海角大神

Veterans Day will mark a nationwide celebration of America鈥檚 war fighters. But amid the forthcoming fanfare comes an inkling of official concern that some US troops, after a decade of hard battles and well-deserved tributes, may be letting the earnest expressions of gratitude 鈥� now a staple of stump speeches, sports events, and airline travel 鈥� go to their heads.

Having assumed an increasingly political role abroad and then returning to ovation and deferential treatment back home, some US officers appear to be starting to feel the slightest cut above their civilian masters, worry some senior military officers 鈥� an inclination, they add, that would portend problems for American democracy.

Officials are quick to stress that this is hardly the case for the vast majority of service members. But they point to a growing belief among some troops that they have a professional obligation to dissent with 鈥� and even to disobey 鈥� lawful orders from politicians in power if they deem them to be injurious to US strategic aims, unnecessarily risky for troops, or, in some cases, simply objectionable to their own moral principles.

In acknowledgment of this, a US Army directive outlining how commanders should lead discussions of civil-military relations with their troops is currently awaiting Pentagon approval.

Defense Secretary Robert Gates, for his part, outlined the hazards of soldiers who might be tempted to 鈥渄o end runs around civilian leadership鈥� in a 2008 speech to West Point cadets. 鈥淭his temptation,鈥� he warned, 鈥渟hould and must be resisted.鈥�

Yet the temptation appears to be on the rise, say military officials and historians. Given responsibility not only for security, but also for governance, education, and economic development in wide swaths of territory in Iraq and Afghanistan, a generation of US officers has become accustomed to being 鈥渨arrior kings,鈥� says retired Maj. Gen. Charles Dunlap, who until June was the deputy judge advocate general of the Air Force.

In America鈥檚 current conflicts, 鈥渢hey are able to direct civil society to do this or that, and I鈥檓 concerned that they have internalized that,鈥� he says. 鈥淲hen you鈥檙e used to running an Iraqi village, and literally being a warrior king, you may have ideas about yourself that may not fit well with democracy and the military.鈥�

Some officials point to the recent example of Col. John Tien, who, as portrayed in Bob Woodward鈥檚 book, "Obama鈥檚 Wars," warned President Obama against rejecting the Pentagon鈥檚 request for more troops in Afghanistan. 鈥淚 don鈥檛 see how you can defy your military chain here,鈥� he is reported to have told the president. The exchange prompted questions within the military about the point at which candor ends and veiled threats begin.

The concern is echoed in military institutions of higher learning. 鈥淲e have come to the conclusion that we as an Army need to better educate our soldiers about proper civil-military relations,鈥� says Col. Sean Hannah, director of the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic at West Point. 鈥淲e have had some weak and not-so-weak signals out there that we need to look into this.鈥�

One recent signal defense officials cite is an article published last month in Joint Forces Quarterly, the professional journal for the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. In an essay, 鈥淏reaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional,鈥� Marine Corps Lt. Col. Andrew Milburn grapples with an 鈥渙fficer鈥檚 customary obligation to obey鈥� and what he calls 鈥渉is moral obligation to dissent.鈥�

The military officer is 鈥渃onferred great responsibility鈥� and an ethical code, 鈥渨hich grant him moral autonomy and obligate him to disobey an order he deems immoral,鈥� Milburn writes.

This disobedience could involve refusing to execute an order, as well as 鈥渟low-rolling鈥� it, military parlance for delaying a request for as long as it takes to exhaust whomever is making it.

Milburn argues that 鈥渢he military professional鈥檚 obligation to disobey is an important check and balance in the execution of policy.鈥�

Most troubling to senior military officials was an accompanying survey Milburn conducted of his fellow students at the Marine Corps War College in January. Though his sample was an 鈥渁dmittedly small鈥� group of 20 field-grade officers, he found that they all agreed 鈥渨ithout exception鈥� that there are circumstances under which they would disobey a lawful order.

The article was roundly blasted as evidence of a dangerous trend in military thinking. 鈥淚 was frankly shocked by the article,鈥� says Richard Kohn, former chief historian of the Air Force and current chairman of the curriculum in peace, war, and defense at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. 鈥淪omething is deeply wrong in the development of officers if they could believe these things.鈥�

In a typical example from his piece, Milburn argues that the order to disband the Iraqi Army might have been reasonably disobeyed, since it could have been predicted to fuel the insurgency with 鈥渢housands of armed, trained, and disgruntled young men with drastic consequences for American forces.鈥�

He asks: 鈥淲ould not the military chain of command have been justified in refusing the order?鈥�

No, it would not have, says Paul Hughes, a retired Army colonel who led the Iraq Study Group鈥檚 military and security expert working group. Mr. Hughes was an adviser to the US Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq while on active duty, and was critical of the Bush administration鈥檚 handling of the war upon his retirement.

Yet the beliefs expressed by Milburn and others points to a peril that some military officers 鈥渟ee ourselves as almost an aristocracy,鈥� says Hughes. 鈥淵ou hear any politician do a stump speech, and it鈥檚 always going to include a line about thanking the men and women on the front lines for serving.

鈥淚n the case of some military professionals it鈥檚 becoming the reality in their minds that they are better than those who are sending them off into harm鈥檚 way,鈥� he adds. 鈥淚 think that鈥檚 an attitude that many in the military, if they don鈥檛 overtly feel, covertly feel.鈥�

The editor of the Joint Forces Quarterly, David Gurney, says that despite the criticism he knew he would receive for publishing Milburn鈥檚 essay 鈥� including complaints that the journal shouldn鈥檛 鈥渁ir the military鈥檚 dirty laundry鈥� 鈥� it echoes a more widely held view than many would like to believe.

鈥淭here are increasing numbers of military personnel that are having thoughts along these lines,鈥� says Gurney. 鈥淎nd it should be corrected.鈥�

Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Adm. Mike Mullen, who came under criticism in Mr. Woodward鈥檚 book for forcefully advocating more US troops in Afghanistan 鈥� and, according to Woodward鈥檚 portrayal, pushing back against Obama鈥檚 request for more military options involving fewer forces 鈥� says he supports the publication of the essay.

鈥淚鈥檓 a big proponent of free speech 鈥� and have enjoyed that kind of commentary and that kind of diverse view my whole career,鈥� he says. 鈥淐ommenting on our military I think is one thing, and that鈥檚 fine. Commenting on the politics of the world is something that we need to stay clear of. So I don鈥檛 have any problems with the fact that he wrote something.鈥�

At the Center for the Profession and Ethic at West Point, which is an arm of the US Army鈥檚 command in charge of educating America鈥檚 soldiers, an effort is under way to do some of the corrective thinking that Hannah and others say is in order. Part of the instruction will include discussion about the conditions under which candor is appropriate 鈥� particularly in the military鈥檚 interactions with the politicians under whose authority they operate.

鈥淎fter a decade of war, we are continuously self-assessing and learning,鈥� Hannah says. 鈥淥ffering candid advice isn鈥檛 just something we鈥檙e allowed to do 鈥� we have a responsibility to do it.鈥�

But once the decisions are made, the military must execute the orders, Hannah stresses.

Dunlap, the retired Air Force major general who is now associate director of the Center on Law, Ethics, and National Security at Duke University in Durham, N.C., suggests that any new education push will require considerable candor, too. 鈥淲e need to tell them, yes, when you guys were in Iraq and Afghanistan we sent you to these remote places, and we wanted you to create these civil institutions and virtually run these places to get them up and going,鈥� he says. 鈥淏ut you need to understand that you were living in the moment. And you don鈥檛 bring that attitude back to this country.鈥�