Matthew Continetti, writing in today’s DAILY STANDARD, points to a disturbing trend in Congress, and more generally in the public debate over the war in Iraq. Continetti calls it warrior chic, “the idea that biography trumps policy, that a person’s identity proves the validity of their ideas.” In particular, the identity of the soldier or veteran is used to prove the validity of arguments both for and against the president’s new Iraq strategy. Says Continetti, “taken to the extreme, of course, such an idea erodes the principle, embodied in the Constitution, of civilian control of the military.” Should civilians defer to soldiers and veterans in any debate over the war in Iraq? Apparently General William Odom, U.S. Army (Ret.), seems to think so. Dean Barnett has a post up about General Odom’s appearance on the Hugh Hewitt show last night. Barnett hesitates to criticize a man with such a distinguished service record, but ultimately calls the general’s commentary “an embarrassment.” Here’s the key exchange:
Odom isn’t advocating that only uniformed military can have an opinion, just that the opinion of the uniformed military be given greater weight than that of civilians. It isn’t a complete disregard for the principle of civilian control of the military, but it’s pretty close. Barnett says that while “[he is] sure certain people loved the General’s ad hominem attack and relished the use of the chickenhawk trope by an actual man of the uniform, such an ‘argument’ doesn’t bear evidence to a confident or nimble intellect. Rather than defend his ideas, Odom tried to bully his way into winning an argument.” I’d say Barnett is letting him off pretty easy.
