December 14, 2017

A Rorschach Test for Civil-Military Relations

By Phillip Carter

Earlier this week, I  in Slate about how America’s military leaders have seemingly improvised a new norm of civil-military relations in response to President Donald Trump. The latest proving ground for this norm is the debate over how to treat transgender recruits and servicemembers as the Trump administration battles in the courts to uphold Trump’s order banning such individuals from the service. Under this new norm:

"In response to Trump, the military’s leadership has improvised a new norm of civil-military relations: something in between a yes and a no that doesn’t amount to insubordination but does help modulate Trump’s excesses. ... Call it respectful disobedience or selective engagement or lawful resistance or some other euphemism—but it’s clear that military leaders have found a formula for saluting their commander in chief while keeping his worst excesses at bay."

Assuming for the sake of argument that this observation is true, we might ask whether or not it is a good thing. Although we might praise generals and admirals for upholding certain values against a president we dislike, we might feel very differently if these officers act against values or positions or leaders we do like. The behavior of generals and admirals within our political system serves as a kind of Rorschach test: We see what we want to see, based on our own biases and ideologies.

Recent history offer many case studies for consideration. Less than a generation ago, when today’s generals were mere junior officers, then-Gen. Colin Powell vocally opposed then-President Bill Clinton when he wanted to open the ranks to gay servicemembers. The president and his generals clashed openly on the issue, with Congress ultimately taking the generals’ side but  a  that allowed gay troops to serve in silence under the “don’t ask, don’t tell, don’t pursue” policy that was carved into . This statute was  in 2010, in no small measure because the military leadership   on the issue, driven by social change within the ranks and the  of  and sacrifice by gay troops during America’s longest war. On this issue, military leaders marched neither in step with their political masters nor with public opinion, at least not until the very end.

Read the full commentary in Lawfare.

  • Video
    • August 2, 2022
    National Guard offers signing bonus amid recruitment hurdles

    Military readiness expert Kate Kuzminski speaks to NewsNation about the effects that today's recruiting challenge will have on future readiness. Watch the full interview from...

    By Katherine L. Kuzminski

  • Video
    • July 20, 2022
    U.S. military facing biggest recruiting shortfall in decades

    The U.S. military is facing a recruiting shortfall, with officials saying there are not enough people signing up to serve. Katherine Kuzminski, Senior Fellow and Director of t...

    By Katherine L. Kuzminski

  • Commentary
    • Lawfare
    • June 19, 2022
    Overturning Roe: What Might This Mean for Military Culture?

    With the repeal of Roe, women stationed in states that either have a trigger law or are poised to enact more stringent abortion bans will be faced with sharp reductions in the...

    By Dr. Kyleanne Hunter

  • Commentary
    • June 7, 2022
    Sharper: Pride in National Security

    In order for the United States to maintain its strategic advantage, the national security community must be able to access the nation's top talent and draw from their strength...

    By Anna Pederson, Nathalie Grogan & Katherine L. Kuzminski

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia