Defenders Of The Indefensible
Why do we trust the military so much, anyway?
Some of you may or may not be aware, but I’ve had something of a writing career long before I ever started this Substack. One of the outlets which has published my work on a fairly consistent basis is the absolutely splendid The American Conservative, or “TAC” for short. I recently had an essay published there concerning the military’s recruiting problems. I hope you’ll read it and also check out other essays I’ve written for TAC in the past!
You also know by now that I think very highly of TAC’s very own full-time blogger, Rod Dreher, given how often I’ve quoted his work. While I don’t share his every last view (ex. he’s highly religious, I’m not), it’s safe to say that there’s tremendous congruence between his thoughts and mine. I think he’s got a very good sense of what’s happening now and what will happen in the years to come. Though I’ve never met him (I have spoken to him once or twice over E-mail), Dreher is someone whom I deeply admire for many reasons.
In his latest essay, Dreher shares his thoughts on Top Gun: Maverick, the sequel to the 1986 classic which propelled Tom Cruise to superstardom and motivated countless young men and women to pursue careers as military aviators. As proof that I don’t agree with everything Dreher says, read his thoughts, then read my review of Top Gun: Maverick. On the topic of the movie, the two of us couldn’t be farther apart, and that’s fine.
The reason I find Dreher’s essay significant is something he quotes. Authored by Joshua Trevino, he reflects on the significance of the “techno-thriller” genre of novel, emblematic of the writing of Tom Clancy, but I think his point runs much deeper than that:
One note on the denouement of Red Storm Rising’s Third World War is worth making. The war ends for a few intersecting reasons: the aforementioned NATO targeting of Warsaw Pact fuel supplies, Kremlin infighting, and Soviet Army leadership’s refusal to countenance the use of nuclear weapons. The last item is simultaneously an admixture of pure fantasy and revelatory insight from the authors. Clancy and Bond are evidently of the mid-1980s school holding that military professionals are qualitatively superior to “the politicians,” whomever they are. This is an exceptionally common theme from that era, from the Rambo series to Iron Eagle and beyond, which testifies to the United States Army’s success in offloading the responsibility for its defeat in Vietnam to a now-absent civilian leadership. Across Red Storm Rising we get comments to that effect: a man in uniform will note with a weary tone that it’s the politicians who make the wars, and he just suffers in it. The climactic meeting between SACEUR and the Soviet commander-in-chief, to arrange a ceasefire, features precisely this sort of exchange. In the end, write Clancy-Bond, the politicians began the world war — but the soldiers of both sides ended it. It is an exceptionally strange thematic element: consonant with the times, to be sure, but less so with enduring American values.
It is the Soviet military leadership that rebels at the Politburo’s contemplation of nuclear-weapon use, setting in motion a series of events that lead to the war’s end. But in the real world, nuclear- and chemical-weapons use were part of the USSR’s day-one approach to war in Europe. We know — for example from the infamous “Seven Days to the River Rhine” campaign concept revealed in 2005 — that the Soviet war plan in Europe was essentially to saturate West Germany and the Low Countries with nuclear weapons, roll across the radioactive rubble, and establish themselves on the Rhine as NATO reeled. We also know that NATO, and the United States especially, would probably have escalated swiftly toward a strategic-nuclear response in that scenario. We’ll never know for sure — and thank God for it — but the overwhelming probability is that the Third World War in Europe would have become a full strategic nuclear exchange within days. In this light, Red Storm Rising’s assumption that the Soviet Union would launch a general war, but shy from nuclear warfare, to the point that its senior officers would rebel at the prospect, seems fictional indeed.
In this light, Red Storm Rising’s assumption that the Soviet Union would launch a general war, but shy from nuclear warfare, to the point that its senior officers would rebel at the prospect, seems fictional indeed.
I recall Dreher talking about the brother of actor Wendell Pierce, who, if I recall correctly, served in a U.S. Army unit deployed in then-West Germany operating the nuclear-armed Tomahawk Ground-Launched Cruise Missile (GLCM) in the 1980s. Pierce’s description of how they ensured total obedience and reliability was chilling. The fact they were made to be unaware whether they were drilling or doing it for real ensured they would press the button that’d unleash holy hell upon the world. If they didn’t, and it was a drill, then they could be brought up on some serious charges and face prison time. The GLCM was a tactical, theater-level weapon, but the same methods are used to ensure obedience on the part of those who operate our strategic nuclear forces today.
A few entries ago, I analyzed how Americans are losing faith in the military, even as it remains one of our most trusted institutions by a significant margin. A question I’ve been asking myself my entire adult life is: Why do we trust the military so much, anyway? It seems like it’s just the right thing to do, but I’m not sure most Americans have really contemplated why they deem the military so trustworthy. If anything, the reality of what kind of animal the military is should, logically, inspire less confidence in the institution.
Samuel Huntington, another man whom I deeply admire, but will never have the opportunity of meeting (he passed away in 2008), is thought to have written the ultimate treatise on civil-military relations. Titled The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Huntington said, “loyalty and obedience are the highest military virtues.” In the same paragraph, he also says “The military profession exists to serve the state.” Not society. The military likes to think it serves all Americans, but in reality, the military serves the state’s interests.
This wouldn’t be a problem if the state’s interests represented society’s. But what if they don’t? I think what we’re seeing today, including the military’s recruiting crisis, is a manifestation of that. I don’t think the recruiting crisis can be blamed on any one thing, but I think it’s safe to say the public has, after being presented a mountain of evidence, begun to realize the military isn’t quite there for them the way they once assumed. We may be slowly coming to the realization, when forced to choose, the military will side with those in charge, as opposed to those it’s charged with protecting.
But who is in charge, really? In other words, not what the official chain-of-command says, but who’s running things when the doors are closed and nobody on the outside is watching? The same way the bullies and “jocks,” not the principal nor teachers, are the ones really in charge of our public high schools, the military is subordinate to the commander-in-chief in a formal sense, but in an informal sense, they answer to others. I keep thinking back to June 2020, when the military all but said it’d disobey President Donald Trump if he gave the order for the military to deploy against the rioters ravaging our cities. This despite the fact 58% of the public supported the deployment of troops to bring order to chaos during that dramatic moment in time.
I’m not sure enough Americans understand what a turning point that was not just for civil-military relations, but for our country as a whole. I think the military honestly believed it was acting in society’s best interest in taking the position it did, but whether they know it or not, what they actually did was take sides in a brewing American civil conflict. It’s not every day the military sides with the forces of anarchy, disorder, and national disintegration, but that’s exactly what it did in June 2020.
What bothers me most about the military’s actions two years ago was that it would’ve cost them literally nothing for them to simply state something to the effect of “We stand ready to assist as deemed necessary consistent with the laws and regulations concerning the deployment of military forces on American soil.” It would’ve signaled that, contrary to conventional wisdom in many quarters, the military isn’t restricted from participating in domestic operations and has, in fact, done so many times throughout our history. At the same time, it would’ve signaled the military would operate on U.S. soil only in lawful fashion. The fact so many even within national security circles argued that deploying troops in our streets would cross some sort of Rubicon was effectively a re-writing of history and the law, both of which clearly set a precedent for a military role in maintaining domestic stability. I’ll be the first to say former President Donald Trump deserves tremendous criticism for his own attempts to politicize the military at times, but this criticism is tempered by the fact the military was a politicized organization before his presidency and that the commander-in-chief’s behavior is never an excuse to undermine one’s own professionalism. Again, it would’ve cost the military nothing to keep their remarks limited to the potential role they would’ve played in restoring order.
My point is that the military made a conscious decision to take the public position it did in June 2020. It was an indefensible one because, again, there was no price they would’ve had to pay to keep things professional and not political. Or was there? Perhaps military leaders were thinking as individuals, not as representatives of a national institution, and personally felt they each had to position themselves on the right side of history, lest their put their personal and professional reputations at risk? Whatever the case, nothing good happened and whatever they thought they were doing, it certainly wasn’t their duty.
No matter the reason, it’s always dangerous when an armed force is willing to oppose proper authorities. On one extreme, you have a military acting as an independent political actor, capable of calling its own shots and marshaling its own resources. We saw this in countries like Chile and Thailand and anywhere else that’s experienced a military coup d’etat. On the other extreme, you have a military that’s become so politicized, it becomes co-opted by political factions, functioning as a veritable armed wing of a movement or even a party. In either case, the military is acting not in the public interest, except in its own mind perhaps, but in the interest of itself or on behalf of one side of a political divide. Why this is so dangerous ought to be self-evident to all.
Civil-military relations have always rested on a knife’s edge and drawing lines isn’t always as straightforward a task as it seems, even when it comes to an institution that depends on clarity to the extent the military does. But there are certain red lines that should never be crossed. Unfortunately, the military has long since crossed one of those red lines and it’s seemingly having tangible effects, particularly when it comes to one of the military’s top priorities: encouraging young civilians to join and maintain the ranks. The military’s recruiting crisis comes to down to many factors, but the idea the politicization of the military has nothing to do with it is abject insanity. A former Army armor officer explained the other day in the Wall Street Journal:
On his first day in office, President Biden rescinded a Trump-era executive order banning critical-race-theory training in the military. The changes made by senior commanders were nearly immediate. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin mandated that every military unit conduct a “stand-down” to confront “extremism in the ranks.” The chief of naval operations, Adm. Mike Gilday, added Ibram X. Kendi’s “How to Be an Antiracist” to his professional reading list for sailors—never mind the book’s endorsement of racial discrimination and its charges that the institutions troops swear to protect are systemically racist.
Added to the mix has been divisive gender activism. The Navy has mandated gender-sensitivity training, and released a video encouraging sailors to closely police the use of pronouns as well as everyday language, declaring that those who fail to comply aren’t “allies” of their fellow sailors. Not only have such measures affected unit morale, according to some service members, they’ve also amounted to a form of antirecruitment for prospective enlistees. The Pentagon is appealing to activists at the expense of those most likely to serve.
The military has historically drawn an outsize proportion of recruits from conservative Southern states. During the height of Operation Iraqi Freedom, nearly 40% of its enlistees were from the South. That’s still true. South Carolina, Florida, Alabama and Georgia each contribute more than 30%—some as high as 50%—of their share of America’s 18- to 24-year-old population to military service. Unsurprisingly, military members privately skew conservative. In the 2018 midterm elections, nearly 45% of service members surveyed indicated they would back Republican candidates, versus 28% who favored Democrats. Support for Republicans among veterans was similarly strong in 2020.
Military recruitment relies on another factor: family tradition. As of 2017, one in four military recruits had a parent who had served, and almost 80% who had at least one family member presently enlisted. The military’s sudden shift is functioning as a repellent here, too. Families with rich traditions of military service are increasingly not encouraging their sons and daughters to follow in their footsteps. Why? For some, the military’s support for these divisive policies has harmed their view of the profession.
Recent polls lend support to the idea that disaffection with the military is growing among conservatives. The 2021 Reagan Institute National Defense Survey found that since 2019 those who have “a great deal” of confidence in the military fell from 70% to 45%, with the largest decline—34 points—occurring among Republicans. The most common reason offered by respondents was concern about “political leadership.” In a separate poll this month, Gallup found that conservatives’ trust in the military fell by 10 points over the past year. A similar trend held for independents, whose confidence in the military fell by 8 points.
This, right here, is the bottom line:
One of the reasons the military has been among the most trusted institutions in America in recent decades is that it stands apart from the rest of society. It is governed by values such as selflessness, courage, patriotism and sacrifice—not racial discrimination or activist politics. A military that appears to abandon its apolitical role will have a harder time attracting large numbers of warriors and patriots to its ranks. Welcoming woke policies under a warped idea of inclusion may serve to exclude those who are traditionally more likely to serve.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, perceptions of a growing divide between civilians and the military alarmed many observers. But the fact the military stands apart from society is a big part of what makes it professional. A military that looks and acts like society isn’t too different from a conscript force. Why did America get rid of the draft, anyway?
The first and last vestige of military professionalism is, of course, obedience. As the U.S. armed forces kick all other elements of professionalism over the cliff, it probably remains as obedient as ever, at least to the Regime, if not the republic. As long as the “right” people are issuing the marching orders, the military will carry them out, even the ones it said it never would, like restoring order in our streets. Regardless of your political leanings, this should temper any admiration you may harbor towards the military. To quote a line of dialogue from the movie Saving Private Ryan, the institutions doesn’t exist to do the “decent” thing, it exists to follow orders. The military occasionally reinforces the importance of ethical obedience, but as the experience of Wendell Pierce’s brother illustrates, the institution is designed to ensure all orders are followed on the spot. The military can function no other way. This means the most trusted of all American institutions is fully capable of doing things we don’t want it to do. Again, I think Americans are slowly waking up to this, as evidenced by polling data.
I think the Uvalde school shooting and the police (non-)response could have a similar effect on the American psyche. For generations, we looked upon police officers the same way we look upon our military - guardians willing to put it all on the line to protect and serve the public. While true to a certain measure, Uvalde proved that officers, like the military, ultimately do as they’re told. In other cases, such as instances of police brutality, we often learn they also do what their superiors allow them to get away with. When you’re just feet away from a massacre which you can hear occurring, but your decision in that moment is to defer to your superiors telling you not to engage, that should tell Americans just how much trust they ought to have in our institutions, especially the ones charged with exercising violence on our behalf.
Granted, there’s never going to be a perfect system. Just as military autonomy can lead to dictatorship, civilian control of the military can lead to the institution’s co-opting and perversion for political ends. But I think we can all agree civilian control is preferable to the alternative. It’s just that civilian control which doesn’t undermine professionalism is a difficult tightrope to walk and requires a willingness on the part of both civilian and military leaders to establish clear lines and to guard them. It also requires a citizenry that understands the need for the military to exist largely outside the boundaries of society and that the armed forces can be both our best friend and worst enemy. After all, if its strong enough to hurt our enemies, it can do even more damage to whom it protects. Our only defense against their guns being trained inward is a state and society underpinned by a strong culture. It is from within this strong culture that the military’s ranks will be filled.
In other news, I’ll be going out of town for the next week. I don’t anticipate having much time for writing, unless something comes to mind and the itch becomes unbearable not to scratch. I hope, in the meantime, all of you will enjoy the time you won’t be spending on this blog and that nothing too Earth-shattering occurs in the interim.
Max Remington writes about armed conflict and prepping. Follow him on Twitter at @AgentMax90.
If you liked this post from We're Not At the End, But You Can See It From Here, why not share? If you’re a first-time visitor, please consider subscribing!