A General Reluctance: Who Should be Speaking Out

 Last night, I got into a number of similar conversations about whether it is a good thing to have the former Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Mark Milley out in front, criticizing Trump as a danger to American democracy and a danger to the world.  Many pro-Harris folks were most upset when I took the standard stand of civil-military relations scholars (not all agree, of course) that the military folks, retired or active, should not be taking a partisan stand.  Many of us make a distinction between the military as a political actor and the military as a partisan actor.  For those who are not on bluesky or who had better things to do on a Friday night, let me go through some of this.

Before I get started, a caveat: while I have been studying civil-military relations for about half of my career now, my focus has been on the analytical questions--why civilians manage the military in a particular way, why there is less oversight than expected--and not the normative questions of should or should not.  However, as I teach it and as I talk about it within the civ-mil community, the normative questions of what proper civil-military relations, how best for civilians to control the military, always come up.  So, here I am.

Ok, to the issue at hand, folks were arguing that the threat of another Trump administration is so catastrophic that we shouldn't let concerns about norms about appropriate behavior constrain Milley or his ilk from speaking out.  We need to defend democracy as much as we can, they say.  That it is the duty of military officers, retired and sworn, to do this.  While I concur that Trump 2.0 would be catastrophic, my basic take is that the armed forces in a democracy have not just one duty at play here but two--to defend the political system and to stay out of partisan politics.  We need to take quite seriously what happens when the military becomes a partisan actor, putting its weight on the scales of an election.

There are lots of ways to talk through this so let me just hit on a few.  Again, the juxtaposition is not between the threat to democracy and some vague norms about the proper role of the military but between one way democracy dies and another.  Democratic backsliding can be caused by an awful autocratic-minded corrupt politician seeking to get into power, but it can also be caused by the military helping to determine elections.  In 2000, when it was Gore v Bush in a contested election, few, if any, folks were looking to the military to settle the situation.  

What do we mean by the military becoming a partisan actor?  And what is the impact?  To be clear, the whole idea that the military is not political is an old and dumb idea--as any government agency, any actor making decisions that affect the public and the national interest, whatever it does has political ramifications.  As Risa Brooks argues in her 2020 International Security piece, our generals and admirals need to be aware of the politics of their actions and inactions and of the situations the military may be thrust into at home and abroad. Advocating for a particular strategy or against a particular deployment is political, and yes, military leaders should in private advocate for what they think is in the best interest of their country (see Eliot Cohen).  

What is partisan?  Doing stuff that favors one set of parties or politicians at the expense of another. Advocating publicly for a position, say, gays should not serve in the military or the military should only intervene in certain circumstances, cross the line into partisanship especially when one party has a distinct position from another.  Colin Powell was actually very crappy, despite all of the respect he had accumulated, in terms of keeping the military out of partisan politics as he wrote op-eds on both of those issues while Chairman, constraining the Clinton Administration.  Advocating for specific politicians is even more clearly partisan--it is the definition.  And we have seen it with retired officers supporting Trump and Clinton on the convention stage in 2016.  We have seen it in Canada with retired LTG Michel Maisonneuve taking the Conservative Party convention's stage last year (Canada's civ-mil norms are not as clear but they should be).  

Why should we care? If the senior leadership of the military takes partisan stances, politicians will notice, the public will notice, and their subordinates will notice.  Politicians will then be suspicious of generals who are seen as being on the wrong side, so their advice will be denigrated or ignored, which then means the civilian leadership will make worse decisions about all things military.  They may try to suss out who is on their party's side, leading to the selection of generals and admirals based on political affiliation, not on merit.  That is how authoritarian regimes do it much of the time, leading to defeat (see Talmadge, among others).  If the public notices, that will affect who joins the military.  The US military's personnel is not entirely Conservative--it is more diverse than people think.  In many ways, the US military is one of most diverse group of employees.  Certainly, the Pentagon was the most diverse place I worked.  But that would change, as potential recruits will see joining the military as a partisan choice, not as an act of national service.  What happens to unit cohesion in the military if the officers are seen as partisan?

It is bad for the military to be a partisan actor to be seen as a partisan actor.  It is also bad for democracy, as political outcomes are supposed to be shaped by voters, not the group with the guns.  I won't get into that because I think it is pretty obvious.

People pushed back in all kinds of ways.  Hey, Milley is retired and he has a right to free speech.  He has a right but he has a responsibility not to speak.  Why?  It is well known that retired officers are seen as speaking for the active military who can't speak for themselves.   Some Chairmen have pushed hard against retired officers speaking out--Dempsey and Mullen were most outspoken about this. Yes, Mullen ultimately spoke out against Trump.  Here's a good piece about the reasons why GOFOs do this despite understanding the norms.  Anyhow, being a former senior officer comes with responsibilities that go on past one's time in uniform because they will always be seen as being in uniform.  James Mattis is still referred to as General Mattis even though he served as Secretary of Defence.  I'd want him to speak out against Trump as Secretary Mattis, not as General Mattis, but we probably don't have to worry about that.  

Folks argue that we need the military to take a stand since that will get more attention than anyone else.  We have overvalorized the military enough--that it is the most respected institution in most democracies and quite so in the US.  It is clear that one reason why is because it stays out of partisan politics--most of the other institutions are more directly implicated in the divisiveness of partisan politics.  People don't seem to care that getting involved will do damage to this (some damage has already been done--see the work by Burbach, Feaver, and Robinson to name a few).  My point here is partly--we are already breaking our democracy by putting the military before the civilians, let's not do it further.  I actually don't mind if the military loses a chunk of its popularity since I don't think it is healthy for democracy to have the most authoritarian institution be seen as the epitome of the good.

Is having the military enter partisan politics worth it?  On the one side, folks will say, hell, yes, Trump is that awful (and, yes, I agree again, he is very awful).  On the other side, one could wonder if it will move the need enough to sell out the soul of the military.  That is, will Milley speaking out move many voters that wouldn't be moved by having lots and lots of Republican civilian national security folks speak out?  I am skeptical enough of Milley's influence (he is not a household name like Powell) that I just don't think it is worth the sacrifice.  

Folks will argue that the egg has been broken, no putting it back together again as Milley has stepped across that line several times--leaking to Woodward while he was still Chairman, his retirement speech is now featured in Harris ads, and now yet more conversations with Woodward (He might be a really bad person to be the one doing all of this since it could be perceived he is doing this to redeem himself for walking beside Trump at Lafayette Park during the George Floyd protests).  The reality is that most people are not really paying that much attention to this, but if he or someone like him started doing the rounds in the media, it would do a great deal of damage.  

And the key is: once you rip a norm to tatters, it is hard to undo the damage.  The US military has been staying out of partisan politics for the most part for a long time with norm violations along the way.  To actively put its thumb on the scale now can't be undone.  If Harris wins, that damage will haunt her administration and the succeeding ones.

And if Trump wins, I'd like for the military to have stayed out of politics so that when it is asked to something truly awful, such as participate in mass deportation, either its leaders resist at that moment or it is then seen as shocking and awful that the military is becoming a partisan tool.  I would rather that any political capital the military has be saved for when it is directly involved in something that could be its business--the deployment of force.  No, that does not mean I have 100% confidence the military will resist at that moment, but I would want it to have as much heft as possible at that moment if it came to that.

That's a lot to write on a Saturday morning when I have student grant applications to review and you have much to do instead of reading this.  But feel free to comment. 

 

Participant-Observer Methodology Strikes Again: Appearing before Canada's Defence Committee

 Today, I got stretched pretty good, as I was asked to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.  The focus was supposed to be the Baltics/Ukraine security situation, but I ended up helping to, um, expand the conversation.  I was on with two sharp people who are far more knowledgeable about Ukraine and Baltic security stuff, so I made that clear at the top of my initial statement.

Because dropbox no longer lets one share files easily, I will just summarize my opening statement: lots of uncertainty, much hinging on the US election (which had the effect of derailing the conversation a bit, I think), that Canada is contributing to NATO via the mission in Latvia, that it is no longer doing the air patrolling stuff, that my civ-mil hat is causing me to ponder how is Zelensky managing his military and how likely is it for the Russian military to mutiny.

The committee was smart to keep the regional questions aimed at my colleagues.  Marta Kepe of RAND spoke about hybrid warfare and other unconventional threats facing the Baltics.  Arel was quite critical of the lack of political will on the part of the west in general in not supporting Ukraine earlier and letting its fear of escalation inhibit support now.  I found myself agreeing with them on pretty much everything they said except for that political will stuff.  The Q&A ran for nearly 2 hours with each MP getting somewhere between 1 and 5 minutes to ask questions (the MPs from the NPQ and Block got 1 minute each--smaller parties get less time).  

The first question to me was by Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant asked about very specific drone capabilities and why don't we have more systems to combat higher level air threats.  My response focused on the fact that our allies have anti-aircraft capabilities to help us, and that the drone procurement thing is happening.  I forget when I mentioned that there had been opposition to weaponized drones a while back because of concerns about their being used to assassinate individuals, but that the Ukraine war has shown us of the importance on a conventional battlefield.

The second question to be was by Christine Normandin of the Bloc, who is one of the Vice Chairs of the committee--wouldn't Poland paying more than 2% of its GDP on defense insure that Trump would still respond to an attack on Poland?  Nope, that Trump couldn't be counted on for anything like that given his hostility to NATO and his positive attitude towards Russia/Putin.

The next question to me was from the NDP's Lindsay Mathyssen about the links between the far right and Russia, and I, well, really went to town on that one--mentioning their joint interest in eroding trust in democratic institutions, their weaponization of all kinds of hate (transphobia, misogyny, racism, xenophobia, anti-semitism, Islamophobia) to divide democracies, and their joint fondness for autocracy.  I didn't mention DeSantis by name, but I did link Orban to all of this.  This got picked up by some far right media folks so here's the video of that sequence.

Conservative Don Stewart pushed again on drones--whether it would be right to train our troops on them before shipping them out to our troops in Latvia and why we don't have so many.  I mentioned the procurement challenges, here or later, including the fact that with everybody wanting to buy drones, there is a supply problem.

Liberal Emmanuella Lambropoulous asked a question of Arel that she then directed to me--why support Ukraine?  In addition to the stuff Arel mentioned, I pointed out that our inflation was partly caused by the commodity shock of Russia invading Ukraine's grain growing area.  I also mentioned our commitment to NATO, and this is a war that directly implicates NATO.

Normandin asked again about Trump, and I forgot if I said much different from the first time.

Liberal Marcus Powlowski asked about a reference I mad to Russian soldiers mutinying.  I said that what we know from civ-mil is not that we can pinpoint when one might happen, but the reckless disregard for the welfare of Russian troops might lead to units munitying.  He asked for evidence, and I had none except stories of individual soldiers attacking superior officers.  That time was not necessarily on Russia's side.

Conservative Vice Chair James Bezan asked about whether we should have sent some of the LAVs to Ukraine earlier, and I basically said yes.  

Liberal Chad Collins asked a long question about disinformation, which followed up from my previous answer about democratic institutions and the far right.  Either here or before, I pointed out that across the democracies, a key for preventing the rise of the far right is for right-wing parties to oppose them. 

My notes deteriorate from there.  We were asked about Ukraine and membership in NATO--I pointed out that won't happen until the war is over, as admitting a member mid-war is essentially NATO declaring war.  I was then asked if Ukraine could become a member if Trump was President, and I reminded folks that NATO operates by consensus, and Trump, having been impeached the first time for trying to extort Ukraine, would probably not support membership for Ukraine.

One can find the video online to get the whole hearing--the other two folks were super sharp and I learned much for them.

Did I tell the parliamentarians that my next book, with Phil and Dave, compares defence committees around world and found that the Canadian version was deliberately irrelevant?  No.  I will save that for the book launch.  I was very conscious that all parties were trying to play me and the others into giving them the soundbites that they wanted.  Perhaps I am biased, but the Conservatives seemed the most consistent, focusing on a particular message--that the Liberals are responsible for the CAF being under-equipped--which is not wrong, but I didn't want to get pinned down to say this was a uniquely Liberal problem--the Conservatives helped to get us here as well.  I probably gave the Liberals and the NDP the soundbites they wanted, but I did sense that there was a bit more genuine interest in the stuff and a bit less ruthless focus on point scoring.  As I said, I might be more aware of the stuff on the right than on the left.

I was asked by someone later whether this was stressful or whether I was frustrated.   Nope, this was fun--talking about this stuff is what I like to do, and talking to a committee that is, um, sort of responsible for this stuff is still cool even if I am a critic of how it does its business.

 

The State of Canadian Politics

 The drama down south has captivated not just Americans but Canadians.  But the good news is that the shitshow up north is going to grab some of that attention back.  The latest is that the left-wing party, the New Democrats, led by Jagmeet Singh, has ended its deal with the Liberals for no apparent reason and is now, yes, opposing basic climate change policy.  I really don't know how Singh got to lead a party with such poor political instincts.  

The Liberals are just freaking tired.  Nine years of Trudeau--he had ample opportunity to step down gracefully so that someone else could provide new energy to the party.  He is much younger than Joe Biden and far less decisive.  I think he suffers from a similar syndrome.  Just as Biden thought he was the only and best Trump-slayer, Trudeau thinks that he is the best one to defeat Pierre Poilievre.  The current polls suggest otherwise, Justin.  And the big news within the party is for Mark Carney, former bank governor both in Canada and UK (wtf?), is vying to be the next leader?  Yuck.  Not sure who I would favor, but not someone who hasn't really practiced competitive electoral politics.

What is a voter to do?  Damned if I know.  I had a fun conversation last night as the Conservative candidate in my riding seeking to unseat the Liberal incumbent was doing door-to-door campaigning.  She asked if I might vote for her.  Not if Pierre P is her leader.  Why?  I could have gone in many directions and kind of did so, but I focused in part on the incitement of trans hatred, I talked a bit about the Conservatives undermining NSICOP--the effort to provide some oversight over intel services ... about which she knew not, and I talked about Pierre's hugging of the people who blocked downtown Ottawa for weeks abusing the folks in or passing through the neighborhood.  I didn't even get into his platforming far right, resentful retired generals who complain about a woke military.

I really wish the left and the right would provide decent alternatives to the Liberals.  But they don't.  Democracy requires alternation and the threat of alternation so that even long-lasting incumbent parties act as if they are accountable to the public.  

All I know is that we are likely to get a majority Conservative government at this rate, which will test how sincere Poilievre is.  Given that I think he is the Ted Cruz of Canada, I don't think he cares about much except power. But what he does to get there and stay there is probably not going to be good.  In short, we be fucked.

APSA-ing as a Senior Scholar

Philly convention center

 If I had any doubts about my status as a "senior scholar," they were dispelled this week.  I was at the American Political Science Association meeting, and a grad student came up to me and said he was "professor x's last student."  The professor x in this case is not a telepathic leader of a school for mutants, but just a sharp woman whose stuff I read long ago, who I viewed as one of the group of hotshots that were one generation ahead of me.   Yep, she's retiring.  So, it is not just the folks who were senior scholars long ago, but everybody between me and them (well, except those folks who never retire).  

So, yeah, more conversations this time about when my friends plan to retire, when I plan, and all that.  Our jobs are pretty sweet compared to those elsewhere, so many folks do like to hang on for a while.  I will not be one of those, as I have already determined to step down after 20 years at Carleton, which means eight more years.  I might attend conferences to see friends and to keep learning, to keep engaging my curiosity, which is why I got in this business in the first place.  But I won't be teaching (mainly, I won't be grading), I won't be reviewing manuscripts for journals and presses, and I won't be submitting myself to the whims of reviewers.

Anyhow, over the past fifteen years (yes, the Semi-Spew is that old), I have gotten in the habit of posting my reactions to various conferences (including the APSA in Philly eight years ago).  This APSA as the first normal once since Covid.  Last year's post-covid (as if covid is gone, nope) APSA conference was a shell of itself as a hotel strike deterred many folks from attending.  

However, it was not so normal for me as it was my first real trip to Philly since my mother passed away last May.  I am so familiar with this part of the city as my mother lived near by, and we almost always stayed at this hotel next to the convention center and the Reading Terminal Market.  So, I knew where to go for great bagels, excellent french toast, cheesesteaks, and all the rest.  And I did spend some time at my mom's place, as I went through stuff with my eldest sibling--what jewelry made sense for my wife and such.  Oh, I hosted the regular APSA poker game at my mom's apartment since it had an excellent table and we were unlikely to attract hotel security.

The conference itself was the usual mix of panels and meetings.  Bluesky has replaced twitter as my way of meeting new people--an excellent ice breaker.  So, I had many coffees and a few beers with both old friends and new acquaintances and learned what they were up to.  I had a few meetings that were part of the CDSN 2.0 grant application preparation.  JC Boucher and I presented a paper (co-written with Charlotte Duval-Lantoine and Lynne Gouliquer) on whether discrimination against historically excluded groups affects public attitudes towards the Canadian military.  Yes, it does and people care more about discrimination against some groups than others.  We got some good feedback and learned much from the other panelists and their cool projects.  I went to a couple of other panels to learn what folks are doing in civ-mil these days and to learn more about the Ukraine war as I have an appointment in two weeks to testify before the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence.

Carrie and Max at the civ-mil table

I organized a civ-mil hangout at a bar near the convention center, and it went very well.  The civ-mil community is full of sharp, fun, sweet people, so it is always great to get together. As the old guy at the table and as the old guy on the panels, I appreciate so much how great it is to hang out with younger, livelier, more creative folks.  As I indicated above, I might crash post-retirement APSA's and ISA's as I get energized every time I go.  

Dani and Alexandra at the civ-mil hangout

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

A big highlight was a reception at a local Irish bar celebrating three UCSD profs getting lifetime achievement awards.  I got to see some friends from long ago as well as meet some of the folks who went through the place after me.  I am so grateful for lucking into that place--it was and is a terrific community of sharp, sweet, generous, silly people.

Fun sign at the last place I had dinner

City hall is pretty at night

Interesting mural on the way to a steak place

A very good steak sandwich, just wished
they had pizza sauce.

Great way to finish up APSA is dining with JC and Sara

Fried oreos were amazing!

Priced In Means What?

 Trump's debacle at Arlington National Cemetery.  Wow.  So, the question is whether it moves the needle or not.  I argued on bluesky:

The basic idea is that we all know that Trump is a thoroughly awful human being, and what I mean by priced in is that either one hates him and will vote against him (if one turns out) or one doesn't care/doesn't believe/loves him and vote for him (if one turns out).  We have plenty of evidence that accumulates on a daily basis.  How much more can folks with some sense of decency be repulsed by this guy?  Those who want him in power because they resent (insert group here) don't care or don't believe the crap that he does.  Or maybe they don't see it because of Fox blindness or whatever bubble they live in. 

The best counter-point I got (thanks, Marcy) is that the newer voters don't know about this stuff--they were 10 years old in 2016.  Fair point.  And the media keeps treating Trump like a new candidate rather than focusing on what he did as President--risking wars, appointing perjurious SCOTUS justices who ditched Roe v Wade, engaged in all kinds of corruption and abuse of power (remember that first impeachment trial), Muslim ban, etc. So, yes, new news about Trump's current depraved behavior may resonate some among younger voters.  

But then again, usually, there aren't that many younger voters, and they aren't the ones talking to us on social media.  So, my comments about priced in largely target most voters--that their preferences will not be altered.  Either you want democracy and personal freedom or you want power and graft.  Or one has so thoroughly been radicalized that no proof will shake their faith in Trump.  I also recognize that much of the media is invested in keeping Trump alive in this race. 

Of course, the margins may matter in this election (I am starting to think this election may not be so close--a post for another day). So additional offensive behavior, such as shitting on veterans and those who lost their lives fighting America's wars, may move the needle just a smidge and that might make all the difference. 

Will new outbursts of Trump's racism and misogyny and homophobia (he is increasing his trans bullshit) and Vance's history of abhorrent statements dripping out each day matter?  I really do hope so.  I am just so tired of all of this, and I recognize that the polarization of our times means that most people have already decided who they are going to vote for now that, well, Biden is out of the way. I hope the sharpness of the Dem campaign matters, and I hope the incompetence of the Trump campaign matters.  

Can anything happen now to shake up the race?  A bad debate performance by Harris?  Probably not as much as Biden's because it won't confirm people's fears about her being unqualified for office.  Would a Trump disaster at a debate matter?  Maybe as it could cause a cascade of people losing faith?  One of the key things Trump has got going for him is his continued menace--that people are afraid to stand up to him because his supporters engage in political violence.  Maybe if Trump displays his dementia at the debate, it might cause the rats to leave the sinking ship.  But I doubt it because cognitive closure remains pretty powerful.  People hate admitting they are wrong (except me, I admit I am wrong all the time).  So, again, I am not sure anything can happen that will shake things up unless the FBI announces they are investigating Harris a week before the election.  Of course, they would never do that....

And, yet, despite how much I think all of this is already set, I follow the Harris/Walz campaign, I think their social media game is good (I thought the same of Hillary's... oy), and I applaud friends and relatives who are knocking on doors, sending postcards, making calls.  This is inconsistent, but then why shouldn't I embrace the moment, just as "Christians" keep supporting a twice-divorced, philandering, grifting gambler.

To sum up, it comes down to this, ultimately.  Either you believe another Trump term will be catastrophic or you want him to use the power of the state to oppress large swaths of the American people.  So, how much will assaulting staff at Arlington move the needle?