Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Admiral Mullen has written an open letter to all military personnel in an upcoming issue of Joint Forces Quarterly that reiterates the military's ban on servicemember participation in partisan politics. Apparently Adm. Mullen is concerned that the military will be drawn into the high stakes debate over the direction our nation is taking in the war in Iraq as we move closer to electing a new Commander-in-Chief.

Adm. Mullen suggests that the former-officers-turned-pundits who have publicly criticized the war and the Administration's handling of it have created an atmosphere of uncertainty among lower ranking (and still serving) officers and enlisted personnel. I suspect, however, that the questions being posed to the Admiral as he meets with servicemembers in the combat theater (about our presence in Iraq) would have been asked regardless of the political commentary of these officers. Many of these servicemembers, mostly Marines and soldiers, have served multiple tours (and if they are soldiers, served tours lasting 12 to 15 months straight).

Maybe it is just me, but I am guessing that after five years in Iraq and six years in Afghanistan and a lot of talk about Iran (and now we are possibly bombing Somalia), these servicemembers might have been inspired to talk to the Admiral about the future of the military (and thus their own futures as well as their families') without any prompting from General X on CNN. Admiral Mullen further states that the ideal is for the military to be above politics; i.e., "politically neutral." Is that even possible now? Can our servicemembers remove themselves from a debate as contentious as this based upon an order, a directive, a ban? Particularly when it appears that the military has been fairly political for a while now. Consider the Pentagon's activities.

While some former Generals came out speaking against the Administration's management of the war in Iraq, several dozen retired military officers were wooed and given special access to high level Pentagon officials in return for acting as "message force multipliers" on the television and radio. Additionally, many of these officers had undisclosed business relationships with companies seeking defense contracts. The New York Times only recently reported the suspension of the program (which was initiated in 2002) pending an internal investigation at the request of Congress. Or consider the Commander's actions.

General Petraeus wrote a September 2004 Washington Post op-ed in support of the war in Iraq. Shortly thereafter he rose in President Bush's esteem and replaced General Casey as the Commander of the multinational forces in Iraq. (Of course, General Casey opposed the President's surge, as did the entire Joint Chiefs of Staff.) Knowing the fate of those who went before him, former U.S. Central Command Chief Admiral William Fox Fallon submitted his resignation (presumably, preemptively) after speaking out in a revealing interview with Esquire magazine calling for greater military restraint and increased diplomatic engagement in the region.

The above is a classic example of "do as I say not as I do." Troops on the ground cannot speak out but Commanders can (at their own peril, evidently). The institution can propagandize but the individuals cannot. Contrary to what you might expect, I actually agree with the Admiral's letter. Ideally, the military should be apolitical. Unfortunately, I don't believe that it is. And I don't know that a letter is going to change that.