Thursday, January 26, 2012

The SEALS Aren't Props

I've been more the occasionally amused but largely apathetic spectator of recent political events. Other than occasional notes on Charlie Pierce columns in Esquire that attempt some humor, I haven't been this blase about a looming Presidential election in many years. On the one hand are the Republican rivals, currently involved in a primary campaign the singular goal of which seems to be to out-crazy one another, invoking the name of the incumbent President without any reference to anything he's actually done, or not done. Because I do not allow my children to hear lies, I am keeping them from the Republican primary campaign as much as possible. If they want fantasy, I push Tolkien's books in to their hands.

On the other hand, there's our incumbent. He needs to answer many questions. He needs to be challenged, substantively, on indefinite detention and the elimination of habeas corpus; on a policy of assassinating American citizens; on the use of UAVs in domestic policing activities; on the too-small stimulus and and monetary policy that seems more thrashing than rational; on participation in the Libyan Civil War, on-going combat operations in Pakistan, the nature of our military presence in Yemen, Somalia, the Philippines; on our opening to Burma. I could go on, but you get the idea. Presidential campaigns rarely concern themselves with the minutiae of actual governance. I understand and accept that. At the very least, however, the press and Republicans could be taking him to task on these and a host of other issues. Instead, because their base is entranced by a vision of the President that bears no semblance to the man or his policies, everything else just kind of slides on by.

For example, the other night was the Constitutionally mandated State of the Union. The Constitution merely states that the President shall give a report on the State of the Union to Congress. Up until the days of television, this usually involved sending a letter to the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate that was read in to the record. It has become, over the years, grand political theater. I awoke Wednesday morning to discover, to my surprise, that President Obama had outdone previous Presidents in his staging and set decorations.

Navy SEALs rescued two American hostages held in Somalia at the same time the President was lauding our military's finest and their record during his term. It has been impressive. In his first year, they stormed a pirate vessel in the Indian Ocean, rescuing some Americans held prisoner, killing some of the pirates and bringing home at least one to face trial. A trial for piracy . . . Visions of Jack Sparrow. . .

Of course, the feather in the SEALs watch-caps - a richly deserved one - is the operation that resulted in the death of Osama Bin Laden. Obama mentions that quite often; in his SOTU, he talked about being given the flag the team had with them on that mission. No doubt, as a patriotic American, his role as C-in-C in ordering and green-lighting that particular operation should give him enormous pride. The expansion of counter-intelligence and special operations over the past couple years, and the success of these operations (the SEALs are without a doubt the single best unit in this, or any, military), raise questions, however, not so much on questions of the wisdom of this or that op; rather they raise questions on the level of policy and practice.

Except last night. While it is nice that the SEALs did their job, as usual, effectively and successfully; while I celebrate the return of Americans held captive by bandits and thieves in a far away land; forgive me for being cynical enough to suspect the timing of this particular op. It is one thing to support, even promote, the use of special forces in new and emerging tactical situations. It is one thing to laud the performance of the SEALs, Army Rangers, the USMC, and others who do this kind of work so well.

Using the SEALs and this op as a backdrop for a political speech, however, is disgusting. I remember when liberals used to roll their eyes when Reagan used fighter-jet fly-bys at outdoor events.

11 comments:

Feodor said...

The moral difference being that Obama was attempting to argue for binding us together, not claiming that one ideology trumps another.

But, apparently, you missed that in you recent bout of glib - and self-centered - nihilism.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

No. Pure and simple, it was crass use of our best resources to make the President look good.

Doing the right thing for the wrong reasons is wrong. Or don't they teach that at Yale?

Feodor said...

When one side is arguing for obstruction and the other side is arguing for the hard work of legislation, you look stupid saying, "Look! They're both arguing!"

All it takes is a little thought. It's on you not your school.

Alan said...

Rhetorically, I didn't mind it, given the point he was making (ie cooperation between different people with different backgrounds for the sake of the "mission".) But I do think he could have made the point and moved on, rather than going on about it for 5 minutes in such detail.

But, at the same tine, it's not like he was standing on the deck of an aircraft carrier dressed in a flight suit costume shouting "Yee Haw!" and "Bring it on!"

There are matters of degree here between using an example to make your point and exploitation. I think he was treading across that line by a few inches, but not nearly as much as you seem to think.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

This comment may be longer than the post, but please bear with it, and me.

Whether it's an aircraft carrier, a fighter squadron, a tank, or an infantry/spec ops unit, the military is not and never should be a prop in partisan politics. That it is used to bug liberals, as I mentioned above when people used to get all uptight when Reagan would give a speech and the fighter jets would road by. When GWB landed on that carrier, the same complaint was raised; of course, we forget that because of the "Mission Accomplished" banner. The crass theater, using that carrier, landing on the deck (which was foolish in the extreme; landing on a carrier is always tricky, ask any Navy pilot), was obviously done to create some stock footage for the President's political campaign and little else. Everyone knew it, yet the supporters cheered and the rest whined.

Now, however, Obama using out best elite Special Operations Force to create this heroic backdrop for his SOTU speech is OK? Because some American hostages were freed? Obviously that's wonderful. I can't imagine anyone thinking otherwise. Because the Navy SEALs were quick, clean, professional, and successful? Again, nothing but praise for the SEALs, their professionalism, and their ability to carry out a mission better than any unit in the military.

One FB commenter insisted I had seen too many movies to somehow connect the dots between this mission and the SOTU in the way I have. That, somehow, I insulted the SEALs by doing so. If the President, as Commander-in-Chief ordered the operation, then green-lighted it, it seems like a lawful order and the SEALs did their duty by carrying it out. Every military operation has political purposes, this no less than another, and one thing I admire is the military's attention to duty. No insult was made, and certainly none intended for the folks in uniform who do the jobs they're ordered to do to the best of their ability.

My BS meter flashed when I saw on the news, Wednesday a.m., that this op was going on either just prior or during the SOTU. Is it possible that the intelligence needed to carry out the mission was finalized, and the runs-through were complete just coincidentally around the time of the SOTU? Sure.

It doesn't smell right. These men aren't the President's to use to make himself look good during a SOTU, anymore than a carrier was President Bush's to use for a backdrop to make him look good. Both the carrier and the SEALs were only doing their duty, following a lawful order from their C-in-C. I do not, nor will you ever hear me, say they have done anything wrong, immoral, illegal.

The issue here is the President's use of this particular HRT operation.

Alan said...

Meh. I think you've missed the point of what he was saying, in terms of the argument he was making. But, as I said, I wasn't thrilled about the length of the use of the example, but I didn't mind the use of the example.

In fact, I think the commitment and dedication and hard work these people demonstrate should indeed be a good model for the rest of us. My pointing that out in this comment thread is simply not the same as exploitation.

But I take it you think it is? My previous comment exploited those folks? I don't think so.

Perhaps if I made that point while wrapped in a flag, shouting USA! USA! with a foam USA #1 finger, balancing an apple pie, Mom, and a baseball on my shoulder. But making the point that cooperation helps diverse groups be successful isn't quite the same, I'd say.

Or are you saying, yes, by all means let hostages sit in their shit for another day, because rescuing them before the SOTU would look "political"? Of course you're not. But it does sound like it might be time for a tinfoil hat, Geoffrey? ;)

Now I may have been born at night, but it wasn't last night. Is it possible that the hostage rescue happened because of the timing? Yeah, I suppose. Did it happen because of the timing? I have no idea. Neither do you. But you apparently think that you do know for sure. I don't think you do.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

No, I don't know for sure. On the level of falsifiability and therefore some kind of reasonable assurance, it fails completely. I'm not saying otherwise; indeed, I concede the point that it is, indeed, possible, that everything came together at the time it did.

Furthermore, obviously, if that is indeed the case - do it. Get them the hell out of there.

I didn't watch the speech - I'm avoiding exposure to as much politics as possible, as I wrote above. Yours and my praise for the operation and its successful outcome is not exploitation; neither is the President's.

Like I said - something didn't smell right about the whole thing. Unanswerable questions does not mean they shouldn't be raised because, gee, everything turned out OK and it proves the SEALs are as awesome as we know them to be and the hostages are safe.

Why is that simple point being lost here?

Alan said...

Asking questions about the timing, I've got no problem with that. It isn't like it hasn't happened before (eg Reagan and the Iran hostage crisis.) I'm always skeptical about everything ... but that doesn't mean I'm a cynic. And at this point we don't know. But, and I'm only going by what you wrote, you've made your decision that this was a scam or you wouldn't have written: "Using the SEALs and this op as a backdrop for a political speech, however, is disgusting." or "I awoke Wednesday morning to discover, to my surprise, that President Obama had outdone previous Presidents in his staging and set decorations."

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the way that the example of the SEALs getting Bin Laden, which the President used in the speech as an example of cooperation from which we could all learn. This post seems to conflate the two issues, which may be where the confusion arises.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

Fair enough criticism, I think. I took what was my impression of the correlation of events and turned it in to certainty, and now in comments seem to be backtracking. You are exactly right.

As to conflating the two issues - I did not hear the speech, but from what I've read, he praised the SEAL team several times, and toward the end of the speech made an odd statement that such camaraderie should be a model for how we Americans work together. Nothing against the SEALs at all, but that's kind of creepy for a variety of reasons. I do not know if he brought up this particular op or not. The first I heard of it was Wed. a.m. as I perused the news headlines, and noticed the timing.

So, yeah, I can see how the construction of the post can lead you to write what you did. I made a leap there that just isn't warranted. How Marshall Art of me.

Alan said...

"How Marshall Art of me.

Careful. If you say his name 3 times while looking in a mirror, he appears.

Geoffrey Kruse-Safford said...

I thought you might like that last line.

Virtual Tin Cup

Amazon Honor System Click Here to Pay Learn More