Civilian control

Spencer Ackerman makes a strong case for civilian leadership in matters of politics and strategy which should govern when wars are begun and ended, even when deployed troops may see things differently from their day-to-day more tactically oriented perspective. Since wars are necessarily, inextricably political acts (Clausewitz's thesis), and since we do want to remain a democracy rather than a military dictatorship (don't we?), Ackerman's argument for civilian control strikes me as persuasive and basically right. However, when civilian leaders decide that it's time to end the war but many military people continue to want to fight, the resulting situation will lend itself to "stab in the back" myth-making. Of course, that expectation doesn't excuse the Dems for caving on war funding. On matters of this kind of significance, we should expect our leaders to do what's best for the country even if it means exposing themselves to a right-wing backlash and, perhaps for some, risking their political careers. Feingold and Hagel have been admirably outspoken and clear about this.