Brian M Downing
President Trump has taken the extraordinary step of stepping into the military justice system. He has countermanded a demotion and granted clemency to military personnel convicted of war crimes. Further, he has delved more deeply into military administration by insisting that a convicted NCO be allowed to wear a prestigious medallion.
Civil-military relations are at their lowest point since the late-Vietnam era when generals blamed defeat on political meddling and civilians blamed the generals for deceptiveness and reliance on heavy firepower. Actually, relations may be worse now.
Constitution and norms
The commander-in-chief has the authority to pardon, promote or demote, and otherwise direct military personnel from buck private to four-star general. However, since the Constitution was ratified in 1789 a body of norms has developed to govern day-to-day and administration-to-administration relations between soldiers and the state. The norms do not have the force of the Constitution or law, but they are nonetheless important parts of civil-military relations. The joint chiefs guard have defended them and are doing so now.
The generals have effective control of doctrines, war planning, professional standards, promotions, and the judicial system. And Trump has crossed the Yalu on the latter.
The generals see the president’s clemencies and reversals of a demotion as meddling that not only violate norms but damage military authority and discipline. Though only convicted of one of the lesser charges, one of the figures, SEAL Edward Gallagher, is almost certainly judged to be a rogue who repeatedly operated outside the chain of command. His presence isn’t wanted, nor is the president’s order to retain him.
The Pentagon will be taking firm steps to ensure that soldiers on frontlines today do not think that killing prisoners or taking pictures with corpses is acceptable conduct. The president’s future actions are of course unknowable.
Context
The shadow of Vietnam has never been far from the Pentagon. The generals look back on that war and see discipline unraveling, from uniforms and haircuts to the treatment of prisoners and villagers. The war led to the collapse of respect for the military which took decades to restore. The swift devastating defeat of Iraq in 1991 played an important role in that process.
Since then, the military has been charged with invading and stabilizing Afghanistan and Iraq. The decisions were based on dubious intelligence and worse decisions in the White House. Both wars cost thousands of lives, accomplished nothing, and increased instability and jihadism.
Military personnel greatly favored Trump in the 2016 election. Promise of restoring greatness, winning wars, and reducing exposure resonated throughout the chain of command. Today, however, the generals at least have are more circumspect.
The president has been aberrantly defensive of Russia, naive regarding N Korea, and erratic on Syria, Afghanistan, and Iran. He has been dismissive of active-duty and retired generals, firing or driving away a national security adviser, chief of staff, and defense secretary. Foreign policy is becoming an array of whims. The generals respect order, process, discipline, and honor and see little of those things in the present administration. Some retired ones might voice their concern in 2020.
• • •
Since the Vietnam era the military has become distant from and even hostile to the Democrats. Many officers openly scorn Democratic politicians, including presidents. This constitutes a disturbing trend in American history as the military has prided itself as remaining above the melee of partisanship – and as that melee has become increasingly ominous. The Trump administration has, however, weakened the military’s attraction to the Republican Party, at least temporarily and if only at the top.
A return and strengthening of affinities between the military and a single party bears watching. Even more concerning would be our generals seeing the nation as so irremediably incoherent, self-absorbed, divisive, violent, and anomic as to prevent decisive action in the world.
© 2019 Brian M Downing
Brian M Downing is a national security analyst who’s written for outlets across the political spectrum. He studied at Georgetown University and the University of Chicago, and did post-graduate work at Harvard’s Center for International Affairs. Thanks as ever to Susan Ganosellis.