Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation

You are here: Home / Archives for New National Security

Veterans Endorsing Presidential Candidates: A Dilemma?

Last month, the Center for a New American Security (CNAS) released a study titled “Military Campaigns: Veterans’ Endorsements and Presidential Elections.” The study analyzes how the tradition of retired military personnel publically supporting presidential candidates affects public views of the candidates and of the military. This practice dates back to the Civil War and became even more popular following World War II.

Information was gathered by CNAS using a survey on the presidential campaigns for President Obama and Governor Romney this year. Though the authors conclude that only a small boost in support results from military endorsements, “even minor boosts in support can matter in a tight election.”

Furthermore, the authors posit that such endorsements may negatively affect the public perception of the military in the long-term, which they claim strengthens the need to have endorsements by retired senior ranking officers become taboo.

Military endorsements are highly coveted in presidential campaigns. In this particular election, neither President Obama nor Governor Romney served in the military, so these endorsements seem to provide a sense of legitimacy for their national security credentials.

To provide some examples, Romney released an extensive list of over 300 retired military officers who support his candidacy. President Obama jumped on the opportunity to highlight his foreign policy efforts during the Democratic National Convention with an appearance by Admiral John Nathman (Ret.) and other veterans. This show of force was designed in part to counter the Romney-Ryan’s neglect to mention the wars in Iraq or Afghanistan during the Republican National Convention.  Moreover, the President made even heavier use of retired military endorsements during his first run for national office in 2008.

One of the study’s authors, Peter Feaver, wrote an article on foreignpolicy.com about the study. He described how he and his fellow co-authors found that veteran endorsements made a statistically significant boost in support for President Obama, but not for Governor Romney. He attributed the reason to current public perception that our military is conservative and generally more aligned with the Republican Party due to the party’s “historical advantage” in matters of national security.

In the study, Feaver, James Golby, and Kyle Dropp emphasize that their main concern echoes civil-military experts who claim that the endorsements, especially by senior ranking veterans, “may damage perceptions of the military as a nonpartisan institution.”  But the authors also claim that the general public perception is that the military is a conservative/Republican organization. So the bias already exists; it’s now simply becoming more balanced.

(Continued at the link below)

The current Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, and his predecessor have also spoken against this political involvement by retired senior officers. General Dempsey has repeatedly argued that, “when the title or uniform is used for partisan purposes, it can erode the trust relationship. We must all be conscious of this, or we risk adversely affecting the very profession to which we dedicated most of our adult life.”

Of course, there is a long history of ex-generals running for and winning the presidency, from George Washington to Dwight Eisenhower. If veterans are now supposed to be nonpartisan, should retired military officials be discouraged from running for presidential office as well?

Senior veterans have devoted a majority of their professional lives to serving our country. In dedicating their lives to serve the nation, they put aside their personal beliefs to follow the orders of the Commander in Chief and their superior officers. These years of experience have endowed them with deep insight and knowledge of issues of national security as highlighted by the titles they retain after retirement.  As stated by Lt. General (USA, Ret.) Robert G. Gard, Jr., board chair of the Center for Arms Control and Non-Proliferation, “Targeting veterans to muffle their freedom to endorse political candidates would deny them the full exercise of their first amendment rights as private citizens during retirement from military service.”  

In addition to the endorsement of presidential candidates, retired military personnel like General Gard, take positions on issues of concern, such as use of land mines, nuclear weapons or torture. These individuals have profound knowledge of the effects of such issues and the public will benefit to hear them.  

Announcing political endorsements is by no means isolated to retired veterans.  Many other individuals and organizations endorse candidates.  Religious leaders, scientists, newspapers, and even diplomats also exercise their political rights and support for candidates in the democratic process. It’s difficult to argue that action should be taken to regulate the degree to which they are politically active. For newspapers in particular, the practice of endorsements increases their perceived political bias which in turn causes readers to question their objectivity in reporting. But this bias can help spur a healthy debate and the in-depth analysis of issues necessary to become an informed voter.

Regardless, barring veterans or others to voice their opinions is guaranteed to be resisted, and for good reason.

The New Wild West: Cyber-Attacks Pose a Threat to the U.S.

Initially, one might not assume cyber attacks could be equated to weapons of mass destruction, but a massive computer generated attack has the potential for enormous destruction. Though the attack may lack massive casualties or visible damage resulting from a missile or bomb, there can be extensive damage concerning stolen intelligence or intellectual property, loss of millions of dollars, or a major blow to the economy. The internet exists as an autonomous international tool where no entity has the ability to exert significant control over it.

Little Room for “Debate” As Romney and Obama Agree on Pragmatism

Call it the foreign-policy debate that wasn’t.

In the third and final presidential debate, moderator Bob Schieffer’s questions focused on international affairs, but the candidates steered a large portion of the discussion toward domestic issues, such as jobs, education, and taxes. At a number of points, it felt like we weren’t hearing anything about foreign policy at all. And when we did, it wasn’t much of a debate: Romney agreed implicitly or explicitly with Obama on a number of national security issues, including Syria, Iran, the ouster of President Mubarak in Egypt, Pakistan, and drone strikes.  

Indeed, if you’ve been following Romney’s foreign policy positions over the course of 2012, you might not have recognized the contender on stage Monday evening. Romney backed away from his previously hawkish, neoconservative positions, putting forward a relatively more hands-off view of America in the world. He defended withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2014, economic development and education in the Middle East, and disavowed the idea of military action in Syria.

President Obama, for his part, seemed to have come prepared to attack a more hawkish opponent – early on, he blasted Romney for taking a rigidly conservative stance on Russia, the New START treaty and other issues, saying, “the 1980s, they’re now calling to ask for their foreign policy back because, you know, the Cold War’s been over for 20 years.” But when it became clear that the neoconservative he came to debate was absent without leave, Obama did the next best thing: he called Romney out for the flip-flop:

“You said that, first, we should not have a timeline in Afghanistan. Then you said we should. Now you say maybe or it depends, which means not only were you wrong, but you were also confusing in sending mixed messages both to our troops and our allies.”

For some, Obama might have come across as overly critical (as Romney himself put it, “attacking me is not an agenda”). But the idea that Romney is a flip-flopper with no firm beliefs does resonate with voters, so it’s tough to say who came out on top in that regard.

In fact, it’s difficult to say who came out on top at all, because so often, the candidates seemed to be rushing to agree with one another. On Iran, Obama and Romney reaffirmed their willingness to take military action in the last resort, but there seemed to be a clear effort on both sides to keep the discussion focused on sanctions and other alternatives to war. And on Afghanistan, there was virtually no disagreement from Romney that we should withdraw by 2014, which stands in contrast to the vice-presidential debate, in which Paul Ryan strongly suggested that a Romney White House might continue combat operations beyond 2014.

Finally, on Syria, there was broad agreement that we need to avoid military intervention. Obama exhibited what I thought was real candor on Syria, given that he’s been blasted by both the left and right as indifferent to the massacre happening there. But during the debate, he was straight with the American people:  “[W]hat we’re seeing taking place in Syria is heartbreaking,” he admitted. Then, though, he went on to concede the limits of American influence:

“But we also have to recognize that, you know, for us to get more entangled militarily in Syria is a serious step, and we have to do so making absolutely certain that we know who we are helping; that we’re not putting arms in the hands of folks who eventually could turn them against us or allies in the region.”

A candidate on the presidential campaign trail, admitting that America can’t always make things better in troubled nations? That’s refreshing. And it was even more bracing to see the Republican candidate agree:“We don’t want to have military involvement there. We don’t want to get drawn into a military conflict.” To the extent that we can use Syria to gauge the enthusiasm for interventionism, the exchange suggested that there’s some level of bipartisan agreement that America is done getting militarily involved in Middle Eastern conflicts.

But the old, hawkish Romney wasn’t going to go away without a fight.
(more after the jump)

There were two main areas where the Governor was unable to fully abandon his previous neoconservative policies. The first was Iran: even though Romney largely endorsed the Obama approach, he doubled down on the idea that he won’t accept a nuclear-capable Iran. Romney continues to use this as a way to differentiate his Iran policy from Obama’s, but surely does not realize the implication of his words: a nuclear-capable Iran will exist long before a nuclear-armed Iran. In fact, Iran is arguably there already: it has the capacity to build a nuclear bomb, even if it hasn’t built one yet. There are actually many countries today that are nuclear-capable, including Japan, South Korea, South Africa, Sweden, Brazil, and Argentina, which would presumably all fail by Romney’s standard.

This means that, for all of Romney’s new talk about sanctions on Iran and treating military strikes as a last resort, he is much more likely to resort to force to accomplish a goal – halting Iran’s nuclear weapons program – that appears unattainable, at least through the use of military strikes.  

The second place where we saw the old Romney was on the federal budget. Romney’s defense budget, which pegs defense spending at 4% of Gross Domestic Product, is clearly meant to support a more militarily-oriented foreign policy. The cost of this additional spending is estimated to be $2 trillion over the next decade.

Yet while Romney was content to walk away from his previous interventionist incarnation, he stuck to his budget plan, insisting that he would not cut military spending. Obama made the point that Romney wouldn’t be able to do this while also balancing the budget, but Romney countered by saying that he would be able to do both if he cut Obamacare and discretionary domestic spending.

So who won? Most post-debate surveys have suggested that Obama won on points, if not by a huge margin. Romney supporters counter that their candidate held his ground and showed that he can handle the position of commander-in-chief.

If you ask me, the real winner in this debate was pragmatism and prudence. Both candidates are under different kinds of pressure to support interventionist policies – Obama has come under fire for not doing more in Syria, right-wing Republicans want Romney to stay the course in Afghanistan, and both men have been encouraged to sound the drums of war in Iran. But with some important exceptions, I detected a consensus last night that war is not the answer, to quote the Friends Committee on National Legislation. Obama made this point most clearly on Syria, but one got the same sense on Iran. On Afghanistan, the candidates agreed that combat operations must end in 2014, and that this date does not “depend” on what happens in the meantime.  

And if that was the candidates’ main message, I think that means the American public, which is strongly opposed to more war, was the real winner of the final debate.