Read on Twitter
<Thread> There's no doubt I'm disappointed by the decision to nominate a recently-retired general for Secretary of Defense, but I'm also not surprised.
My research suggested it was likely -- if not this year, then soon. Here's why ... 1/
My research suggested it was likely -- if not this year, then soon. Here's why ... 1/
A recent debate has been about whether Trump is the cause of our civ-mil problems. As I argued in @ForeignPolicy, I think they're bigger than Trump:
"These problems won’t disappear anytime soon, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office next January." 2/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/us-military-politics-trump-election-campaign/
"These problems won’t disappear anytime soon, regardless of who occupies the Oval Office next January." 2/ https://foreignpolicy.com/2020/06/18/us-military-politics-trump-election-campaign/
Civ-mil norms have been eroding for decades, even if they eroded faster under Trump.
Norms ebb and flow, but they were relatively strong from post-WW1 to the Vietnam War. 3/
Norms ebb and flow, but they were relatively strong from post-WW1 to the Vietnam War. 3/
After Vietnam, the nation began to polarize & norms began to weaken.
In the mid 70s, a majority of sr officers were independent. By the mid-90s, it was less than 25 percent. Today, it is even less.
There are many reasons, but societal polarization puts pressure on the mil. 4/
In the mid 70s, a majority of sr officers were independent. By the mid-90s, it was less than 25 percent. Today, it is even less.
There are many reasons, but societal polarization puts pressure on the mil. 4/
The same thing happened to the military that happened to the rest of society after Vietnam and the 60s: conservatives became Republicans and liberals became Democrats.
It was easy for the military's non-partisan norm to hold when parties weren't that different. Not anymore. 5/
It was easy for the military's non-partisan norm to hold when parties weren't that different. Not anymore. 5/
At the same time, public confidence in the mil began to surge while confidence in other public institutions began to drop.
There are many reasons why this happened, but the upshot is that the military became politically valuable--something @Jason_K_Dempsey has also discussed. 6/
There are many reasons why this happened, but the upshot is that the military became politically valuable--something @Jason_K_Dempsey has also discussed. 6/
Political leaders began to use the military as a sword and a shield for domestic politic debates, as a way to deflect criticism or attack opponents.
This began first with retired GOFOs in the late 80s, but ramped up as the mil got more popular. 7/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2012-11-05/brass-politics7/
This began first with retired GOFOs in the late 80s, but ramped up as the mil got more popular. 7/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/2012-11-05/brass-politics7/
We began to see some of these trends on active duty, too. A well-known example was David Petraeus serving as the face of the surge, but these dynamics played out in many other cases, too. 8/
My dissertation documented that some active duty nominations -- primarily the JCS and Combatant Commands -- also were starting to become politicized, with elected leaders trying to find officers who "shared their world views." 9/
https://www.worldcat.org/title/duty-honor-party-ideology-institutions-and-the-use-of-military-force/oclc/745581687
https://www.worldcat.org/title/duty-honor-party-ideology-institutions-and-the-use-of-military-force/oclc/745581687
That's why, even before Trump ever uttered the words "my generals," I was worried that these trends were starting to head in a dangerous direction -- where we would end up with "our generals" and "their generals" with weakened mil effectiveness. 10/ https://twitter.com/jimgolby/status/759947261057048576?s=20
So, when Mattis was appointed as SecDef, it became almost inevitable that Democrats would eventually try to appoint one of "their generals" as SecDef, too. 11/ https://warontherocks.com/2019/02/in-the-wake-of-chaos-civil-military-relations-under-secretary-jim-mattis/
In my @WarOnTheRocks retrospective on Mattis's tenure, I warned that:
"The most important question today is not what happened during Mattis’s watch, but rather how Americans will respond after it."
We're not off to a great start. 12/
"The most important question today is not what happened during Mattis’s watch, but rather how Americans will respond after it."
We're not off to a great start. 12/
In our chapter for @KoriSchake & Mattis's book, "Warriors and Citizens," @lindsaypcohn, Peter Feaver, and I documented how some civil-military norms were breaking on the civilian side, even before the Mattis nomination. 13/ https://www.amazon.com/Warriors-Citizens-American-Views-Military/dp/0817919341
But my current research shows something perhaps more dangerous. It is not just that norms are eroding; it is that they are becoming conditional.
Americans only support them when the norms support their own party's position. 14/
Americans only support them when the norms support their own party's position. 14/
For example, we did an experiment where we asked if retired generals criticism of presidents was "proper".
Among Dems, it was split for a generic POTUS.
But 67% thought criticism of Trump was "proper" compared to 28% for Obama. It reverses for Republicans. 15/
Among Dems, it was split for a generic POTUS.
But 67% thought criticism of Trump was "proper" compared to 28% for Obama. It reverses for Republicans. 15/
This is just one example of how this plays out (we tested others, too), but @RobertJRalston & Ron Krebs have gotten similar results with other questions. 16/ https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-07-14/civilian-control-military-partisan-issue
So we shouldn't be too surprised that many Dems are falling in line behind the pick of "their general," even if there was some hope for optimism when the Dem platform promised to end "the distortion of civilian and military roles in decision making." 17/
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf
https://www.demconvention.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/08/2020-07-31-Democratic-Party-Platform-For-Distribution.pdf
There is some good news! The good news is that military professionalism has held up in many ways, and the military has not gotten enmeshed in our election.
@KoriSchake makes this strong case about Lafayette Square and Milley's apology in Survival. 18/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2020.1792096
@KoriSchake makes this strong case about Lafayette Square and Milley's apology in Survival. 18/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/00396338.2020.1792096
But these norms can't hold forever under continuous pressure. Excellent research by @HeidiAUrben @RisaBrooks12 & @m_robinson771 shows that this pressure is already mounting, and likely will grow stronger if Austin is confirmed and trends continue. 19/ https://politicalviolenceataglance.org/2020/12/08/how-bidens-pick-for-defense-secretary-might-shake-up-civil-military-relations/
I recognize compelling arguments about representation by @BishopGarrison, but I also think we headed down a dangerous path that gets harder and harder to reverse. 20/ https://www.justsecurity.org/73833/representation-at-the-top-the-importance-of-race-in-the-austin-nomination-debate/
If/when we break this norm, it will likely become more entrenched and our views of civ-mil norms will become more partisan.
So I hope this debate examines not only Austin himself, but that it also looks down this path. It could become very difficult for us to come back. 21/21
So I hope this debate examines not only Austin himself, but that it also looks down this path. It could become very difficult for us to come back. 21/21
