The Military and Partisan Politics – a Dangerous Stew
On December 28, 1783, George Washington resigned his military commission to Congress and returned to private life, highlighting and strengthening the subordination of military to civilian rule that guided his service as commander of the Continental Army. Throughout American history, civilian control of the military and keeping the military out of partisan politics have been bedrock principles. They are critical to democratic governance, both to keep the military in check in a nation founded on the fear of standing armies and to preserve its nonpartisan nature – both essential to fostering the public’s trust in its armed forces.
In this context the report in Peril by Bob Woodward and Robert Costa about the behavior of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, Gen. Mark Millley just before the transfer of power to incoming president Joe Biden raises troubling questions. According to their account, Milley told his Chinese military counterpart he would alert him in advance if President Trump was preparing to launch military action, possibly as a way to maintain power.
Some call for Milley to be fired for insubordination. Others praise him for putting the morality of avoiding an unjust war above loyalty to his civilian boss. That this situation occurred and that both points of view have adherents is sobering. We need a military that sticks to its Constitutional role and we need civilian leaders who avoid putting the armed forces in partisan political situations that test their fidelity to the chain of command. When that chain is corrupted, it sows confusion and political dissension in the ranks, domestic turmoil, worry among foreign friends and potentially disastrous miscalculation by adversaries.
The use of torture on detainees after 9/11, the use of American warships for presidential photo-ops (Bush’s “Mission Accomplished” speech), Milley’s accompanying President Trump to a photo-op after Lafayette Square was cleared of protestors and the use of troops on the southern border all put those in uniform in partisan political situations.
Steve Katz, an Army War College student, explored chain of command dilemmas facing military leaders through an anonymous survey, responded to by 221 senior officers (the pipeline for future generals). He presented scenarios that could challenge their fidelity to political leadership. Significant percentages said they would be likely or very likely to resign if ordered to take actions they deemed immoral or unconstitutional (such as detaining U.S. citizens or using the military during civil unrest). His survey also tested what they would do before deciding whether to resign. About two-thirds said they would circumvent the chain-of-command to influence the situation and outcome. Approximately 35 percent, as Katz reported, would ““slow-roll” an immoral order (grinding its implementation to a glacial pace) from within their organization.”
In an ideal world, military leaders would not be placed in situations that pit moral principles and fidelity to the Constitution against political pressures. It’s increasingly not an ideal world. When the civilian-military relationship is thus strained, trust within and outside the Department of Defense (DOD) suffers. Given events in recent years, it’s not surprising that the 2021 Ronald Reagan National Defense Survey revealed the percentage of Americans who trust the military “a great deal” fell from 70 to 56 percent between 2018 and 2021.
Clearly, more action is necessary to avoid situations that involve the military in partisan politics. With dozens of political appointees leading DOD, it’s essential that confirmation be reserved for those who meet rigorous professional qualifications and understand their Constitutional role. Political orthodoxy and extreme loyalty to a leader must not be a factor. Congress, for its part, needs to pass legislation curbing the president’s war-making powers beyond their current, overly-flexible limits. As those powers have grown, the potential to misuse them – and cause military leaders to confront such potential misuse - grows too.
At the same time, professional military education needs improvement. This is amply demonstrated by the number of active (and former) military involved in the January 6th attack on the Capitol. As Katz observed for those at high rank: “It is evident that a large share of senior officers believes that strategic decisions, such as when to go to war, how to fight wars, how to end them, as well as how to use the military in a domestic context, can challenge the professional military ethic.” He added, in a passage worth quoting at length:
“Nearly one-third of the officers surveyed said they had not received professional military education on the ethical frameworks required to navigate the morally vexing space of “lawful but awful” orders. And 90 percent of respondents agreed that the military should focus teaching senior officers about differing views of civil-military relations and ethical reasoning.
Specifically, senior military officer education should introduce future generals to morally and legally ambiguous scenarios as well as a more comprehensive survey of civil-military relations frameworks. Senior officers require a more fulsome ethical toolkit . . . to avoid a simple resort to default responses like “I will not follow an illegal order” and “I will support and defend the Constitution.””
Our divided society is putting extreme political pressure on civilian-military relationships. Honoring 233 years of Constitutional history, preserving our democracy and restoring public trust demand we fix this problem.
Photo Credit: Department of Defense
