The Miltary and Politics

The rise of social media has created numerous ways for service members to speak out, many of which are healthy and laudable, some of which are scurrilous and contemptible.  There has been a rash of the latter recently, as service members have been posting photos in which they hold signs over their faces (while in full uniform) stating their rejection of whatever it is the President is planning to do in Syria and their resolution not to participate.

Putting aside for the moment the unlikelihood that many of them would actually defy authority and not fight, the false bravado of publicly airing one's (anonymous, uniformed) views is not healthy for our Republic.

Nearly fifteen years ago, I was a young LCDR at the Pentagon, serving as Speechwriter to the CNO.  In the morning paper was an Op-Ed by a then Major in the US Marine Corps Reserves, entitled "Please Impeach My Commander-in-Chief".  While contributors rarely pick their own headlines, the body of the piece confirmed the malice of the title.  Below is the verbatim text of my reply, which I believe remains true today.  Note:  I am unable to find the original Op-Ed that this is written to address:
---------

          When the American people say their prayers at night or when they take the time to reflect upon the many advantages they enjoy as a birthright, protection from a politicized military is probably not on their minds -- and with good reason. Military aloofness from the political milieu -- based on tradition and regulation -- is one of the fundamental contributions the military makes to maintaining the critical covenant of trust that exists between it and the people it serves. When men and women in uniform publicly air their political viewpoints, it is more than just a violation of service regulations; it is a threat to the very fabric of this covenant. Without the trust of the American people, the military will lose its way and may ultimately become a threat to the way of life that it is designed to protect.

. . . . The last 50 years notwithstanding, the American Republic has demonstrated an historic discomfort with large standing armies. The pre-Revolution experience with quartering British troops left a bad taste in the mouths of the framers, and this unease manifests itself in several basic constitutional ways. The president was invested with the power of the commander in chief both to facilitate emergency response and to codify civilian control of the military. By placing the war-declaring function in the Congress, the framers sought to ensure that the decision to fight would represent the will of the people, and not the military or even its commander in chief. Finally, the Constitution prohibits military appropriations in excess of two years, a move specifically designed to frustrate the growth of a military establishment.

. . . . For 150 years, a cycle of mobilization and demobilization was sufficient to suit the security needs of the United States. Yet, the emergence of this country as a superpower and the global security requirements of the Cold War left us with little choice but to maintain a large, peacetime military. Consequently, military political neutrality came to represent not some quaint vestige of a day gone by, but an absolute necessity for the national support such a military would need for its maintenance.

. . . . The tacit agreement into which the American people entered states that they will do what is necessary to provide for a military second to none, all the time knowing that should that military develop a political agenda of its own, no force could oppose it. The American people trust their military not to assert itself in the political process because they know that if the military did get involved, this country would cease to exist as we know it. Neutrality is the military's end of the bargain.

. . . . This is why articles such as Maj. Daniel J. Rabil's are so damaging. That he holds strident political opinions is irrefutable; that he can lawfully air them remains to be seen; that he has crossed the line into an area of dangerous conduct is without question. By publicly calling for impeachment of the president, he has injected himself -- not as a private citizen, but as a United States Marine -- into the political process.

. . . . What if such conduct were to become the norm? What if the military were to follow Maj. Rabil's prescribed course and simply ignore the orders and directives of its civilian leadership? The answer is a military junta, and the answer is anarchy. What if the Congress decides not to impeach the president? What would Maj. Rabil have us do then -- ignore both the Congress and the executive because neither would uphold his personal political values?

. . . . Military service does not disqualify one from participation in the political process. In fact, the Department of Defense is aggressive in seeing to it that its members and their families have every opportunity to register and vote, irrespective of the unit's location or operational tasking. Service members are also guaranteed the right to correspond with their elected representatives without reprisal, and often do so to report situations that they deem unfair, unsafe or contrary to good order and discipline. A service member's decision to air his opinions is not the issue; each member has every right to convey his or her views to our representatives on Capitol Hill. The mistake is in airing them publicly. In doing so, service members bring discredit upon the entire military.

. . . . The American public places considerable trust in its armed services; survey after survey reveals this truth, and it is something of which the military should be both justifiably proud and zealously protective. Essays such as Maj. Rabil's are detrimental to this relationship, and service members should view with grave concern these threats to our place in the public's confidence.
Bryan McGrath