<Thread> Three years ago, I drafted an essay I titled “DoD’s FBI Moment.” I argued DoD should brace itself for when the administration inevitably treated it like the FBI, questioning its patriotism and turning partisan forces against it to weaken its credibility. 1/n

Editors, fairly enough, asked me to point to evidence this was probable. I was never quite comfortable with the argument myself. The military is so highly regarded—especially by GOP-voters—that it seemed a stretch that its fate would be similar to the FBI’s. 2/n

But now I wish I’d worked harder on that piece because I think my instinct was right. It just wasn’t precise enough. Colleagues pointed out that it was unlikely the whole institution of DoD would be cast as a political adversary; more likely that individuals would be. 3/n

LTC Vindman is a high profile example of the administration punishing politically disloyal military personnel. Swift-boating is not new of course. But it isn’t the same as painting entire bureaucracies, like the IC and the FBI, as the so-called deep state. It’s more surgical. 4/n

The administration wants a weakened and discredited FBI. But it wants a strong DoD that is loyal to the president personally. That’s a different set of moves. Two moves, in fact... 5/n

1) Hollow out and undermine the bureaucracy while 2) politicizing it to force actions that are consistent with partisan loyalty. They do the latter by manipulating personnel and by applying external partisan pressure on the organization. 6/n

And the important bureaucracy here is OSD. Since the president’ admiration of Sec Mattis soured, I’ve been thinking that POTUS would find a SecDef who aligned with him. Esper and now Tata do that. Esper by acquiescing, Tata by being a nakedly personalist-partisan figure. 7/n

Meanwhile, chaos follows the president’s sudden policy interventions on everything from personnel to military justice to basing posture. That randomized turbulence has robbed the Department of its ability to seize the initiative. All it can do is react and defend. 8/n

But this is not a straightforward cause-and-effect process. Because DoD has an enormous budget and a hefty range of legal authorities, its bureaucratic power is much more durable than other parts of the executive branch. So what outcomes can we expect? 9/n

I fear this politicization and bureaucratic warping will teach DoD to insulate itself from the White House, while teaching some in uniform that survival and advancement mean engaging in partisan politics. Maybe that has benefits in the short-run, but longer-term... 10/n

... it will make it harder for commanders-in-chief to control and trust the military. And vice versa. I also fear the suspicion of civilian leadership will deepen. You already see resistance to the idea of a SecDef without a military background. 11/n

I wish I knew at this moment exactly what different governing bodies can do to halt this warping process. But it's important we all recognize what's going on. It's bad for DoD, for national security, and for democratic governance. 12/12