Read on Twitter
I think there is some confusion among some non civ-mil folks about what the problem is with turning to military leaders when civilian politics has failed-if the military is respected, neutral, competent-what's the problem? Here's the problem: (thread)
When civilian politics break-down, civilian institutions and experts are denigrated, and the military appears "above the fray," it is *very* tempting to see it as a backstop against extremism and as a competent, neutral actor to solve national crises /2
This, unfortunately, has been the experience of many presidential democracies (which the U.S is), which tend towards deadlock, and hyper partisanship--civilian politicians invite the military in as allies and saviors in times of acute national crisis /3
This has happened in many cases in Latin America, for example. Militaries are rarely moustache-twirling villains at the outset; their intervention reflects the failures of civilian politics and the invitation of civilian politicians (see Stepan and Linz's work, for example) /4
Militaries are not built to govern. Governments shouild govern. The history of military rule--and military intervention in politics short of outright rule--is ugly, brutal, and not something that anyone should want for this country /5
And in my experience, current and former military officers in this country are the *last people* who would ever want this and we should listen to them /6
The U.S. is not turning into a military dictatorship-this is a long-view, generations-long issue. But good civil-military relations is essential to the survival of democracy, and requires *active civilian participation and responsibility* and long-view thinking (end).
