Dangers of Militarism
by Bob Barr

Virtue - as an ideal for public service - can scarcely be found in American society. We expect, demand and receive manipulative politicians and ruthless CEOs. And we idolize musicians, athletes and celebrities who turn hedonism into an art form.

Yet we hunger for virtue. We want honest, proud and direct leaders. By God, America needs someone who can take charge, kick butt and get things done. Or do we?

Only one part of our society remains where virtues such as duty, honor and sacrifice are not only present, but also common. In our nation's military, rigid adherence to a strict code of discipline remains the norm. Soldiers proudly live by a code that may demand the ultimate sacrifice to protect a higher ideal. So we have a public square where virtue exists only in the shadows, where we are constantly disappointed in our leaders and yet regularly affirm their leadership. But we hunger for something more, and the more self-serving our leaders become, the more we look for something different. Standing in the wings, proudly doing a job no one else can do, is the American military.

In this environment, it's no surprise we increasingly look to the military to supply what is missing from public life in our nation. America is developing a public love affair with the military, but it's a dangerous love affair.

Numerous major corporations have placed retired generals and admirals in top leadership positions. And from city councils to federal agencies, our government regularly turns to military leaders to untangle bureaucratic messes. Take, for example, President Bush's decision to put a gruff, no-nonsense leader in charge of relief efforts following a failed hurricane evacuation in New Orleans.

While the initial response from the public may have been positive, the likelihood of a retired admiral avoiding being knifed in the back by political opponents or manipulated by companies providing reconstruction services is low. The only question is when - not if - the militarized Katrina reconstruction effort will spin off one or more major scandals.

To see how this approach can backfire in a case close to my home in Georgia, consider the problems retired general and former Cobb School Superintendent Joe Redden encountered over a proposed deal to provide laptop computers for the county's middle and high school students. Redden charged into the Cobb system exactly like a general commanding from the back of a tank, making rapid-fire decisions and exercising bold leadership.

While Cobb initially cheered Redden, our residents soon turned on him. Our general upset the entrenched school system bureaucrats upon which his agenda depended. And - true to military form - he made decisions with minimal regard for the democratic process. The result was predictable and spectacular; after an initial period of success, Redden went down in flames, with his enemies picking him apart in a grand jury investigation.

When we aren't putting military leaders directly in charge of civilian agencies, we still often expect existing personnel to adopt a decidedly military manner. Across America, many of our police officers reflect this trend, bulking up at the gym, getting military-style crew cuts and becoming proficient with a wide array of weaponry. Goodbye, Andy Griffith; hello, Rambo.

Our militarized approach to law enforcement has led to such disasters as Waco, Ruby Ridge and numerous local cases of excessive force. And, the price we pay as citizens who see police as threats rather than friends is incalculable.

When it comes to virtue, what is admirable in politicians often has very little to do with honor. Successful public leaders realize that getting half of what they want is better than nothing, and that permanent friends and enemies don't exist. In the military, battles are either won or lost, choices are either right or wrong, and one is either honorable or dishonorable. In politics, black and white distinctions scarcely exist. Success depends on cutting deals and enlisting the voluntary support of others, often with little regard for whether they are good or bad, capable or incapable.

Our system works best when politicians stay off the battlefield and the military stays out of politics. We have a strong tradition of striking this balance effectively in America. Let's hope we continue to do as well in the future as we have done in the past.

Unfortunately, with President Bush and many in the Congress from both parties clamoring for more military-style power to be given to federal law enforcement agencies, even as those same leaders push for relaxation of long-standing laws that limit the military's involvement in domestic law enforcement, the trend is clearly against us. And, of course, because everything government does costs lots of money, we'll be paying for all this twice: once with our loss of freedom and then with our tax dollars.

Former congressman and U.S. attorney Bob Barr practices law in Atlanta.

Email the Editor