As the civ-mil world is actively (and rightly!) discussing the role of retired generals in the political space, I’m finishing up a piece that explores the need for active duty generals to be *more* responsive to politics broadly. 1/

Whats curious is that even as the military has become more Clausewitzian wrt civ control, it’s become more Huntingtonian in its own engagement with politics. Mil officers like Mattis and McMaster are unwilling to see themselves as political. 2/

This creates problems. It leads to a reduction in respect for the political process (mil leaders always represent “best military advice”), which undermines accountability. No accountability leads to bad/unresponsive strategy. 3/

And willful ignorance/intolerance for domestic political movements leads to gaps in recruiting, retention, and diversity in an increasingly diversifying electorate—exacerbates the gaps created by the AVF and creates mil caste culture. 4/

I argue that senior mil leaders need to instead actively engage with and embrace both domestic and international politics when discussing mil options with CIC. In an era dominated by limited war, no one gets to ignore discussions about strategy and objectives. 5/

WW1 + WW2 are exceptions rather than rules (and even they had politics!). Lincoln had Grant, Churchill had Ismay, etc. These were not just great statesmen, but civs paired with mil leaders who deeply understood the political nature of the fight and could engage accordingly. 6/

So what to do? 1. Mil leaders need to re-engage with and respect domestic and intl political constraints in limited war. They are not apolitical actors, but rather like SMEs who need to check their own biases + provide options tailored to CIV political priorities. 7/

2. Engage more with regional politics in the planning process. Mil planning requires assumptions about enemy Centers of Gravity. These used to be military focused (supply vulnerabilities, etc), but are increasingly political and superficial (i.e. regime stability). 8/

Senior leaders must be better about explaining and clarifying the political assumptions going into planning, and be better at explaining to civs the potential 2nd- and 3rd- order political consequences of such actions. 9/

3. Engage with and respect domestic political movements like #BlackLivesMatter and #MeToo . @GenCQBrownJr and USAF did a great job of this in June, but a lot of work still to do to make mil accessible for a diversifying America. 10/

This comes with risks—“political” generals who are more involved in the policy formation process may potentially become stakeholders in policy + undermine civilian control. But in reality this is already happening, just w/out public acknowledgement. 11/

By contrast, bringing AD generals back into the policy formation process creates shared responsibility for outcomes, encourages frank discussions about options and effects, & reinforces civilian control as mil leaders engage w the president, rather than outside actors. 12/

And by engaging with a changing domestic political landscape, military leaders reduce the civil military gap and create a healthy, sustainable fighting force.

TL;DR, a solution to civ-mil problems is *more*, not less politics for AD mil leaders. 13/13