I kind of agree with the person in the article that says the politicians that meddled in the fact that the lecture would be given did the very thing they claim they were concerned about.
That’s not the first time it happens. It’s always fine if they do it, but terrible if the other side does.
You can agree or disagree with Ben-Ghiat's thesis, but legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.
The whole point of these kinds of lectures and discussions are to spark debates and conversations among decisionmakers.
It is especially ironic because Ben-Ghiat's research is explicitly about that - political meddling in military administration lead to degraded institutional capacity.
Look at 10/7 in Israel or Russia's fiasco in Ukraine - both are examples of how military and intelligence capacity can be degraded by political meddling.
> legislative meddling in the autonomy of institutions that set American defense strategy is a horrible precedent to set.
This is exactly wrong. Legislators are supposed to intervene when an executive department comes dangerously close to breaking the law. This is doubly so for the military (Congress holds hearings on military action all the time, must authorize nonwar military action beyond 90 days, has special, stricter rules for military appropriations, etc.).
In this specific case, the idea that the US military academies are "autonomous" from Congress is kind of an unserious argument (or, at best misinformed). To get a seat as a student you must get a letter of recommendation from a sitting legislator. All of the generals and admirals, including those in charge of the institutions are required to be nominated and confirmed by the US Congress before they take their positions.
“PEN America today sharply criticized some Republican members of Congress”
The press release claims that the org sharply criticized but did not provide any evidence that actually occurred. Did they do this via a text message, visit offices or what?
>>>
Jonathan Friedman, Sy Syms director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression programs, said:
“The irony cannot be lost here: government officials have used their positions to muscle out a scholar of authoritarianism from a prestigious lecture,"
<<<
Government institutions are not meant to be autonomous. Outside of a narrow set of explicitly political positions, everyone who is in government should be apolitical in the carrying out of their duties.
Specifically, since this is a military institution, remember that all members swear (or affirm) an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, except Republicans".
Snark aside, I would mention that when I left the military they did not ask me to renounce the oath. While it can be argued that it is implied to be limited to your term of service due to other language contained within, I am of the opinion that the important bits about 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic' are permanent. Unless you'd like to renounce it and declare your allegiance more specifically to something else.
That is closely related to autonomy. And the service academies are serious academic institutions. Inviting speakers on military history is very valuable to cadets and midshipmen. Why wouldn't they do it to give their students a broader view of what it means to be an officer?
I graduated from "Annapolis" (AKA USNA, "The Boat School") in the 70's. My second career was in high-tech here in Silicon Valley.
Let me state the "quiet part" of the Naval Academy's mission out loud: It aspires to train the Services' future admirals and generals. It is not a vocational school, nor is it really a college. It's something else.
It strikes me that the relationship between flag-rank officers and their civilian (political) leaders is fair game.
Having said that, the selection of this speaker is edgy. But it's the timing of the event that I think puts it in the bad-judgement-or-worse category. We used to call this "poor headwork."
My recommendation would have been to postpone the event until next year, and then reexamine the issue more closely. And to do all of the above quietly.
The problem with attempts to controll knowledge, aka limit it, is that it has a tendency to spiral. You limit information about this and that- some zealous partymonger goes astray and limits all the information related.
Next you have a famine and because of the involved parties guilt about the dysfunction, knowledge is limited even further.
You either have all the information, including the one about retardations going awry in the past. Or you do not and spiral down to become one of those figures in the history lectures doing bizar things, repeating past failures.
Looking both ways in this comment.
The whole narrative control thing of the left, which is completely blind to physical realities causing problems and makes everything a theater-society-production with a racist villian is almost as disgusting as the ahistoric "isolationism will solve our problems" of the right.
Friend. After one of the more recent bigger political event in US, which, in more sane times, would have made most people pause, I asked people from 'the other side', if they would be willing to reconsider their current stance on 'speech', its limits and what is acceptable within society. They were not.
I guess what I am saying is that you probably should not be surprised when some will eventually say 'what is good for the goose'. I am personally not there yet, but I assure you it is a tempting position to take..
And this is before we ignore the background of potential ww3, normal election cycle tension and unusual, but very potent, vibes of potential civil war.
So... cool it with the US right, because you yourself are not helping. At all. More than that. You are actively making things worse. Good job?
There's a big difference between narratives plausibly based in fact and some shared version of reality - even if stretched and imperfect at times - versus narratives formed knowingly and deliberately out of lies.
"Both sides are bad" is simply untrue. One side is definitely categorically worse.
"Ben-Ghiat has stated that she did not intend to discuss Trump or contemporary America during the lecture, noting that the event was to be strictly nonpartisan."
And if you make it to the second sentence (I know I'm asking a lot):
I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
This was, pretty plainly I think, meant to be note separate from the subject matter of the article whose title you found objectionable.
It's a bedrock of our system that the US military remain firmly under civil control and politically neutral. The article elides but deep-links through to Ben-Ghiat's Substack announcing the lecture, which is what set off the firestorm:
- The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -
I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
_______________
That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military. ... Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.
I can see both sides of the argument on cancellation, but it's frankly idiotic to announce your lecture to the Naval Academy in an essay you directly title and then expound on your criticism of a leading presidential candidate vis-a-vis the military, weaving that criticism into the very topic of the lecture you are to give to the military. The same would be true if the politician was Biden, Harris or anyone else. The military needs to stay a 10 foot pole away from politics. The alternative is incredibly dangerous.
The military can't stay away from politics. They're deeply embedded in the heart of American politics and to paraphrase clausewitz, war itself is politics by other means. Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?
The military needs to be acutely aware the delicate politicsl balance their role requires. I don't see how you can do that without open discussions of politics.
> Do you think Vietnam and the Iraqi war can be divorced from the political discussions that surrounded them?
Of course not, and that's not what they meant.
The point is, those very important political discussions are left to civilians, and the military does what civilians decide. That is fundamental to democracy; without it, you have military dictatorship.
You are talking past each other. GP is using politics in the "what is happening right now with specific players sense". You are talking about politics in "everything since Cicero with generality" sense. Both of you are correct. Military needs needs to stay out of the former and be aware of the latter.
Readit News
That’s not the first time it happens. It’s always fine if they do it, but terrible if the other side does.
The whole point of these kinds of lectures and discussions are to spark debates and conversations among decisionmakers.
It is especially ironic because Ben-Ghiat's research is explicitly about that - political meddling in military administration lead to degraded institutional capacity.
Look at 10/7 in Israel or Russia's fiasco in Ukraine - both are examples of how military and intelligence capacity can be degraded by political meddling.
This is exactly wrong. Legislators are supposed to intervene when an executive department comes dangerously close to breaking the law. This is doubly so for the military (Congress holds hearings on military action all the time, must authorize nonwar military action beyond 90 days, has special, stricter rules for military appropriations, etc.).
In this specific case, the idea that the US military academies are "autonomous" from Congress is kind of an unserious argument (or, at best misinformed). To get a seat as a student you must get a letter of recommendation from a sitting legislator. All of the generals and admirals, including those in charge of the institutions are required to be nominated and confirmed by the US Congress before they take their positions.
The USNA is a military institution, but a significant portion of their faculty are civilians as well.
This is why this is an egregious abuse of power.
The press release claims that the org sharply criticized but did not provide any evidence that actually occurred. Did they do this via a text message, visit offices or what?
>>> Jonathan Friedman, Sy Syms director of PEN America’s U.S. Free Expression programs, said:
“The irony cannot be lost here: government officials have used their positions to muscle out a scholar of authoritarianism from a prestigious lecture," <<<
Let me state the "quiet part" of the Naval Academy's mission out loud: It aspires to train the Services' future admirals and generals. It is not a vocational school, nor is it really a college. It's something else.
It strikes me that the relationship between flag-rank officers and their civilian (political) leaders is fair game.
Having said that, the selection of this speaker is edgy. But it's the timing of the event that I think puts it in the bad-judgement-or-worse category. We used to call this "poor headwork."
My recommendation would have been to postpone the event until next year, and then reexamine the issue more closely. And to do all of the above quietly.
I guess what I am saying is that you probably should not be surprised when some will eventually say 'what is good for the goose'. I am personally not there yet, but I assure you it is a tempting position to take..
And this is before we ignore the background of potential ww3, normal election cycle tension and unusual, but very potent, vibes of potential civil war.
So... cool it with the US right, because you yourself are not helping. At all. More than that. You are actively making things worse. Good job?
"Both sides are bad" is simply untrue. One side is definitely categorically worse.
""" -The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -
I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. """
I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
This was, pretty plainly I think, meant to be note separate from the subject matter of the article whose title you found objectionable.
- The Real Reason Donald Trump Insults the U.S. Military -
I am pleased to announce that I will be giving the Bancroft Lecture at the U.S. Naval Academy on Oct. 10. This lecture is not open to the public. I will be speaking about what happens to militaries under authoritarian rule, touching on Fascist Italy, Pinochet's Chile and the Russian military during the war on Ukraine.
_______________
That brings us to today's post, on why Donald Trump insults the military. ... Why does he do it? His authoritarian character, desire to destroy democratic values and ideals, and loyalty to autocrats who see the powerful U.S. military as an obstacle to their geopolitical aims.
I can see both sides of the argument on cancellation, but it's frankly idiotic to announce your lecture to the Naval Academy in an essay you directly title and then expound on your criticism of a leading presidential candidate vis-a-vis the military, weaving that criticism into the very topic of the lecture you are to give to the military. The same would be true if the politician was Biden, Harris or anyone else. The military needs to stay a 10 foot pole away from politics. The alternative is incredibly dangerous.
https://lucid.substack.com/p/the-real-reason-donald-trump-in...
The military needs to be acutely aware the delicate politicsl balance their role requires. I don't see how you can do that without open discussions of politics.
Of course not, and that's not what they meant.
The point is, those very important political discussions are left to civilians, and the military does what civilians decide. That is fundamental to democracy; without it, you have military dictatorship.