There are two ways to conceive of a military establishment’s proper relationship to civilian society. On one account, the military exists in order to make civilian society possible. Like police officers, fire fighters, bus drivers, etc. the soldier is providing a public service that allows civilian social and economic life to function at a high level. On another account, civilian society exists in order to make the military establishment possible. Farmers, shopkeepers, industrialists, etc. are here to create the resources that provide the supplies that a warrior needs in order to practice his most honorable of crafts. The former conception is what’s generally deemed to express the values of a democracy or a republic. The latter conception is what you have in a feudal system.

One way of understanding John McCain’s oft-expressed hostility to politicians, his condescending attitude toward businessmen, and his frequent attacks on selfishness and individualism is as expressing that more aristocratic conception. That would be in keeping with McCain’s family background and things like this odd genealogical note he’s interested in broadcasting.

Read more

From the I can’t believe it’s not a joke file: “the U.S. intelligence community is working to develop software that will detect violent extremists infiltrating World of Warcraft and other massive multiplayer games, according to a data-mining report from the Director of National Intelligence.”

Kevin Drum’s right about this but also wrong. Yes, I would like the principle of civilian control over the military to be upheld whether or not I like the civilians who are running the military. But in the real world the way the principle of civilian control operates is that when Republicans are president, we do what Republicans want with the military, whereas when Democrats are president, we do what Republicans want with the military. We all recall how Colin Powell relentlessly battled civilian policymakers and for his trouble became a reviled national figure huge media star.

It’ll be the same when Barack Obama is president. If a single four-star general agrees on the merits with the GOP talking points of the day, suddenly General Republican will become the greatest military thinker in American history and disagreeing with him is basically the same as pissing on the corpses of our dead troops. We remember the surge flip-flop, don’t we, where disagreeing with Bush’s Iraq policy was considered treason until Bush decided he wanted to shift policy, cashiered his old generals, brough in some different guys, and then blindly supporting Petraeus became de rigeur.

That’s just the way it is, just like the press is suddenly going to rediscover “the rule of law” as a concept.

Michael Cohen adds some nuance to my skepticism about the utility of introducing private military contractors (“mercenaries,” as we used to call them) into a crisis situation like Darfur:

In Kenya, ArmorGroup guards protect UNHCR refugee camps; PAE and AYR Aviation are working with the UN and African Union in Sudan; in Liberia, Dyncorp is training that country’s new military. Moreover, no one, including the contractors themselves, are advocating that Blackwater or any other private group should go into Darfur with guns blazing. I have yet to come across any serious player in the industry who is advocating a combat role for private contractors. In fact, quite the opposite.

Fair enough. I was responding to a Michael Walzer piece that I took to be making the case for “with guns blazing.” Insofar as that’s not what we’re talking about, there may be a reasonable role for contractors to play.