First reaction to this was frustration. I feel like I've been explaining until I'm blue in the face. BUT I've been a @jdickerson fan for years. Maybe we civ-mil scholars can do a better job going back to first principles when we talk outside our bubble? https://twitter.com/jdickerson/status/1336655071153631234?s=20

We care about civilian control in the US because without it we're not a democracy. If the military is running the show, they're governing, not our elected leaders. The military is accountable to the elected government, which is accountable to the people.

In this sense "civilian control" is misleading, because there are similar democratic concerns if the civilian bureaucracy isn't responsive to elected leaders. It's just more stark when you're talking about the people with the tanks.

This makes the role of SecDef confusing. SecDef is a civilian position, but not elected! Still, SecDef is a political appointee, there to advise POTUS but also to carry out the administration's policy agenda. Can be removed by POTUS, who can be removed in an election.

(This glosses over whole literatures about the role of experts in democratic governance, but the bottom line is that in a democracy elected leaders have the right to go against the experts. If they do and they're wrong, it's up to the public to hold them accountable.)

SO. What does this have to do with a recently retired general as SecDef? These appointments elevate military experience over civilian political policymaking experience, eroding the idea that the military should be controlled by civilians responsive to the elected president.

Yes, the president is a civilian and is still ultimately "in charge" no matter who SecDef is. But POTUS has a lot to deal with outside of defense policy, and thus has to delegate to SecDef and others in DoD. Or to NSC staffers, but that's a whole other can of worms.

This is in addition to a number of concerns about whether a career in the military is good preparation for the job, what these appointments do to the career incentives of military officers and civilian policymakers, and many others that colleagues have already written about.