DATE: Thursday, November 20, 1997           TAG: 9711200007

SECTION: LOCAL                   PAGE: B10  EDITION: FINAL 

TYPE: Editorial 

                                            LENGTH:   60 lines

MILITARY LISTER LEAVES

Intemperate speech has been the downfall of many. Marge Schott, Earl Butz and Jimmy the Greek come to mind.

The latest offender is the now-former Assistant Secretary of the Army Sara E. Lister, who was in the news last week for her stinging remarks about the U.S. Marine Corps.

``I think the Army is much more connected to society than the Marines are,'' she declared during a recent Harvard-sponsored seminar. ``The Marines are extremists. Whenever you have extremists, you have some risks of total disconnection with society. And that's a little dangerous.''

What's even more dangerous is for one of the top civilians at the Pentagon to blurt out such derogatory remarks about another branch of the military. What was Lister thinking?

Forget the fact that some in society do regard the Marines as extremists, or that the Marine Corps itself carefully cultivates an image of a super-loyal brotherhood of inscrutable warriors. Speaking ill of another branch of the Armed Forces, simply isn't done by a government official. At least not in public, and particularly not when the country is staring down a common enemy, namely Saddam Hussein. Doing so at a Harvard seminar invites derision.

Ever since the invasion of Grenada, when bothersome technical glitches kept the branches of the military from working smoothly together, there has been a concerted effort to achieve interservice cooperation and coordination.

Lister's remarks did nothing to further that work.

And, so, she did the right thing - resigned - before political grandstanders on Capitol Hill could get her fired. She had no choice. (She was due to retire in a few weeks anyway.)

Ironically, Lister's comments coincide with the release of a study prepared by a Duke University political scientist who contends that the American military is more conservative than ever and that top military brass are more openly partisan than before.

According to The Wall Street Journal, the study shows a dramatic shift to the right by senior officers. Gone is the tradition of apolitical military personnel, who shunned politics entirely in favor of soldiering.

According to The Journal, 20 years ago most senior military officers characterized themselves as nonpolitical. Not today. Only a quarter of those polled claimed to be nonpartisan.

Even more striking is the disappearance of liberals from the upper echelons of the military. In 1976, the ratio of conservatives to liberals in the military was 4 to 1. Now, according to the poll, conservatives outnumber liberals 23 to 1, with only 3 percent of senior military officers describing themselves as ``somewhat liberal.''

The Journal reports that among the civilian elite, 27 percent consider themselves somewhat liberal.

The trend toward a more political military is a cause for concern. The dual traditions of civilian control of the military and an abstinence from political partisanship by those in uniform have served this country well. A politicized military has proved a danger in one society after another.

But conservative or liberal, Army or Marine Corps, it is essential that members of the various branches of the military work together in an atmosphere of mutual respect. Lister undermined that spirit of cooperation with her remarks, and she had to go.

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu