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.