Read on Twitter
This is an entirely fair question in response to my article in @ForeignPolicy on why we ought to avoid the term warrior ( https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/19/united-states-afghanistan-citizen-soldiers-warriors-forever-wars/),">https://foreignpolicy.com/2021/04/1... so let& #39;s answer it. 1/25 https://twitter.com/EmanThinks/status/1386001467052498945">https://twitter.com/EmanThink...
First, we need to think about the state of the civ-mil. Is the civ-mil relationship generally good and healthy, as @EmanThinks & #39;s argues?
I think the evidence suggests, no, the combination of changing attitudes and GWOT indicate that the civ-mil relationship is not great, 2/25
I think the evidence suggests, no, the combination of changing attitudes and GWOT indicate that the civ-mil relationship is not great, 2/25
I would certainly not be the first to point out that it is a problem the huge gap between public trust in civic institutions and public trust in the military. As Lindsey Cohn noted in 2018 in War on the Rocks ( https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/the-precarious-state-of-civil-military-relations-in-the-age-of-trump/)">https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/t... the growing tendency...3/25
...to use veterans and active duty personnel as policy debate & #39;trump cards,& #39; even on debates about non-military matters has substantial negative impacts.
Of course that dovetails with an increasingly clear sense, contra Clemenceau, war is to be left to the generals. 4/25
Of course that dovetails with an increasingly clear sense, contra Clemenceau, war is to be left to the generals. 4/25
Cohn (cited above) notes this in the context of the & #39;adults in the room& #39; during the Trump administration, but of course the Biden administration turned around and for the second time in four years violated a long-standing norm against having generals as SecDef. 5/25
Suggesting, frankly, there is no norm there at all anymore, but rather a perception that the job ought to be held by the military. As I noted in my FP piece, creating such an organizational ouroboros is dangerous; on the dangers see: https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-Destruction-Military-Practices-Imperial/dp/0801472938">https://www.amazon.com/Absolute-...
6/25
6/25
And while @EmanThinks contends that most soldiers have not developed a service exceptionalism (viewing soldiers as different from, or better than, civilians) - and I am sure this goes for him and his own experience - recent studies have suggested otherwise. 7/25
Take for instance the recent paper published by Bryant, Swaney and Urben in the TNSR: https://tnsr.org/2021/02/from-citizen-soldier-to-secular-saint-the-societal-implications-of-military-exceptionalism/">https://tnsr.org/2021/02/f... which notes clear evidence of a growing sense of exceptionalism within the officer corps. 8/25
That might not be too much of a problem if the ranks of the military broadly reflected America& #39;s own political and cultural divisions, but as Bryant et al. note, they do not. Contra the blithe assertions of the Gates Commiss, the AVF does not look like America... 9/25
...nor does it have the composition a draft-based force would.
The same study also notes that nearly a third (29.82%) of West Point cadets *strongly agreed* with the idea that civilians shouldn& #39;t criticize the military. 10/25
The same study also notes that nearly a third (29.82%) of West Point cadets *strongly agreed* with the idea that civilians shouldn& #39;t criticize the military. 10/25
Evidently those West Point cadets need remedial courses on their Clausewitz.
Mercifully, the number was lower for serving officers, but of course today& #39;s cadets are tomorrow& #39;s officers. 11/25
Mercifully, the number was lower for serving officers, but of course today& #39;s cadets are tomorrow& #39;s officers. 11/25
And of course we have to note that before the last election, every living former secretary of defense *felt it necessary* to signal to the military that they shouldn& #39;t, you know, do a coup against the democracy https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/10-former-defense-secretaries-military-peaceful-transfer-of-power/2021/01/03/2a23d52e-4c4d-11eb-a9f4-0e668b9772ba_story.html">https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/... 12/25
Such things are not necessary in good civ-mil.
Moreover, the concern wasn& #39;t empty. Veterans make up c. 6% of the general population, but seem to have made up something like 20% of early arrests in the Capitol Insurrection: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com">https://www.npr.org/2021/01/2... 13/25
Moreover, the concern wasn& #39;t empty. Veterans make up c. 6% of the general population, but seem to have made up something like 20% of early arrests in the Capitol Insurrection: https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com">https://www.npr.org/2021/01/2... 13/25
https://www.npr.org/2021/01/21/958915267/nearly-one-in-five-defendants-in-capitol-riot-cases-served-in-the-military?utm_term=nprnews&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_source=twitter.com
So evidently *despite* the desperate pleas of 10 former SecDefs, a meaningful number of veterans *did* take it upon themselves to try to unseat the lawful transfer of power within our civilian institutions.
What might possibly have made them feel they had the right? 14/25
What might possibly have made them feel they had the right? 14/25
So is the civ-mil relationship healthy? Clearly not! There is a growing sense among service personnel that they are both set apart *and better* than civilian. Does warrior-ism drive this, or reflect it? I don& #39;t know, but either way it has to go as a signal of the... 15/25
...values that the force is going to adopt moving forward. Organizational culture flows down from the top, and & #39;warrior ethos& #39; and & #39;warrior restaurant& #39; nonsense signals that the top is on board with this warrior-ism, despite its baleful consequences. 16/25
That has to change and it is long past time for the civilian authorities - Congress, the President - to do their jobs and make it change.
And to be clear, the culture of the military has *not* always been like this. 17/25
And to be clear, the culture of the military has *not* always been like this. 17/25
The & #39;warrior ethos& #39; was added to the Soldier& #39;s Creed only in 2003 - the old version of the Creed had no reference to being a warrior, but it did have a line about "restrain[ing]...Army comrades from actions disgraceful..." which got nuked out of the current version. 18/25
The pro-warrior literature isn& #39;t that old either. Gates of Fire - the perennial target of my ire - was only published in 1998.
Read some WWII veteran memoirs - & #39;warrior& #39; is, in my experience, a very rare descriptor for military personnel. 19/25
Read some WWII veteran memoirs - & #39;warrior& #39; is, in my experience, a very rare descriptor for military personnel. 19/25
Finally, @EmanThinks makes the argument that a & #39;warrior& #39; mindset improves cohesion. It may well, but if it improves cohesion at the cost of the civ-mil relationship, it is worse than useless.
This is the exact mistake of elevating operational/tactical considerations...20/25
This is the exact mistake of elevating operational/tactical considerations...20/25
...to the strategic level. Cohesion and lethality cannot trump strategic considerations - if greater lethality comes with a threat to the democracy, you accept lower lethality.
Because - as Clausewitz says (drink!) - policy must rule. 21/25
Because - as Clausewitz says (drink!) - policy must rule. 21/25
It is striking to me that this particular error in military thinking is exactly the one that tends to occur when military decision-making is insulated from civilian policy, see e.g. I. Hull above, or S. Ienaga, The Pacific War (1978).
Perhaps there is a problem after all? 22/25
Perhaps there is a problem after all? 22/25
This kind of argument often comes with the suggestion that civilians don& #39;t understand and shouldn& #39;t have an opinion which just leads us right back up to tweet 3.
"The civ-mil is great and also if you are a civ and you disagree, shut up" is a self-refuting argument.
23/25
"The civ-mil is great and also if you are a civ and you disagree, shut up" is a self-refuting argument.
23/25
Finally, I want to stress again that this shift to warrior-ism, and the mil-exceptionalism isn& #39;t the age-old thing that many current folks serving think it is - it& #39;s an artifact of the GWOT era and doesn& #39;t go back much further than that. 24/25
But since the GWOT turns 20 this year, most current personnel know nothing else.
And that is a real proble, which needs addressing sooner, rather than later. end/25
And that is a real proble, which needs addressing sooner, rather than later. end/25
