It is very rare for established democracies to regularly have retired generals as their ministers of defense (thread) https://twitter.com/PeteWhitePolSci/status/1190382486095720448

Most that do are new or transitioning democracies. The more established democracies that do regularly have retired generals in the position either have ubiquitous military service (Israel) or have emerged from long periods of military domination of politics (South Korea) /2

There have been cases—e.g., the Netherlands, Italy—where established democracies had a brief interval of a military minister of defense and then reverted back to uninterrupted civilian control /3

if the US were to have two retired generals as SecDef in such short succession, it would be breaking with the norm seen in the vast majority of established democracies /4

The US is not headed for military dictatorship if another retired general is confirmed , but it would mean that two different presidents of two different parties had chosen a retired general to hold the office that is responsible for exercising civilian control of the military /5

This has ramifications for the advice the president receives, the degree to which the military is politicized, and the continued sidelining of civilian voices in defense policy making. @jimgolby forcefully articulates the problems in this piece /6 https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/12/07/opinion/biden-defense-secretary-dod.amp.html

There’s a reason most healthy democracies have civilians as Ministers of Defense: it is the position through which civilian control is exercised on a day to day basis. Democracies usually come to the conclusion that a career military officer is the wrong choice. (End)