Posted By Peter Feaver
Wednesday, November 3, 2010 - 11:45 AM
Share
There are a thousand
stories in an election of this magnitude and perhaps ten thousand prisms
through which to analyze it. Here is one of particular parochial interest to
me: How did the candidates who had a distinctive voice on civil-military
relations (one of my academic specialties) fare?
I counted seven such candidates, four of whom prevailed:
-
Democrat Ike Skelton, the current House chair of the Armed Services Committee, lost his re-election race in Missouri's 4th district, as I have already
posted. He was one of the most thoughtful members of Congress on
civil-military issues, regardless of party. I did not always agree with him,
but I always learned something from him.
-
Charlie Rangel was re-elected in New York's 15th congressional district. He is better known in the media for his
quotability and, of late, his ethical difficulties. But for those of us who
follow civil-military relations closely, he is known as the most ardent
supporter of reviving the military draft. In my view, his devotion to the draft
was partly sincere and partly as a way of expressing opposition to President
Bush's national security policies. But I am somewhat in his debt because his
efforts directed a small but steady stream of reporters my way asking for
comment on the impact of a draft on the so-called gap between the military and
U.S. society, and on the propensity to use force.
-
Democratic candidate for Senate Joe Sestak lost in Pennsylvania. This was one of the most closely watched races
in the country. There were two civil-military angles. First, Sestak, a retired
vice-admiral, was the highest ranking military officer in Congress and an
important voice on defense issues in the Democratic Party. There are still a
few defense-minded Senators left in the Democratic Party (Dianne Feinstein from California, Carl Levin from Michigan,
Jack Reed from Rhode Island, and Jim Webb from Virginia, and some others), but there are fewer today than there were
yesterday. Second, he wrote an interesting Ph.D. dissertation on civil-military
relations and the U.S. Navy Seventh Fleet that I found very helpful when I was doing my
own research. (Yes, it is possible to be this parochial while analyzing an
election of such national significance. In fact, I can get even more
parochial… keep reading).
-
Republican Senate candidate Mark Kirk won in Illinois. This, too, was one of the most closely watched races
and seemed at points that it might turn on a narrow civil-military question of
whether Mark Kirk exaggerated his military record. I thought that critique was
unfair, and said so to reporters who called me for comment. I knew Mark from the
days when we were in the same Naval Reserve unit. He was one of the most
impressive members of a pretty impressive group of up-and-comers (not counting
myself, of course) and I think he got something of a bum rap on that question. He
will be a very good Senator and may well emerge as one of the more important
Republican voices on national security.
-
Richard Blumenthal won the open Senate seat in Connecticut. This race had some similar features to
the Illinois race. Blumenthal also was criticized for exaggerating his military
record. In this case, I think the critiques had more merit. But he was able to
overcome them and win handily. I do not expect him to play a very prominent
role in national security nor, after the campaign embarrassments, on
civil-military relations.
-
Tommy Sowers' bid to represent Missouri's 8th district failed. Sowers gained some national attention because he
was running as a Democrat in "Rush Limbaugh's hometown" and because he fit
perfectly the profile of a candidate who might have had a chance at winning in
2006 or 2008. He was a distinguished combat veteran, a Green Beret, and a very
diligent campaigner. He ran against Obama's Afghanistan policy -- based on his Special Forces experience on the ground in combat -- his views
had some national currency. However, I was especially interested in this race
because his academic
research played off my own "agency theory."
-
Chris Gibson won election to New York's 20th district. This is probably the most obscure of the
civil-military-related races, but in academic terms Gibson was the
most accomplished of the civil-military scholars running. He published his
dissertation as a
book and has been a lively participant in academic debates on the nature of
civilian control of the military. He is a strong critic of my work, which is
neither here nor there when it comes to whether he will be an able member of
Congress (some of my FP colleagues might say that his critique of me is the
most hopeful thing about him). However, in light of all the other electoral
developments, he is automatically among the tiny handful of members who have
thought long and hard on this crucial issue and so is likely to become an
important national voice.
Read More
(0)
HIDE COMMENTS LOGIN OR REGISTER REPORT ABUSE