When Soldiers Push Back

When and how should America's armed forces challenge political leaders?

Mackubin Owens has some interesting things to say on the matter:

The military is right,” concludes Ignatius. “The next chairman of the JCS must be someone who can push back.” But what does “pushing back” by the uniformed military mean for civilian control of the military?

The cornerstone of U.S. civil-military relations is civilian control of the military, a principle that goes back to the American Revolution. Since that time, soldiers have, for the most part, acted on the basis of the precedent established by George Washington. As my Naval War College colleague, Bill Calhoun, relates on the Claremont Institute's website, “Washington's willing subordination, of himself and the army he commanded, to civilian authority established the essential tenet of that service's professional ethos. His extraordinary understanding of the fundamental importance of civil preeminence allowed a professional military force to begin to flourish in a democratic society. All of our military services are heir to that legacy.”

Ignatius concludes his column with this observation: “When Bush thinks about picking the next Joint Chiefs chairman, he might recall an unusual gesture by Myers's predecessor, Army Gen. Hugh Shelton, who told his service chiefs to read a book called Dereliction of Duty. Its subject was how the Joint Chiefs failed to challenge Defense Secretary Robert McNamara adequately during the Vietnam War. It took the Army decades to recover fully from Vietnam; that's a history the next JCS chairman must not repeat.”

My own rather informed opinion is that officers swear an oath to uphold the Constitution, not support a given Commander-in-Chief or his administration, nor Congress. This obligation requires one to frankly point out to civilian leadership where the conflict with the founding document lies, and, if the policy isn't changed, to resign one's commission.

During the Clinton years, the issue wasn't merely loathing of Clinton, it was his policies which ran afoul of the Constitution which created the most difficulty. Placing U.S. soldiers under foreign command and barring them from wearing their American insignia, while not directly a Constitutional issue, was a complete slap to centuries of tradition, as was the push for gays in the military, women in combat, command interference in promotion boards, etc. Clinton seemed predisposed for using the military for every silly notion which came to mind, without Congressional support.

He of course was not the only President to do so, but his manifest hatred of the military, his outrageous conduct while sending men to risk their lives for his schemes, and his constant tinkering with national defense through social engineering of the military made him easily the most unpopular C-in-C since Carter.

That said, the military should obey, and officers who are worth something will resign rather than carry out policies detrimental to good order and discipline. That so few did so (Air Force General Ron Fogleman comes right to mind)speaks volumes about the careerism of the Pentagon brass.