Let's be blunt. At the time -and perhaps today - Hayden wanted the Communist FMLN to come to power in El Salvador through force of arms.
And not just over the fascistic, oligarchical, military junta but also over the democratic regime that succeeded it. Hayden's political activism at the time was intended to prevent the U.S. from providing the El Salvadoran government with military aid and to thereby smooth the path of the FMLN to victory and a Marxist dictatorship.
Hayden has a lot of apprehensions, I'm sure, about American COIN practices but I'm rather skeptical that a genuine concern for human rights or casualties overrides his longstanding political sympathies for the hard Left.
Helping to ensure that international humanitarian law is fully embraced in military doctrine will contribute to human rights protection
Yes, as we saw at Abu Ghraib, Haditha or in the targeting of hospitals and hotels.
Having interacted with army officers in graduate school in various seminars, as I am sure Rodger did, I don't think we should underestimate the degree to which civilians can influence the military. Since we cannot do without a military, I for one, am re-assured that Sewall at least has a seat at the table.
Though I can't agree with zenpundit's characterization of Hayden's politics (re-read the Port Huron Statement), Hayden does seem to have overreacted somewhat to S.Sewall's role in the manual. His main concern would appear to be the legitimating effect of her participation (see, on this general issue, the comments sparked by the post "Expert Advice"). But as Rodger says, Sewall's quoted response seems fairly reasonable. She is not doing anything very different from what, I'm sure, other people at the Kennedy School do, and it borders on the laughable for Hayden to imply that she is compromising the independence of an institution which otherwise has little to do with the government or the military.
Commenting by HaloScan.com
