On 5 October, the U.S. Naval Institute hosted a conference on military and politics. Many truly expert panelist opinions led us to conclude that no easy consensus exists for the proper relationship or involvement of military voices within politics. They fit together: Carl von Clausewitz defined war as an extension of political efforts. However, the confluence is fraught with danger. Continued discussion and debate will yield the best result of understanding the pol-mil dynamic and its hazards.
Citing various Pew and Gallup polls since 2009, public opinion overwhelmingly supports our military with 72 percent to 84 percent approval, higher than any other segment of society. With that trust comes implicit support for military opinions and policy backing. That should scare us. Military opinions are just as diverse and sometimes as uninformed as the rest of society. Yet society places great stock in military endorsements from political candidates to policy. The Atlantic recently stated, “Both political parties line up presidential endorsements from retired generals and admirals—whose opinion is meant to count for more than that of the civilian—every four years in a kind of quadrennial political arms race.”
The Presidents’ Proxies
Thirty-two of the 44 men who have served as U.S. President have had U.S. military experience in uniform or by civilian appointment. Including state governors as commanders-in-chief of their respective National Guard/militia, 2009-present produced the least militarily experienced presidents since Herbert Hoover (1929-33). Inexperienced political leaders necessarily rely more heavily on gaining their military bona fides by proxy.
In the current geopolitical climate, as clearly laid out by two speakers during the conference, retired former Joint Chiefs Chairman Admiral Mike Mullen and former Secretary of State General Colin Powell, this makes it easier for a President to use military options, correctly or incorrectly. In a panel moderated by Bob Woodward, General Powell stated that the pol-mil confluence has lowered the bar too far in recognizing the “threshold of the cost of going to war.” Admiral Mullen stated that this situation makes it “too easy to go to war.”
Civilian control of the military prevents the United States from becoming a military dictatorship. The President serves as the commander-in-chief of the armed forces, yet no prerequisite of military service exists, nor should it. However, it begs the question: how little experience is too little and what role should appointed (and easily dismissed) military veterans play in complementing a lack of experience? Civilian control is critical to our democracy but perhaps more dangerous without military experience.
Military Voices
This separation and distinction between military and political roles is foundational in the framework of our nation. Active duty military personnel often serve as advisors and political liaisons. They should do that well. Should they be permitted a more public voice? Veterans and retired service members frequently contribute to the national discourse in very public venues. In many cases, military “experts” and pundits remain far removed from the details and information required to make an informed opinion. On the other hand, silence from a high-ranking military official that supports a particular politician signals endorsement of policy and military decisions.
Once political opinions are voiced or expressed, there is no turning back. With political tensions at the highest in our lifetimes, potential exists to further widen the divide. Expressing political opinions takes many forms; it could be as innocent as a politically charged bumper sticker, or in the age of social media, an inconsiderate tweet or Facebook post.
Military service does not mean giving up First Amendment rights. However, sharing political opinions could harm relationships and lead to mistrust or destroy cohesiveness where lives depend on a higher standard. Conversely, military leaders have the obligation to lead when politicians appear at odds with good discipline. Take, for example the superintendent of the Air Force Academy voicing his stance on racism while the “both sides” situation in Charlottesville played out in public.
The most conservative conclusion is that active-duty military members should remain silent and resign quietly if they disagree with the political leaders they must lawfully obey. Veterans interested in voicing their positions should consider an active role in politics to make clear that they do not speak as military proxies for any party or leader. Regardless of the reader’s opinion, this conversation must keep going for us to remain vigilant regarding the pros and cons on both sides.
==================================================================
The quotes were deliver at the USNI 2017 History Conference “Politics and the Military: Proper Participation or Perilous Partisanship?” Annapolis, MD, 5 October 2017.
