Army Public Affairs Office Oversteps Its Bounds in Partisan Politics

Posted by Steve Benen, The Carpetbagger Report at 6:00 AM on June 13, 2008.

In the coming issue of Joint Force Quarterly, an official military journal widely distributed among officers, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff writes a welcome but unusual open letter to everyone who wears an Armed Forces uniform: stay out of the political arena during the election season.

“The U.S. military must remain apolitical at all times and in all ways,” wrote the chairman, Adm. Mike Mullen, the nation’s highest-ranking officer. “It is and must always be a neutral instrument of the state, no matter which party holds sway.”

It’s good advice, and a good policy. If only the Army’s public affairs office had taken the Admiral’s advice. Phillip Carter has the story:

The Army’s public affairs office publishes a daily roundup of Army-related news called “Stand To” — named for the set of procedures combat units do just prior to dawn, when they go to full alert for a possible enemy attack. The daily wrap-up contains links to mainstream media articles, Army press releases, foreign media stories and blogs. It’s similar to the Defense Department’s Early Bird — but much briefer, and obviously more focused on the Army.

Tuesday’s edition contained an entry under “WHAT’S BEING SAID IN BLOGS” that struck me as unusual — both for its headline and its patent political bias: “Obama: World peace thru surrender (KDIHH)”

“KDIHH” refers to a milblog called “Knee Deep in the Hooah,” published by a former Army officer whose son is serving in Iraq now. In this case, KDIHH ran an item suggesting soldiers would “throw away all ammo” under an Obama administration, who would “surrender” when “we are winning.”

And the Army’s public affairs office thought this was worthy of wider distribution? Under the imprimatur of the U.S. Army? Right after the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff explained the importance of staying out of partisan politics during the election?

The problem isn’t that KDIHH attacked Obama. KDIHH is hopelessly wrong, but it’s his blog, and he can be as wrong as he wants to be.

The problem is with the poor judgment shown by the Army’s public affairs office, and what this tells us about the intersection of the Army and Republican politics. Carter added:

[T]he “Stand To” page is different — and Tuesday’s edition crosses the line. This isn’t some citizen’s blog or website. It’s the in-house public affairs digest of the United States Army. It should not be amplifying partisan political attacks, nor should it be airing them at all. This appears like yet another example of the unusually cozy relationship which has developed over the last generation or so between the military and the right wing of American politics — an unhealthy development, to say the least.

Last time I checked, soldiers and civilian officials didn’t swear an oath to either political party or to their current president. Rather, they swear their fidelity to the Constitution, and the ideals it embodies, including the subordination of the military to civil authority. Adm. Mullen is right: As we enter a contentious election year, where issues of national security are likely to dominate the debate, the military needs to stay on the sidelines.

I would have hoped this was obvious to everyone. Apparently some have missed the memo.

Tagged as: politics, army