American Civil-Military Relations Basics: Partisan and Political

 A couple of weeks ago, I got into a running skeet spat because I argued we ought not valorize a military member for protesting the Trump administration while in uniform.  I argued that the US military has long stayed out of politics, and I meant partisan politics, even though it and any govt agency, especially armed ones, are inherently political.

Politics: the basic definition involves the making of decisions affecting the group/society.  Because the military is an arm of government, anything involving it is inherently political even before one invokes Clausewitz's war is politics by other means.

So, yes, the military is always involved in politics.  The use of it, the non-use of it (say on Jan 6th), are political.  Its behavior in the seas off of Venezuela or in the war in Iran are political.

But are they partisan?  Yes, the US military has taken sides in other people's conflicts---supporting the Afghan government against the Taliban, etc, but the US military has almost entirely stayed out of American politics.  Yes, some retired generals ran for office and won (no Admirals, sorry) the Presidency with Ike being the most recent.  Which is not very recent.  The US military has not put its thumb on the scale for any election.

In these dire times, folks were supporting this one officer who publicly protested in uniform.  To be clear, the regulations say he can protest as long as he does not wear his uniform.  Why?  Because, yes, even though this individual is a member of the military, they have the right to free speech.  What they don't have the right to do is make it appear that the military is taking a side in partisan politics.  This officer knew that, knew he was violating the regulations, and will pay a price for that.  This is civil disobedience, which I am normally ok with.  I am not ok with efforts to drag the military into politics, because it is hard to undo.  Yes, Trump is awful, and yes, the military should disobey illegal orders (like firing on civilian boats in the Caribbean), but if we start asking the military to decide who governs, when will that stop?  The best predictor of coups is the history of a country.  The US hasn't had any coups, and that is a major factor helping to prevent coups.  Break that once, and, let's how things go.  And, yes, militaries suck at governing and at engaging in partisan politics.

I finally returned to this conversation due to an incredibly bad argument in a legit outlet (which has also published bad stuff before).  The author is basically saying that the politicization of the military now is nothing new because MacArthur.  And that is just dumb for a number of reasons:

• Mac was an exceptional case where the senior theater commander defied the President on multiple occasions (and, yes, this left the troops on the ground in worse positions)
• This was not a case of the military being dragged into politics (the problem of today) but of a military officer trying to jump into politics (Mac also explored running against FDR in 1944 when he was still commanding troops in the Pacific campaign).  
• Back then, Mac was violating just one big norm. Today, Trump and Hegseth are violating piles of them (the data collection effort continues!) 
• There has been much work of late by civil-military relations scholars directly addressing politicization of the military.  This historian does his best economist imitation and ignores all of it..

To put my cards on the table, I am not an expert on the normative side of civil-military relations--what is a norm violation.  The network I have helped to create, the Civil-Military Relations Network, will be studying both the normative and analytical questions on this topic, but my research agenda is more on the absence or presence of oversight.  So, consult Risa Brooks and Christoph Harig and Pauline Kaurin and the like. But, please don't ask an historian who seems to focus on one event in the 1950s and hasn't considered what has happened since then, either by the US military and the politicians or by the scholars studying this stuff.

Oh, and yes, not all civ-mil folks buy the political/partisan distinction, but I do.   

 

 

NATO issued a six paragraph communique https://www.nato.int/en/about-us/official-texts-and-resources/official-texts/2026/07/08/the-ankara-summit-declaration A big improvement over last year's?  Sure, one para more. 

In the days of yore, I would watch folks at the expert forum side party comb through pages of paragraphs, trying to figure out what the summit addressed usually over 100 issues.  Last year's five para (with one thanking the Dutch hosts) showed that NATO can't come to consensus on much with Trump in the room. 

Let me go through the six, it won't take long.

1.  Usual language about Article 5.  This is entirely empty these days thanks to Trump 2/

There is nothing automatic about A5.  An attack only is an attack if the allies can get consensus.  Trump again demonstrated that while he is around consensus is more than elusive. 

2.  More spending on defense.  This is progress on last year's promise of getting to 3.5% of GDP. 

It does not mean that the alliance agreed to anything new here. But it does reflect less griping about burden sharing. To be clear, Trump will take credit for NATO countries spending more.  And he is right but not in the way he thinks--countries are realizing they will have to fight w/o US

3.  A stronger Europe in NATO.  More language about spending more on defence, modernizing.  Again, does not reflect any new agreement.

4. The Ukraine section: more pledges to give Ukraine money 4 Ukr to invest in its defense and to pay to buy US weapons (US doesn't donate anymore) 5/

Z seems to have done well in his meeting with Trump, but that won't necessarily stick.  I do think that the more Ukraine appears to be winning the war, the more Trump will have a positive attitude.  He always joins the winning side.

5.  The Iran para. No consensus except it would be nice if Iran didn't get nuclear weapons and we'd like to have the strait open. 

6.  The para thanking Turkey.

In sum, the alliance really didn't agree to much, but it survived another Trump summit, so there's that. Maybe summit less often?  ‪Summits are supposed to be like conferences for academics--to force folks to get their work done.  But this summit, like last year's, didn't get NATO members to agree to much. 

NATO has always been a defensive alliance, but the meaning is different now: the threat to its existence is the US.  The allies are trying to keep the alliance intact until the next president, but they have learned that the US will elect every 4-8 years a unilateralist as president (Bush jr, Trump and then Trump again).  Trump does everything he can to erode NATO credibility. 

I keep asking whether NATO is better off with or without the US. With the US, it has capability but little credibility.  W/o the US, it has more credibility but much less capability. 

 So, 3 cheers for the alliance surviving another summit.  And three boos for the tyranny of low expectations.

London Regains The Lead: Fave Capital Again

 I have spent the last week in London, the first time in 14 years and only the second time since my seven week experience after my junior year in college.  I was here for the very first Civil-Military Relations Network workshop (or any other endeavor of our new network/grant), as Phil Lagassé is leading our Command research agenda.  The workshop featured historians and political scientists, so we can check our inter-disciplinary convo item on our goals/aspirations immediately.  The first day featured the historians, and so I learned much about the Romans and medieval military stuff. The second day mostly featured the political scientists. It was a great start for our seven year tour exploring strange old worlds and boldly going where we have sometimes gone before.

And, yes, it was also an excuse for me to enjoy London.  Much has changed since I last was here and much has not.  I had previously ranked London behind DC for my fave capital since everything on and near the Mall is quite spectacular, including the Smithsonian, the various war memorials, and such. But London's Whitehall area is pretty spectacular and hasn't been ruined by the awful pols who have led this place since Brexit.  

One key element was the timing--not so much the fourth of July of it--always interesting to be outside of the US on that date, including #250--but that the big huge Pride day was Saturday.  So, the city had pride flags all over the place, and, yes, many of them included stripes and such for Trans People despite the increased (since 2012) of Harry Potter merch and such.  JK Rowling may have greatly influenced the horrific transphobia of the UK, but she didn't make a dent on Saturday or in the week leading up to it.  I was staying near Trafalgar Square, which was the focal point of the celebration although there were parks all over the place with events.  It was maybe harder to find a shop or pub without a pride decoration than with one... but maybe that is my confirmation bias speaking.

The city was packed before the event and then more so on the day.  Luckily, I was here in between heat waves. I visited some places I had been before and some that were new to me.  I mostly walked since I was so close to many things, and I had an old Oyster card that I could use for a few tube rides.  I also took a boat ride for my very first time (I had a very strict budget way back in 1987).  

So, some highlights and then some observations:

• I spent a lot of time near Covent Garden.  I had some excellent tapas in the garden itself and shopped some of the markets. I didn't stay long to watch the buskers, but they were busy and entertaining.
• I walked through Westminster Abbey, which I hadn't done since 1987 (long lines, I think in my two previous 2000s visits).  Always impressive, so much history there, including some recent--markers if not graves?  for Sir Laurence Olivier and  John Gielguld, for example.
• On Saturday, I escaped the crowds by going to the Royal Observatory in Greenwich, my first time that far east of London.  Some amazing history and science of which I knew not previously.  The National Maritime Museum is next door, and that, too, was fascinating.  
• I then took a boat to go back, stopping off at the Globe Theatre stop.  I walked from there to the Borough Yards/Market to check that out.  The going was challenging as the walk to and the area itself were crowded.  I passed by at least four groups of folks wearing silly stuff and dancing and singing (see below).  I then checked out the Tate Modern, as I prefer modern art. Some installations were simply breathtaking.
• On Sunday, I went to the Imperial War Museum, which I must have done before but don't remember so clearly.  The WWI stuff was fantastic--very informative and very engaging.  There was an entire floor dedicated to the Holocaust, with an emphasis on the micro and the macro.  They did an excellent job of connecting individuals to the horror but also depicting the scale of the horror.  Going through that at a time of rising anti-semitism around the world (thanks, Bibi) and Nazis marching on the fourth of July, everything here resonated even more than usual.   
• I then grabbed lunch and went to The Truth, a comedy about ... infidelity.  It was hilarious as the writing was terrific and so were the performances.  In my first trip to London, long ago, I went to farces as the Brits do them so well.  Last time, I saw Avenue Q, which was wonderfully profane and uproarious.  They didn't have the usual farces, and there were no Hamilton tickets available around the 4th, but I am more than happy with what I chose.  Simply an incredibly funny show, with four actors doing amazing work.  I highly recommend.

Now onto some observations:

• I don't think I have seen more student groups on weekends going to museums.  And these students came from near and far.  
• The food scene is amazing. I ate Indonesian, Malaysian, India, Burmese, and pub.  One of my iron rules of travel is if there is decently rated Indonesian food, I get it since I can't get it at home.  Indeed, the "can't get it at home" explains my restaurant choices and my choices of which dishes most of the time.  The pub food was pretty terrific, so even English food was quite good.  I specialized in meat pies, and that worked out well for me.
• The ice cream scene is even more amazing.  I simply don't remember there being so much excellent ice cream here.  Maybe it was the heat or maybe an invasion of gelato stores?
• I really don't remember the pub scene being this well attended in previous visits. Each evening, the streets were packed with people outside of pubs. My previous visits were roughly the same time of year, so I can't explain it via weather.
•  Speaking of booze, the garden pub/bar scene rivaled Berlin's.  The walk along the southern side of the Thames had heaps of both permanent and temporary booze gardens, with numerous screens set up so folks could watch Wilmbedon and the World Cup.  
• I had a chance to have a cup of coffee with a friend from summer camp.  My camp imported British and Israeli folks to be counselors, so I have a few folks I know in the UK.  It was great to Joe and learn what he was upto over the past, gulp, 40 years.  This reminds me that this summer is the 40th anniversary of my last summer at camp and, yes, the 50th anniversary of my first as I went from 1976 (shortly after the bicentennial celebrations) to 1986.  As longtime readings of this blog may remember, that place left a huge dent on me.  I tried to go back this summer, but that didn't work out. Anyhow, great to see Joe and hear about the other British folks and how they experienced that place.

I kept marveling at how lucky I am.  My career has given me so many opportunities to travel, to learn so much about the history and food of all these places, to meet great people, and just see stuff.  As I head into the final stretch of my career--six years left--I will make sure I appreciate it all.  There were plenty of bumps along the way, and except for the first post-grad school stop, none of the places I worked were in my imagination long ago.  Each step did lead to the next, but not in any way I could have predicted.  I started out with an interest in international conflict, which led me away and then to civil-military relations.  And that move has been so very fruitful for me--leading to yet more travel.  The current project may produce one or two more bursts of fieldwork, but is nearly complete.  So, I am spending the summer writing a grant for the next project while trying to complete the current one. Yes, the next one involves much travel again.  As I always say, better to be lucky than good :)   That the divvying up of the fieldwork with an expert on Westminster countries has meant fewer trips to London than I would like is, well, the right thing to do. Glad I could sneak in this trip as part of a different project---again, I am very lucky.

Aforementioned dancer

=2=

I got the hat as United 
didn't get my my bag until
middle of my second day
and I needed to protect my head

Battle of Britain monument

Covent Garden

Standing astride the Prime Meridian

The Royal Astronomer used to live in 
the Observatory, including the guy 
whose name got attached to Halley's comet.
Apparently, he was not as precise as the
others so much of his work was tossed out. 

    

250 Years and 24: The Worst of Times, The Best of Times

I am in London, having finished a two day Civil-Military Relations Network workshop, our very first, on Command.  Run by Phil Lagassé, it considered from many angles and all over history what it means to command a military and who has the authority and such.  The moment resonated quite a bit for many reasons:

• that Phil couldn't get any Americans who specialize in this kind of stuff because they wanted to be home during the big annivesary
• that No Kings conflicts with the reality of the US being more monararchic than most constitutional monarchies (Phil's argument)
• my first time being in the place the US rebelled from in quite sometime, with the first visit to London was 39 years ago around this time.
• the utter incompetence of the Great American Fair creating much schadenfreude from a greater distance.

Dan Drezner has a great post about how things are awful now, but have been at every 50 year marker in US history. It is most instructive, especially given how much of a betrayal of the civil war was 1877.  I do remember 1976--the celebration, not so much the post-Watergate/Vietnam moment.  It was a big summer for me, as I went to summer camp for the first time two weeks after the bicentennial.  It was a strange summer for the US--an election year where one candidate was an unelected President who pardoned Nixon, who, in turn, committed what might be considered a typical day of Trump work.  

Drezner's piece has a note of optimism--that the US made some big leaps in progress in between 50 year markers.  I can't help but be more pessimistic in this moment.  As a friend put it, how can the US recover when the Republicans do not believe in democracy?  I worry that the GOP will do damage either in 2026 or in 2028 to subvert elections.  Given that they tried in 2020, that Trump pardoned those who sought to help him, that the court has given Trump immunity, why wouldn't they try to prevent the Dems from taking power.

I also worry that the Dems, if they get back into power, might not do what it takes--packing the court, admitting DC as a state, taxing the crap out of billionaires, breaking up the big tech companies, prosecuting the criminals of Trump 2.0.  The bright spot right now is that the Dem primaries are producing fighters who will push hard.  I do  hope that the rest of the Dems get the message.  I do believe that the 2028 primary election will involve dems outbidding each other to undo Trump's destruction, but I am not sure that enough fighters will be elected to support the changes that must be made.

I did hear from some folks who say that the Dems can't fight fire with fire, but giving into the GOP and being bipartisan helped get us here.  There will be no reforms without unpacking the court, and the Dems need to improve representation so that, yes, the GOP can't get back into power without expanding its appeal to beyond white folks and those betraying their groups (ethnic groups, religious groups, etc).  Who radicalized me?  Mitch McConnell.  

Anyhow, on the anniversary of 250 years of the US Declaration of Independence, I am most worried.

On the other hand, I was busy traveling so I missed posting about my 24th Canada Day in Canada.  Canada has been very, very good to me.  It rescued me from West Texas, where I would probably have been fired by now given attitudes there about academic freedom.  I have had much success here--fun books, heaps of grant-funded travel, several big grants to fund a series of terrific networks, two cool jobs, amazing access to folks in and near government, great colleagues, twenty years of awesome ultimate, much improvement on the slopes, and more.  

Canadian politics is not as broken as American politics, but, yes, we can see it from here.  Federalism is broken as the feds get blamed when the provincial leaders do their best to break pretty much everything.  The current government is pretty right wing for a center-left party--central bankers are not hippies, as it turns out.  But we have dodged having a Trump wannabe serve as Prime Minister--our own bad faith actor.   

ultimately, I place my hope on the fact that the US has always managed to recover from its lowest lows.  The majority of Americans support the right things (except for trans rights, as the demonizing of a fragile minority has gotten so much support from folks who shouldn't --NYT!), and the elections since Nov 2024 have been a rejection of Trump.  But I am not sure the institutions and the votes will matter... I hope so, but I am just not sure.

Sorry for this American birthday post being so depressing..... 

 

 

Treaty of Versailles 2: Electric Bugaloo

 It does not take an IR scholar or an historian to note the significance of Donald Trump signing onto a "deal" with Iran while he's at Versailles, site of the treaty that temporarily ended WW1 and set up WW2.  I have a few thoughts to add to this perfect illustration of how dumb and tragic this war has been:

The costs here are understated:

• Trump alienated allies by starting this war without giving notice.  So, it not only led to physical destruction in the neighborhood, but also harmed US relations with them.  Even Canadians were harmed since Iran hit a Canadian base in the region.
• Probably putting off any chance for the Iranian people to either put pressure on their government to reform or to get it to collapse.  The US killed potential replacements to the regime and ultimately produced a government that is probably more radical than the last.
• How many Iranians paid with their lives for Trump to get this inferior deal? 
• The US engaged in war crimes, including the recent attacks on water plants, which is significant stain that will have consequences. 
• Speaking of war crimes, this war deepened the crisis in US civil-military relations because Trump and Hegseth got the military to do some pretty awful things here.
• The cost to countries around the world of higher oil prices is not just in "global financial costs" but starving in some countries and energy crises that may have increased their vulnerability in others (the Philippines had much reduced capacity to patrol at sea and in the air to push back at China).
• Trump made the Chinese alternative more attractive--who is the reasonable country and who is the out of control aggressor now?
• Higher oil prices also help Russia.
•  The US not only depleted its stocks of missiles and smart bombs but also lost a number of expensive and relatively scarce planes--AWACS planes and tankers.
• Note that this chart does not include the costs in Lebanon.  This war gave Israel permission and space to engage in yet further unwarranted and unproductive brutality towards people who have had nothing to do with the crimes committed against Israel on October 7th, 2023.
• US gave up its role in maintaining freedom of the seas and taught every country that owns one half of a strait that they could use that geographic advantage to charge tolls for passage.  The post WW2 prosperity depended on this ability for trade to flow freely.  On the bright side, maybe China will replace the US to maintain the flow?  Oh, wait, that's not good news. 
• The big criticism of the original Iran deal, the JCPOA, was that it didn't affect Iran's missile capabilities.  No deal to limit that.  Now we have Republicans saying that the Iranians can just keep their missiles for their own defense.  So, the Party of Bad Faith betrays one of their major talking points about how bad the Obama deal was.   
• The other claim the anti-JCPOA folks kept making is that it did nothing to stop Iranian support for terrorism.  Um, and this deal did?  Nope. 

I could go on--there is no upside for this war.  Trump gave away the store and a lot more for a deal that is far inferior to one that Obama got via diplomacy.  This is all so tragic and stupid.  Remember one of the claims folks made was that they voted in 2024 for the candidate promising no more wars....  

 

NATO Is Not Dead, It is Just Pining For the Fjords

 I have been arguing that the heart of NATO, Article V, has been dead for since January 2025.  It took a while for the Europeans to believe it:

Anton Hofreiter, a German lawmaker, said: “NATO’s main problem is that, as long as Trump is president, there is no longer any faith that the U.S. would come to the Europeans’ aid in the event of an emergency.”  NYT

 This quote comes from an article discussing how much US military capability is being withdrawn from Europe:

• Reducing the number of F-16 and F-15E fighter jets from roughly 150 to 100
• Reducing maritime reconnaissance aircraft from 26 to 15 and cutting all eight aerial refueling tanker jets previously available to Europe
• Reallocating a missile-launching submarine and an aircraft carrier, along with several warships and scores of jets that join the carrier’s missions
• Reallocating one of two groups of bombers previously assigned for Europe’s defense

The most important piece here are the tankers--a scarce capability.  I am waiting for the big shoe to drop--how much army stuff will be moved out, because that stuff is harder to bring back quickly.  The rest could be returned to Europe in a crisis. 

First, we have to remember that the US deployment to Europe is not altruism.  The US has long benefited from stability in Europe AND using Europe as a platform for operations elsewhere (the Mideast).  

Second, deterring Russia is still an important thing--that pivoting from Europe seemed cool in 2013 but not since.  

Third, sure, the US should pivot to the Indo-Pacific, but Trump does not seem that concerned.  He has been willing to waste not just years of missiles and other ammunition but risk and lose a bunch of planes for the Iran war, which, last I checked, is not in the Indo-Pacific.  Plus Trump's statements on Taiwan raise questions about how sincere any move to the Indo-Pacific might be. 

Sure, the Europeans are investing in their militaries now--less because of Trump's hectoring and more because of the Russian threat and American unreliability.  But the Americans have always been the glue.  Can Europe count on the UK?  The UK Defence Minister just quit, so maybe not.  Can Europe count on Germany?  Not yet.  Still unproven and still lacking readiness. Can Europe count on France?  Putting elections down the road aside, it sure seems like that is the best port in this storm--many countries are now developing nuclear sharing agreements with France, something unimaginable only a few years ago.  France has finally deployed some troops to the Baltics (Canada leads in Latvia because France was too busy elsewhere to put troops there), so there is a bit of a French tripwire now.  

A European replacement for NATO is now imaginable but would be much weaker--the US simply has too many unique capabilities, has the most effective military (although politicization of it is reducing that), and has quantity as well as quality.  So, now, the best deterrent of Russian aggression in Europe is ... Ukraine, which is keeping the Russians pinned down.  

Trump is tossing away American influence and limiting future American choices while alienating allies.  And for what?  Not much.  The dealmaker continues to throw away bargaining chips.

and for the title reference, kids, check out this sketch

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Bad Faith Actor Dictating Faith

 Perhaps it is unfair to call Pete Hegseth a bad faith actor since he seems to be a real believer in Christian nationalism.  But many of his arguments have been of bad faith--that the standards he applies to others he does not apply to himself. That part makes him fit in really well in the Trump Administration.  Much of the Christian Nationalism does as well, as Christian nationalism is far more about power and domination than it is about, you know, that whole Christ thing.

The latest move has been to reduce the list of faiths the Department of Defense recognizes.  This may seem strange since state is supposed to be separated from religion, but given that soldiers, sailors, aviators, and marines spend their entire daily/weekly/monthly lives in, on, near bases, their spiritual condition has long been something the US government has addressed with chaplains, chapels (the one at the US Air Force Academy would not be out of place at a Christian nationalist university.... oh wait, um, never mind), grave markers, and so on.  

But then you have to ask what counts? What fits into the bureaucracy so that each troop's spiritual needs are met?  Military chaplains are supposed to address the needs of all of the women and men in uniform, not just the Christians.  The good news is that Hegseth's reductions from 220 or so to 31 allows for some diversity: Buddhism, Hinduism, Baha'i, Judiasm, Islam, Sikhism, non-religion, "Other," 22 flavors of Christianity, and Latter Day Saints--Mormon. That last one was not listed under "Christian." Ooops. [This reminds me that just as Black Americans and Latino Americans voting for white supremacists surprise and appall me, Mormons voting for Christian nationalists should fit into the same category of voting for those who want to see you dead or gone].

One could wonder if this simplification of the coding is just a normal realignment to go along with reforms of the chaplaincy stuff in the military, but the guy at the top, Hegseth (not Jesus or God), is a Christian nationalist, complete with Christian nationalist tattoos on his body.*  These folks hate all non-Christians and have a very narrow definition of what counts as Christian.  The list is a bit generous since lots of Christian faiths are included that a Christian nationalist would abhor.  I guess this is a start?  Or Hegseth is too much of a coward to go all the way and crop Catholics, Anglicans, Lutherans, and most of the other Christians who don't count?  

It is notable that Indigenous people's religions are dropped, as well as Unitarians and Wiccans.  Would it be a stretch say that Hegseth is trying to make military service less comfortable to non-Christians by reshaping the chaplain corps, reducing recognition of those who don't fit Hegseth's approval list?  Maybe that is too subtle for the guy who keeps firing women at the GOFO ranks (generals/admirals) and keeping people of color and women off of promotion lists.

Managing the list could be apolitical, aimed at efficiencies... in ordinary times.  Now, it is clearly an effort to define who can and should serve in a way that promotes the opposite of diversity.  Being anti-woke means being hostile to all kinds of diversity, so now more people are told they don't belong.  Not a great move if you want to maximize recruitment and retention, but if you want to build a military consisting of just white dudes who fit a narrow definition of Christian, this is a first step.

 

 

*  The Pentagon does have restrictions on tattoos, keeping out or kicking out those with Christian nationalist tattoos or Nazi tattoos because they want to keep out far right extremists.  If you think this is a subtweet of Platner, the candidate for the Maine Senate seat, you would be wrong--there is nothing sub here about it.