Bengs: US military increasingly entangled in partisan politics and that represents a potential danger
As one of three military-focused holidays, Veterans Day is a great opportunity to reflect upon the unique relationship between Americans and our military — civil-military relations — that was forged by our founding experience.
The importance of that experience was perhaps best articulated by former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher who noted: “No other nation has been built upon an idea, the idea of liberty … The European nations are not and can never be like this. They are the product of history and not of philosophy. You can construct a nation on an idea, but you can’t reconstruct a nation on the basis of one. Political institutions can't be imposed if they are to endure. They have to evolve and they have to command the affection, loyalty and respect of populations living under them, and they have to be accountable to the people.”
As highlighted by Prime Minister Thatcher, the nature of American government and society necessitates some rules limiting the role of the military if the government is to remain accountable to the people. Fortunately, America’s founders knew that a peacetime military strong enough to deter or defeat our enemies poses a constant threat to a nation built upon a philosophy.
Multiple provisions of the U.S. Constitution split civilian control of the military between the executive and legislative branches. Such provisions provide a framework balancing the four core objectives of civil-military relations: 1) limiting the military’s political power and influence; 2) maximizing the military’s ability to protect the country while minimizing its potential threat to the country; 3) preventing misuse of the military for partisan political purposes; and, 4) furnishing civilian leaders with the capacity to effectively control and use the military despite a personal lack of military knowledge, skills and abilities.
Maintaining the loyalty of our armed forces exclusively to the ideas of liberty and democracy espoused in the U.S. Constitution is the preeminent goal of civil-military relations. To that end, American military members (as seen above, fighting in Iraq in a 2003 public domain photo posted in wikimedia commons) have always sworn to support and defend the Constitution rather than a person, in contrast to British military personnel who swear an oath of loyalty to the reigning monarch. This was recently highlighted in the retirement ceremony of U.S. Army Gen. Mark Miley, the 20th chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Prior to 1945, the U.S. Army would bulk up quickly for wars and downsize dramatically at their conclusion. At the end of World War II, however, the U.S. retained a large standing military to impose and enforce a rules-based international system counterbalancing the Soviet Union and challenging communist expansion.
The perceived threats of the Cold War era displaced longstanding opposition to a large peacetime military. When the Cold War ended, military downsizing was short lived due to the threat of international terrorism.
The U.S. now has the third-largest active military force in the world and spends three times more than the country with the largest active military, China. U.S. military spending accounts for 12% of the federal budget, but that money buys the best trained, equipped, most professional and most capable military force in the world.
Nevertheless, we should all be mindful of how civil-military relations are deteriorating as the military is increasingly drawn into the blackhole of partisanship due to the willingness of politicians to use it as a tool for personal benefit.
The numbers reveal a growing separation between the U.S. military and the society it serves. A total of 1,300,000 active-duty personnel comprise 0.4% of the U.S. population with the 811,000 guard & reserve personnel adding another 0.2% to the total force. If the willingness of Americans to serve is any gauge, there is a problem. Only two of the five military branches met their active-duty enlisted recruiting goals this year. If this situation continues, the military’s ability to protect the country will be reduced.
For partisans, “wokeness” is to blame for this recruiting deficit. Yet the military has often led society in striving to treat individuals based upon personal merit. In 1948, before “wokeness” was blamed for everything, racial desegregation of the military preceded the civil rights movement. And although women became eligible to serve as regular military members that same year, it was not until 2013 when the official ban on women in combat was lifted.
With 77% of Americans aged 17-24 unqualified for military service due to physical, psychological, or criminal reasons, the pool of those willing and/or able to serve is dwindling. In fact, many more Americans will study abroad this year than will enlist. In Congress, 18% of current members are veterans compared to 70% in 1975. Meanwhile, military service amongst future leaders can hardly decline further as less than 1% of Ivy League graduates now enter the military compared to roughly 50% in the mid 1950s.
In the past those who aspired to politics recognized military service as necessary to their moral credibility. Now politicians fill their moral credibility gap with carte blanche support of the military or by citing a family member who has served to claim credibility or knowledge by association. For example, Alabama Sen. Tommy Tuberville is blocking the promotions of over 400 flag officers (generals and admirals) while citing his father’s World War II military service to deflect from his own lack of military knowledge.
In recent years more and more retired flag officers have been endorsing politicians to help overcome a candidate’s credibility gap. The next step beyond endorsement is direct involvement as a political appointee. Contrast Sen. Tuberville’s approach with that of former President Trump, whose family has apparently avoided military service for generations. The Trump administration included multiple flag officers he referred to as “my generals.”
Repeated calls for imposition of martial law by the Trump administration’s first national security advisor, disgraced U.S. Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, suggests that civilian control of the military may not be best served by filling civilian oversight positions with career military personnel whose identity, experience, and thought process is entirely military.
Unfortunately, hyper partisanship fueled by unprincipled politicians has transformed our large standing military into a very real threat to our Constitution. In 2020, President Trump indicated a desire to use the military against Americans.
In response to protests across the country, he demanded that state governors deploy the National Guard “in sufficient numbers that we dominate the streets” or he would deploy the military “and quickly solve the problem for them.”
As the presumptive 2024 Republican presidential candidate, the former president is busy planning his first official actions should he win — invoking the Insurrection Act and ordering the military to forcibly suppress any protests against his other directives.
One such directive is criminal prosecution of some of “his generals” as well as General Miley whom he has suggested should be executed. Thus far, prominent Republicans in Congress are not speaking out against the plan to deploy the military against the citizens it exists to protect or pursue prosecution of personal enemies.
In light of the political situation, the state of civil-military relations this Veterans Day is not reassuring. While quite able to protect the country and provide civilian leaders with the capacity to effectively control and use the military, the threat to society from such lethal capability is growing.
The military recruiting crisis is cited for partisan purposes but that pales in comparison to the leader of the Republican Party — without objection from fellow partisans — advocating use of the U.S. military to maintain control of civilian society while he seeks trial and execution of the officer who previously served as his principal military advisor. The military is increasingly entangled in partisan politics and that represents a potentially existential danger to our republic.
Brian Bengs is an enlisted U.S. Navy veteran and retired U.S. Air Force officer. He has lived and worked all over the U.S. and the world but now calls Aberdeen home. He previously taught an array of law and policy topics at the U.S. Air Force Academy, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, NATO School Oberammergau, and Northern State University. Bengs was the 2022 Democratic candidate for the U.S. Senate.
