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.

  • Commentary
    • The Washington Post
    • November 21, 2019
    The military needs immigrants. The Trump administration wants to keep them out.

    Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman is now the latest in a line of immigrants challenged about whether it’s truly possible for them to serve the United States as patriots. Vindman, a r...

    By Loren DeJonge Schulman

  • Commentary
    • Task and Purpose
    • November 20, 2019
    Mental health care isn’t one-and-done — like any journey, you have to commit

    The "suck it up and drive on" mentality permeated our years in the U.S. military and often led us to delay getting both physical and mental health care. As veterans, we now un...

    By Kayla M. Williams & Kyleanne Hunter

  • Reports
    • November 11, 2019
    State Veteran Benefit Finder

    In the post-9/11 era, a “sea of goodwill” made up of organizations in the public, private, and nonprofit sectors has formed to support veterans, servicemembers, their families...

    By Carole House, Emma Moore, Brent Peabody & Kayla M. Williams

  • Reports
    • November 11, 2019
    From Sea to Shining Sea

    In a new online tool, Carole House, Emma Moore, Brent Peabody, and Kayla Williams catalogue benefits for the veteran community offered by each state so that stakeholders can e...

    By Carole House, Emma Moore, Brent Peabody & Kayla M. Williams

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia