In the decades following the Viet Nam war, the U.S. military officer corps has made a steady shift toward a conservative Protestant and Republican affiliation. ... Whether right, wrong, or indifferent - the conservative, Christian voice has impacted our military. America’s strategic thinkers, both military and civilian must be aware of this trend and its potential implications to policy formulation.Millonig focuses on the risks that "groupthink" could adversely affect military decisionmaking if the consideration of alternatives is excluded or ignored because of excessive political and religious homogeneity in the officer corps.
He traces the increase of conservative Protestant values and religious affiliation in the officer corps:
The rise of evangelicalism in today’s the Armed Forces can trace its roots to the Viet Nam War. Public support for the war declined steadily as the years wore on, but evangelical Christians remained generally supportive of the war throughout. Over the course of the war, they found themselves progressively more aligned with the military - a military which increasingly found itself isolated from the general population. Conservative Christian themes resonated well throughout the Armed Forces, from the private in the foxhole all the way to the Chief of Staff of the Army, General Harold K. Johnson, who assumed his post in 1964.He points to the degree of the shift toward conservative Protestant beliefs among the officer corps, a shift which is in part the result of aggressive proselytizing from conservative Christian groups:
General Johnson had always believed spirituality was a cornerstone of good leadership[.] The year before he became Chief of Staff he wrote piece called "Ministering to the Military" in which he espoused that spiritual wellness provided soldiers the strength to ensure success in combat. Shortly after assuming his duties as Chief of Staff, he accepted an invitation to speak at the International Christian Leadership prayer breakfast in Washington, D.C. in 1965. Subsequent invitations included Presidential Prayer Breakfasts and the National Prayer Breakfasts. His major themes varied slightly depending on the audience, but generally adhered to the messages that soldiers needed religious faith and that all Americans should seek God. When speaking to more diverse audiences, he encouraged personal choice and his language was generally more neutral, however his choice of which prayer breakfasts to attend hinted his true beliefs lay much closer to those of conservative Christians. (my emphasis)
Throughout the 1990’s, a conservative Protestant shift in the chaplain corps mirrored the regular force. Since 1994, the number of Roman Catholic priests in the Air Force alone has dropped 44 percent and similar decreases exist in mainstream Protestant chaplains as well. Even if barred directly from evangelizing, just through daily interaction with the troops chaplains probably have the indirect effect of increasing the numbers of conservative Christians. Military chaplains today find themselves in the middle of a dilemma - how to remain tolerant of others’ beliefs while adhering to their own, which often include evangelizing. (my emphasis)Millonig describes the shift in political affiliations this way:
The shift to the right of the political spectrum has been no less dramatic than the move to evangelical conservatism. Sixty-four percent of the officers responding to a 1999 study identified themselves as Republicans while only eight percent affiliated with the Democratic Party, and Independents, traditionally the largest military voting block at nearly seventy percent, dropped to only seventeen percent. The number of Democratic affiliations, steady at about eight percent, has changed little from previous studies but the ratio of Republicans to Independents has reversed. This represents a major shift in military culture; the increase in conservative political views matches the increase in the conservative Christian views.(my emphasis)The correlation is probably not accidental. But he points to other factors influencing the partisan shift, such as the Reagan military buildup, civilian-military conflict during the Clinton administration of matters from gays in the military to the Kosovo War, and the active courting of military voters by the GOP.
The followinig, though, makes me wonder whether the values he describes are reflection of the actions, or whether the actions are being interpreted this way through existing value outlooks:
Additionally, among many in today’s officer corps, the belief is that liberal, and generally more Democratic leaders, promote values contrary to military culture, interests, and proud tradition of service. Conservative Republicans can point to three representative examples just in the last two presidential elections. The first was during the 2000 campaign, when Al Gore proposed one factor to determine a candidate’s suitability for the Joint Chiefs be his or her position on allowing homosexuals to serve openly in the military. Secondly, the 2000 election’s fierce battle over Florida’s absentee ballots opened the Democrats up to charges of hypocrisy. Republicans contested their claim that "every vote counted", and charged the Democrats wrongfully attempted to exclude more than 1,500 military absentee ballots. Finally, during the 2004 election, attacks on Senator John Kerry’s Viet Nam service record and anti-war stance, particularly from the "Swift Boat" veterans, highlights the strong hold conservatism has not only on active duty personnel, but retirees as well.Millonig doesn't address whether developments during the Cheney-Bush administration may be having some effect in reversing these religious and partisan trends among military officers. He does describe the "groupthink" risk in the current situation this way:
For many evangelical Christians, regardless of their profession, their religious beliefs are so strongly embedded that it is difficult to separate their personal views from their professional opinions. Without a firm understanding of this potential pitfall, it could threaten our military’s religious pluralism and tolerance at a time when America’s population and Armed Forces are more diverse, ethnically and religiously, than ever before. Fortunately, the military’s unshakable faith in [the] Constitution makes the possibility of sustained, open conflict between military and civilian authorities implausible, at least for the foreseeable future. The real danger to strategic decision-making is the gradual decline in effectiveness that leaders may not notice until it is too late. (my emphasis)Tags: military and society
No comments:
Post a Comment