of the Vietnam War and What It Is Like to Go to War. He served as a Marine infantry platoon commander in Vie tnam where he was awarded the Navy Cross, Bronze Star, and two Purple Hearts. http://www.tnr.com/blog/plank/111700/its-about-time-enlisted-man-was-tapped-runthe-military?utm_source=The+New+Republic&utm_campaign=be8791cf79-TNR_Daily_01081 3&utm_medium=email ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------COMMENTS (29) 01/08/2013 - 12:24am EDT | arnon1 "I m not suggesting that Hagel consider the elimination of all hierarchies in the military. But I do think that as a former enlisted soldier he is uniquely qualif ied to understand how the current system negatively impacts those of lower rank and overall unit cohesiveness." So, it's not about Hagel hating gays; it's about combat "unit cohesiveness." 01/08/2013 - 1:25am EDT | zuludown "If Hagel, a Republican, is nominated by a Democratic president, this would also be a clear signal to the nation that decisions about military spending need to be bi-partisan"

Why should the Secretary of Defense be given over to the Republican Party in the name of bipartisanship? It seems rather ridiculous that such an important posit ion -- which determines spending and strategy for the largest part of the countr y's discretionary budget -- should be handed over to the Republican Party at a t ime when they've so clearly shown themselves to be utterly incapable of governan ce. It seems to me that a few liberals -- including, apparently, the President -- ar e so infatuated with Hagel's after-the-fact opposition to the Iraq War and his a mbivalence towards Israel that they are perfectly willing to hand over one of th e most important cabinet positions to a man who is not *uniquely* qualified (in other words -- he offers nothing that other candidates do not also offer) for th e position and who shares most of his views with his comrades in the Republican Party. And, yes, those views -- from gay rights to global warming to women's rig hts -- have real consequences on how the military is run. Yes, it would be a phenomenal symbol for a former enlisted man to be the secondin-command of the US military. But the President should hopefully be looking at Hagel's background -- Hagel's a bigot; Hagel's a science-denier; Hagel's a diedin-the-wool reactionary -- and how those facts will impact the concrete, physica l reality in which we inhabit -- Hagel will likely back spending increases for t he Pentagon; Hagel can be expected to drag his feet on dismantling the vestiges of DADT; Hagel will likely stymie any attempts to improve the Dept. of Defense's environmental impact. There are plenty of liberal or moderate Democrats who would make as good of a Se c. of Defense as Hagel. And, more importantly, there are several (especially, as noted in this magazine, Michele Flournoy) who would be substantially better cho ices for the job. I would have hoped that the President would have learned from his first term, as well as from the last election, and given up his habit of gifting the Republica ns with unasked-for concessions. And that's exactly what this choice stinks of - even if the Republicans are bizarrely against the choice right now. 01/08/2013 - 1:34am EDT | zuludown Also, I find the suggestion that Hagel -- again, a very conservative Republican -- will come into the military and start overturning hierarchies and traditions utterly laughable. 01/08/2013 - 9:39am EDT | rayward Oddly, Hagel voted for the war in Iraq and against the surge in Iraq. I say oddl y, because it's now accepted wisdom that the war itself was a bad idea but the s urge was a great idea that "won" the war (a debatable point, but accepted wisdom ). It's true that on every domestic issue important to progressives (the Bush ta x cuts, bankruptcy reform, drilling in the arctic, means testing Medicare, priva tization of social security, you name it), Hagel was on the wrong side of the is sue. But Hagel does give one hope in matters of defense, or more accurately, a m ore circumspect use of America's military. I say circumspect, not pacifist, beca use the world continues to be a dangerous place, and the ill-advised use of Amer ica's military power weakens America, it doesn't strengthen America. What is the evidence? Here's what Hagel said when he voted in favor of the Iraq war resolut ion (i.e., the compromise resolution): "Some of my colleagues and some American analysts now speak authoritatively of Sunnis, Shi ites and Kurds in Iraq, and how Iraq can be a test case for democracy in the Arab world. How many of us really k now and understand Iraq, its country, history, people, and role in the Arab worl d? I approach the issue of a post-Saddam Iraq and the future of democracy and st ability in the Middle East with more caution, realism, and humility." Even today many policy makers seem unmindful of the differences in the middle east, unmind

ful of the ethnic and religious divisions that underlie so much of the conflict in the region. Hagel, one hopes, knows better. 01/08/2013 - 9:42am EDT | DC Spence Great article. It's a great idea to have some people with military experience in important posts in the national security apparatus. Appointment to such posts n eed not require military experience -- better the job be done by a qualified civ ilian than a venal or incompetent brass hat -- but having a national security te am staffed with people from various relevant walks of life can only make the dec ision-making process superior. Chuck Hagel was just about the first Republican of important to not only notice that Iraq was a complete mess, but also speak out publicly that this was so. [Pl enty of other Republicans knew it was a mess, but they didn't have Hagel's nerve .] He's also someone who respects the military, but understands how bloated our defense budget has become and is willing to start knocking it back down to its p roper size. It is for these two reasons that he is opposed by people who desire further mili tary adventures in the Middle East and a defense budget permanently engorged wit h precious tax dollars. The fight over Hagel isn't about Hagel at all -- it is a bout his ability to provide President Obama with the political and policy assist ance he needs from the SecDef to chart a safe and responsible course in the Midd le East and re-organize our spending priorities at home. 01/08/2013 - 9:57am EDT | WandreyCer The only views that are relevant to his nomination are those on Americas defense and on President Obama. His background, instincts and courage have been exempla ry on both. There is zero evidence that he's anti-Israel and the fact that he's always refused to be bullied by inside-the-beltway elite knucklehead neo-cons wh o have never been right once about anything (and never held acceptable for it) i s a delight. I look forward to the hearings, there is nothing wrong with his answering for hi s grotesque, if long ago, statements on LGBT Americans and what his plans are to run such an important agency. So far, the case being made for him is not comple te. Obama is a mature adult and isn't going to nominate someone just to piss off ideological foes in any country, he'll leave that to the Republicans. Americans do not always agree with him, but they trust his judgement and on this one so f ar, I do too. 01/08/2013 - 11:12am EDT | K2K Thank you for your service, Mr. Marlantes. I agree that a SecDef who enlisted an d fought with bravery in Vietnam is a very important qualification for SecDef, f or the reasons noted here. And, I admire Hagel's bluntness, and am appalled by t he Hagel-hysteria being fomented mostly by the neocons who lied us into the Seco nd Iraq War (second for the US. Still not sure if Baghdad holds the historical r ecord for pillaged cities), but now there is another issue, which women in the m ilitary might find troubling: "...in 1995 Mr. Hagel told the Omaha World Herald that his opposition to abortio n was total and made no exception for cases of rape or incest a view that helped g et him elected to the Senate the following year. He later voted repeatedly again st allowing servicewomen to pay for abortions out of their own pocket, according to the left-wing magazine Mother Jones. Now that Congress has authorized the De fense Department to pay for abortions in cases of rape, it would be worth asking Mr. Hagel if he has evolved on this one, too. It's going to be a fascinating c onfirmation hearing. 01/08/2013 - 11:14am EDT | arnon1 There is a lot of evidence that he has a problem with Gays. That such a man shou ld head the Pentagon is incredible. His courage is not qualification for being S ecretary of Defense, ironically his business experience is more relevant.

01/08/2013 - 12:00pm EDT | zuludown Could you imagine Obama appointing a nominee who once described someone as "aggr essively black" or "aggressively feminist" or "aggressively hispanic" or "aggres sively asian"? Think about what the words "aggressively gay" signify. Why are (purported) liberals bending over backwards to defend this man? 01/08/2013 - 12:36pm EDT | arnon1 "Why are (purported) liberals bending over backwards to defend this man?" Because in their heart of hearts believe that he is anti-Israel. What amazes me is that such an accomplished man could be so bigoted: his views n o gays, on women, perhaps on Jews belong to the 1950's which i was when he had b een educated. He is no Mel Gibson but his stated views on gays are pretty close to those of th e actor. 01/08/2013 - 1:02pm EDT | ironyroad I think that most adults are able to (a) separate particular individual attitude s or feelings they might have from the job at hand -- I do it all the time in th e classroom as I don't judge students on the political or social views they hold which are different to mine -- and (b) admit openly that views they held in the past were prejudiced or unenlightened and that they have grown since then. Students have to trust me that I don't grade them on some non-literary position they express in a paper that I disagree with; I have to trust Hegel that he's no t going to try to enact as SecDef every benighted opinion he has expressed in th e (sometimes distant) past. 01/08/2013 - 1:35pm EDT | icarus-r "Indeed, I assume that, were there any real worry about the latter possibility, the president wouldn't have nominated him." Typical deluded Kool-Aid drinker Obamanaut. Irony, do you HAVE to defend every d ecision Obama makes? The Chosen One can't make a mistake, can he, in your view. And are you suggesting that the People and the Democratic Party should not have a say at all in who is nominated? What - is Obama not only flawless and infallib le, but a Dictator who gets to decide, all on his own, who is to be in his Cabin et? I see, frankly, not only cult-like, but fascistic, tendencies in this untena ble position. "admit openly that views they held in the past were prejudiced or unenlightened and that they have grown since then." Well, Bork and Rhenquist admitted openly - admitted at any rate - did not deny did not actively deny - the positions they held; but did Democrats forgive them ? Oh no. But - here you have the Democrats, the real anti-gay party - DOMA? DADT anyone? - nominating a known and avowed homophobe, and all you Obamanauts can d o is defend him. As if two purple hearts and two terms in the Senate and Obama's respect for him excuse his past history. As usual, rank hypocrisy on the part o f the Kool-Aid drinkers. "I have to trust Hegel that he's not going to try to enact as SecDef" ... Well, he Kant very well leave his Marx otherwise. 01/08/2013 - 1:38pm EDT | Sophia The point about having an enlisted man in charge is well taken. So, why not have some economic advisors, Cabinet members, so forth, who aren't r ich and/or powerful and/or well-connected? Real people don't seem to inhabit the

inner worlds of the Washington elite, which makes some damn bone-headed decisio ns then expects the least culpable and also, most vulnerable pay the piper. Even the Democrats including a certain President seem a little fuzzy on the facts at times, late-night letter reading to the contrary notwithstanding. Also: why not have an enlisted man at the Pentagon who isn't a Republican? I gue ss this way cost-cutting looks bipartisan but still. 01/08/2013 - 1:50pm EDT | icarus-r "Real people don't seem to inhabit the inner worlds of the Washington elite" Sophia - you know I have a lot of respect for you, but, in all honesty, this lin e sounds more like Palin than you. "So, why not have some economic advisors, Ca binet members, so forth, who aren't rich and/or powerful and/or well-connected?" Let's take any Cabinet position. The budget of the Department is likely to be in the tens of billion. The Secretary has to deal with Congress, stakeholders, the President and his or her colleagues as pretty much an equal. This is not "Dave" , where an accountant can, on the back of an envelop, solve the US deficit crisi s. It is natural, therefore, that anyone who would have the political and manage rial skills to head such a Depatment would be powerful and well-connected - not just "would", but "ought to". As for economic advisors - if someone is of high enough calibre to advise the President, he or she, again, is likely to be rich, powerful or well-connected. Let us bear in mind that before his election to the Senate, Hagel was not of the "Washington Elite". I don't know what that means in any event, but we should gu ard against viewing experience and knowledge - aspects of belonging to an "elite " - as handicaps in running a machine as complex and unforgiving as the US gover nment. 01/08/2013 - 1:59pm EDT | DC Spence SOPHIA wrote: So, why not have some economic advisors, Cabinet members, so forth , who aren't rich and/or powerful and/or well-connected? Pretty good question. 01/08/2013 - 2:00pm EDT | DC Spence How demented do you have to be to regard the Democrats as more anti-gay than the Republicans? Is there even a word for such radical derangement? 01/08/2013 - 2:09pm EDT | DC Spence SOPHIA wrote: why not have an enlisted man at the Pentagon who isn't a Republica n? I guess this way cost-cutting looks bipartisan but still. It's a pretty important priority and almost anything Obama does to make it happe n is justifiable. Obama just took a good bite out of the raise taxes on the rich part of his second term. I'd like to see more there, but it is a start. Next he has to come up with some substantial spending cuts that can be sold to his own party. There is no way the Democrats are going to put up with big cuts to Medica re, Medicaid, Social Security, etc. without a whacking great effort to knock the defense budget down to size. The U.S. is currently spending about twice what it spent 10 years ago on defense. TWICE! And for what? What possible justification could there be for spending that kind of money in a world where the USSR no lon ger exists and China is preoccupied with national development? Only one thing could justify such an expense -- a large war in Asia. For the sak e of argument -- let's say, somewhere a lot of people speak Farsi. If America wa nted that it should have voted for Mitt Romney. 01/08/2013 - 2:22pm EDT | icarus-r "a large war in Asia. For the sake of argument -- let's say, somewhere a lot of people speak Farsi." Reminds me of the great philosopher, Vizzini of Sicily, "Yo

u fell victim to one of the classic blunders - The most famous of which is "neve r get involved in a land war in Asia" ...". But, of course, I had no idea that t he US has plans for invading Tadjikstan. 01/08/2013 - 2:34pm EDT | skahn I thought Tadjikstan was going to invade the United States. It seems appropriat e somehow that in our efforts to straighten out the Pentagon, flame war breaks o ut in the comments section of TNR. 01/08/2013 - 3:04pm EDT | Nari224 "It would be really stupid to call a man with two purple hearts unpatriotic" I'm sorry, but was the author not around in 2004 or are three purple hearts too many to protect against stupidity? 01/08/2013 - 3:15pm EDT | Noga "How demented do you have to be to regard the Democrats as more anti-gay than th e Republicans?" Well that's just it, isn't it? It's a bizarro world. Not too lo ng ago commenters here did not have words enough to express the moral outrage, t o castigate and lacerate Romney for being supported by people who would deny an abortion to a rape victim, or who was caught whispering aside that marriage is b etween one man and one woman. And look what a few weeks do to the pathologically enlightened: to borrow from icarius' dim-witted parody, they leap to the defenc e of a man with similar views, on record for holding these benighted positions, without even a showing one little ruffle. Suddenly, a political candidate's opin ions do not matter, in exactly the same way that a student's opinion doesn't mat ter when he is assessed for knowledge by his teacher. I mean, really, we all ten d to be soft on those we like or support politically but I would have expected a little more sophistication and self-conscious restraint in presenting a view di ametrically opposed to what has been trumpeted not so long ago. Reminds me of t he Turkish proverb Hitchens cited in his memoir: "When the axe entered forest, t he trees said to each other: at least the handle is one of us". Now what exactl y makes chuck Hagel one of those who rush to cheer his nomination? I suspect arn on hit the nail on this one. 01/08/2013 - 3:30pm EDT | icarus-r "icarius' dim-witted parody" Now that Noga has squatted over this thread - with a large dose of Exlax in adva nce, no doubt - expect the thread to wither and die. I'll try not to sound grand iloquent or pompous or whatever in response. Fuck you. (Concise and to the poin t, expect that it's a waste of two perfectly fine words on a typing piece of dec omposed trash that parades here by the name of Noga.) 01/08/2013 - 3:37pm EDT | arnon1 Irony, trust me, being a teacher and running a huge Defense Empire are not th sa me thing. As I said I am neither con nor pro His nomination but those that supp ort him do so blindly. 01/08/2013 - 3:44pm EDT | Noga What a fragile ego icarus you have, that goes to pieces at the lightest of jabs. How easily you are goaded into shedding the sophisticate veneer to reveal a per son whose level of invective starts and ends with scatological metaphor. Such br illiance and so much to the point. 01/08/2013 - 3:44pm EDT | arnon1 Sophia a non successful business person is someone who doesn't know economic s v ery well. Why would you want an economic cult as an economic advisor? It's bad enough that the genius economists often get economic policy wrong, though they s ometimes get it right. An ordinary non successful business man will never get it right. The hole history of Soviet economic policy in th early years of the rev

olution should have taught us that. 01/08/2013 - 3:56pm EDT | DC Spence A lot depends on how one defines "successful." Robert Reich was not rich -- and I don't think he is today -- when he became Labor Secretary. I don't see why a p rominent, but not wealthy, economist -- someone from academia, perhaps -- could not become Treasury Secretary. Clearly, we don't want unsuccessful people running government departments, but I don't necessarily equate wealth and success -- particularly the sort of success it would take to run a government department competently. 01/08/2013 - 3:58pm EDT | icarus-r "As I said I am neither con nor pro His nomination but those that support him do so blindly." Arnon - I have no stake in this either. But I am not sure that th ose who support his nomination - at least here - do so blindly. There are, in e ssence, two sorts of arguments to be made. First, we are talking about Obama's selecting a SecDef who 1) will advance *his* agenda - the agenda on which he was elected; and 2) he gets along with. In this sense - and only in this sense - Obama is in the best place to fully appreciate if Hagel is the right person. If one supports Obama and, in this case, his defe nce policy, then support for a Cabinet member of his own choosing is not blind f or that reason .