Brian M Downing
Soldiers take an oath to defend the Constitution from enemies foreign and domestic. For most Americans, oaths are hollow formalities but our military people, especially senior officers, see them as sacred rites. The words became incandescent from sacrifices at Valley Forge and Gettysburg, Belleau Wood and Normandy, Khe Sanh and Medina Ridge – and from memory of friends and relatives now gone.
Trump’s message of making the country great again, at home and abroad, resonates in the service but the messenger’s words and deeds trouble many of them, especially Generals Kelly, Mattis, McMaster, and Milley. He’s ignored expert counsel, acted erratically, alienated allies, and disparaged veterans – most notably those of Belleau Wood.
Our military prides itself on staying out of politics. However, a second Trump term would not simply risk repeating the mistakes of the first one. It would threaten the military’s coherence and integrity, the nation’s political traditions, and the world’s security.
The institution
Trump boasts of replacing senior generals with those to his liking – that is, men who share his vision of a less Constitutional state and warmer ties with present-day enemies. This would be a departure from longstanding arrangements between soldier and state and would endanger, if not end, the nonpartisan tradition. The path would lead to subordination to a political faction detached from the Constitution and much of the nation as well.
Loyalists would replace professionals and rework doctrines, promotion criteria, obligations, and war plans. The administration might hope for an obedient military but it might bring a paralyzed one – or perhaps a powerful center of opposition. Sub rosa conversations are probably underway at every installation.
The nation
Trump isn’t simply an ambitious businessman-cum-politician. He’s the leader of a concerted movement of politicians, business figures, media outlets, think tanks, religious groups, a popular base, and scores of militias. They are selective in respect for legal procedures, electoral processes, and the rule of law. They intend to reduce political participation, cut social spending, and remold the state. There will be opposition. Some will be violent and America could be in disarray.
The President will want to order the military to settle matters in the state and public. This would present the greatest threat to military unity in a century and a half, pitting the movement against the constitutionalists, the Flynns against the Milleys. Intervention would make the military intensely despised by half the country for decades. Some officers, however, might see their duty to restore the Constitution.
The world
Disorder would undermine America’s standing in the world and its ability to uphold commitments. Even without deep domestic turmoil, a second Trump presidency would jar the world order – the center of the military since the bombs fell on Pearl Harbor.
Trump has repeatedly expressed admiration for Putin’s rule and foreign policy, including the invasion of Ukraine. He sees no great importance to NATO and claims he could settle the Ukraine war in short order. Of course, this could only be done by cutting off support for Kyiv and forcing it to cede large swathes of its east and south. This in turn would weaken NATO and expose the Baltic States and Poland to another round of Russian aggression in a few years. The same holds for the rest of Ukraine.
Asian democracies would doubt America’s reliability and scramble for new security arrangements. Beijing is especially mindful of events in Washington. China might see an opportunity to settle the Taiwan matter earlier than planned. A naval embargo could be imposed, followed by air strikes and missile salvoes. After a few months, Taiwan might have to bow to a new hegemon. The same for East Asia.
American generals do not share Donald Trump’s understanding of Russia and the world. They must not stand by as Ukraine is pressed to give in, NATO weakens, Taiwan and East Asia buckle, and the post-1945 world order gives way to Chinese and Russian preeminence. Nor can they shirk their duty to the Constitution. That would make their sacred oath a hollow formality.
©2024 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 fellow Hoya Susan Ganosellis.