My take is that senior officers are completely unprepared for this moment. When demo is healthy, there is little tension btw adhering to civilian control & serving democracy Faced w/ the manifest clash in principles these missions present, they are doing what's familiar--following orders.1/
The military is an authoritarian entity. They are already trained to just follow orders.
That is ridiculously simplistic and not actually true.
Kemal Ataturk who…?
So let’s say that some GO/FO decides to refuse orders or resign over some hypothetical order or directive. How do you expect Congress, the courts, or the media to respond?
Because we’ve seen it with SECDEF and our leaving the Kurds and the response was nothing.
I have no sympathy for senior leaders with guaranteed pensions, but I think it is probably wrong to blame them in this way.
I’m not trying to blame them-just explain where I think the inaction comes from. My view is that they should speak the truth as they see it behind closed doors & be prepared to be fired. That’s hard w/ various risks of its own (inc personal) but that is likely the ethical stance to take
But your point is that “they don’t have the tools.” I disagree. I think there’s a much bigger issue with the fact that these “tools” have been shown to not work repeatedly.
Resigning in protest (especially with public comment) doesn't sway ppl & becomes fodder for the partisan news cycle (witness what happened to Mattis). But it can signal to the military internally that there are actions that their leaders will not abide. I am uncomfortable w/ it but see both sides
I see two additional issues - first, that this is worth resigning over and second, how such a resignation would differ from Stu Scheller’s call for resignations during the Afghanistan drawdown.
But the larger substrate is that all of these actions were telegraphed prior to the election and that the larger civilian institutions have folded.
Careerism delenda est.
As a young pup, the explicit question was asked of us. “What moral failing would be enough for you to resign?” We talked about these questions openly. But I watched first hand how easy it was to start excusing small conflicts, and how easy it became to take the leap to excuse big ones.
They’re not the only ones in a position of authority who are unprepared for the moment but OTOH at this point everyone has had ten years to prepare so…
Doesn't the military educate its soldiers--officers & enlisted--about domestic law, the limits of their power & their liability for executing unlawful orders wch exceed their superior's authority?
Yes? Sort of? But more importantly, JAG officers are supposed to ad use commanders, too. That’s why the admin fired the top JAGs in every service. However, JAGs at the unit level should be there to advise. Still, what Risa says here is not just about legality.
Thanks. What does "ad use commanders" mean? I understood her point about being torn btwn different principles. My thinking goes to the law being a more salient consideration if soldiers were made aware, & IF Garland had held powerful ppl accountable for transgressions against democracy as AG.
Typo — should be “advise commanders.” I think the point is bigger than the legalities of it. It’s a political decision, and if senior officers were more comfortable thinking about decisions politically (as they should be), they would be more willing to push back on these decisions.
Not necessarily because of the legality (the DC deployment is not clearly illegal), but as a matter of politics, that it undermines both national values and the values of the military as an institution. But the fact that today’s senior officers were raised in the Huntingtonian model…
…of civ-mil relations where there is a bright line between “military” and “political” concerns, these officers are unprepared to deal with being asked to do “legal but very bad” things.
I don’t really want to speak for Risa, but that’s what I understand her to be saying here.
Thanks again. Professionalism may add another complication for military officers. If Trump charges the military w/ tasks outside their expertise/training, i.e. law enforcement on a domestic civilian population, professional officers shd recognize the mismatch.
If legal concerns don't stop them--as it didn't w/r/t Abu Ghraib & Guantanamo Bay--maybe professionalism will at least give them an impetus for a pause. Tho I wldn't wager my life on it mitigating transgressions since as you pointed out, good ppl have been purged from leadership & oversight.
But the culture is very much “can do” or “we’ll make it work.” It isn’t like the law where the RPC say you shouldn’t take cases that you don’t have the competence to handle. The military culture is much more about being flexible and adaptive to accomplish the mission.
With that in mind I wouldn't even wager a cup of McDonald's coffee on military officers exercising caution in enforcing civilian laws.
It’s going to be a sad day for those who are underprepared to deal with this crisis, when they tell the people they were just following orders. History would be a great asset in this case, they should take a moment to reflect on what happened to the people who said the same things.
Interesting that this is your take, @risabrooks12.bsky.social, as I remember many of the civ-mil experts chiding me (and others) for violating what they perceived as “norms” of retired GOs when we did/do speak up against specific acts. Can’t have it both ways.
Mark, we don’t all have the same views. I saw the complexity then and still do.
Also, @markhertling.bsky.social I appreciate your willingness to continue to speak out. Shocking to me how many have gone silent.
Two things on which I would be interested in your take: the extent to which naked careerism is a factor and how many of these officers have an historical understanding of the dangers of a politicized military?
I suspect careerism plays a role. Also good old fashioned fear. Some fear if they object & get fired their replacement will be worse. Some believe in the missions. There is also a cut your losses dynamic-okay we have to do this but we get $ for priorities. But some also just don’t know what to do
A younger generation of German officers (Guderian, Dönitz, Jeschonnek) saw that Hitler supported new and innovative weapons systems and bought into National Socialism accordingly (and were quickly promoted when these weapons worked). It should be a required case study for the 21st century military.
Hitler co-opted his Prussian officer corps with the promise of rearmament and the reversal of the humiliation of 1918. But by 1938, he was rapidly promoting a National Socialist officer corps while purging those whose “conservatism” was no longer enough.
This is far too kind a take. Given everything we already knew about Trump, including his statements during his *first* term, no one from the armed faces can claim with a straight face to be "unprepared" for this - everyone knew it was coming!
Thanks, I have no relevant expertise or experience and this is informative and helpful. How do think about this dynamic in relation to reports about right wing extremists in the services, veteran overrepresentation in militias etc.? The nonstop Fox on TVs throughout defense department lounges, etc.?
My take is that after all their personal sacrifices they don’t want to sacrifice their pensions.
I think as the whole military is about following orders, then you are looking at a very high bar for that to change Shooting protestors might not be it Which is why the protests have to stay peaceful But again, is peaceful protest working? Its a terrible place we are moving towards sadly
Sad, not feeling optimistic about them standing up for democracy.
My take is that the entire country is completely unprepared for this moment.
Many are still deliberately and blissfully unaware of this moment.
And they are going to realize too late that they have been coopted politically. Unless we are extremely lucky (by both statistical and historical standards), innocent civilians are going to get hurt by "guy in tactical gear and face mask" and the public is going to say "the military did this".
Former AF Secretary Frank Kendall and retired Army Lt. Gen Mark Hertling had some interesting things to say about the current DoD leadership on Deadline White House yesterday.
Unfortunately, this clip truncates a longer and more specific conversation in this segment about the failure of military leadership in this moment. It's worth looking for. I was glad to see Kendall and Hertling speak up.
They likely see conforming w/ civ control as in keeping w/ their oath to uphold democracy (normally it is). But we are in much more complicated times. And these folks have few tools to navigate the profound professional dilemma they face, even (and especially) the mil's senior leaders. 2/
This in part reflects their socialization to the Huntington separation of spheres model of military professionalism, which enables retreat into the comfort zone of "no politics." Being a professional means you are apolitical and therefore you can safely ignore politics. 3/
The upshot is that many officers have failed to acquire the political awareness essential to effective military leadership and strategy-making, but also--and critically--to navigating this fraught moment in the country's democracy. 4/end cc/ @sodrock.bsky.social
@risabrooks12.bsky.social your thoughts? bsky.app/profile/thin...
It's a really thoughtful point. What I think you are saying is that one safeguard is the agency of the commander to interpret and translate orders to mitigate harm (to soldiers & public). That seems right, although it likely would require them to have a lot of political awareness & savvy, yes?
yes, and not just savvy but also the willingness to take a significant risk, as I'm afraid this approach is also a soft usurpation of the civilian control of the military
This is from the comparative space, but it gets at some of the other ways that military leaders can navigate anti-democratic actions. Sharing in case it is of interest. warontherocks.com/2020/08/civi...
Agreed. bsky.app/profile/ppts...
Army leaders who grew up during GWOT with Fox News blasting on the TV in the DFAC, gym, and their battalion commander's office isn't quiet because they want to be "apolitical." They're quiet because they agree with what is going on or want to keep their sweet GO retirement.
Every military man of recent history has bathed in Fox propeganda while eating. Sure, they might change the channel if asked, but it goes right back as soon as the tray is empty. Most soldiers who don't like it self-segregate, taking their food back to their bunk
Every time some pundit called an American of some type "an enemy" that shit sticks, just like cops being told for decades that every citizen could be a drug lord and should be treated as such until they prove otherwise sticks
Interesting, Risa. I had never really thought about the... norm, I guess, that in equilibrium keeps that mutual noninterference pact going. These days almost everything new I learn makes me sad.
As recently as the first Trump Administration we had military leadership that *did* have political awareness. Have they all retired? Or been eased out? Did their tenure leave no lasting impression on their junior officers?
All true but the larger problem is that there is no version of resisting orders that doesn’t end in being made and example of by lickspittles above you or participating in a military coup.
Something that IMO really comes to mind is McChrystal’s effort to use political pressure to support his request for more troops for the Afghan Surge. The military lesson learned there is that his mistake was “trying to be political”- a “runaway Centurion” as the Canadian Army Journal put it.
But the thing is that McChrystal’s appraisal was straight up correct on a strategic level. Whatever you can say about him as a general officer, he played the game and put his career on the line for the resources he felt he needed.
I think it’s potentially a signpost pointing the way to the present moment that he is regarded as a cautionary tale of stepping outside “apolitical” bounds, while senior officers who blindly played ball, lied about progress and delivered defeat have their reputations fully intact.
An unexpected downside of decades of stable liberal democracy is that the body politic is immune compromised. There is zero pushback from civilian or military agencies, no resistance from local governments and no mass public mobilization. All those people and things have been trained for passivity.
It's been discussed at length how Trump's regime is severely flawed compared to its historical counterparts, but the problem is that few, if any, attempts at authoritarian takeovers in major countries have had the luxury of opposition this weak.
Scheming viziers are normally a bad thing, but right now they might be the lesser evil...
Often I think about this book, and lament how much it weighs on my mind these days.
"Don't worry! The (add institution name here) will save us!" "SHIT The (name of institution above) capitulated! But don't worry, the (add different institution name here)will save us!" Lather, rinse, repeat.
So all those with a conscience resign their commissions, leaving us with True Believers.
Did you see that someone at DHS questioned the loyalty of the General in charge of the CA deployment bc he pushed back against the invasion of MacArthur Park?
Let's be clear. Ultimately trump is going to require the military to swear a personal oath to him. Which is what Hitler did when he first became chancellor in 33. The military will not save our country. We've seen how senior leadership failed starting with ft Bragg political rally.
So, is there a limit to what they won’t do for Trump? Or will they continue just blindly following orders? Very few active military members have said no to anything so far.
We don't know the things they said "no" to and that, consequently, never happened.
I think it would’ve rapidly leaked if that were the case. Either way it’s disturbing that very few have said no to what they’re doing now.
It”s possible that snr leaders are making the case ag/certain actions. But given the premium on loyalty I would expect at least someone to have been fired & there to be some leaking. So empirically I don’t see the signs that there are efforts to sway, let alone dissent against civilian leadership.
None of us are prepared for encroaching tyranny, but we all get stuck with making hard choices when our time comes to be directly impacted. Every person who abandons their responsibility to defend freedom dumps the problem on to other people, while empowering the betrayers.
📌
Thank you for this, Risa.
The last five years of my US Army career I served as an Executive Aide for two LTGs. I’ve interacted with many GOFOs. I retired promptly at 20 years after seeing how poor the leadership was. Some of the things I witnessed were just shocking.
Similar experience on generals' personal staff as a civilian 15. Retired couple years ago. Some of these guys are chugging the christian nationalist kool-aid. Some aren't, but are just trying to thread the needle. I bet they're not being loud & proud about the vaunted Army values these days.
Solid concurrence.
I've realized that 95% of the organizatjons that want "leadership" actually want administrators. People who will keep the organization running smoothly and deal with any problems below them without bothering the people above them. They don't want people with the moral courage to disrupt the machine.
I agree with what you state, but, as a man of little education and even less accolades, what confuses my simple mind is how that is good for any organization? Wouldn’t an organization be better served by open dialogue between leadership, staff, and worker bees?
All of that was just a couple years before the current capitulation to the Trump regime, so I wasn’t surprised by that capitulation in the slightest.
Getting rid of the JAG lawyers and anyone else who would provide ethical/legal guidance makes this much worse. They're being handed a cock-eyed view on legal limits, such as the testimony in the CA case that there's some sort of "constitutional exception" that overrides the Posse Comitatus Act.