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.
