I largely agree with Rich’s column today, “First, Fire the Generals,” in which he pushes back on the Beltway outrage engendered by President Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth dismissing several senior general officers, including Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Charles Q. Brown and Chief of Naval Operations Admiral Lisa Franchetti.
“This is being called an ‘unprecedented purge’ and a step toward the politicization of the military,” Rich writes. But “worries about the politicization of the military are rich after years of the civilian leadership pushing DEI on the ranks and insisting that climate change is a national-security threat. Here comes Secretary Hegseth saying that the military needs to be about ‘its core mission of deterring, fighting and winning wars,’ and he’s the dangerous ideologue?”
Again — I largely agree with all that. But I am going to quibble with Rich and others’ use of the term “politicization of the military.” I think the real issue for the generals and admirals is partisanship, not politicization.
As Clausewitz taught us, war is politics by other means. At the senior levels of the U.S. military, I want officers, especially those advising the president and secretary of defense on policy to be thinking, “How can I best pursue the national strategy (i.e., the political directives) set by my civilian superiors?”
It’s the proper role for a uniformed officer, such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff or the chief of Naval Operations, to advise a president or defense secretary how best to carry out his political agenda using the military resources at his disposal. And those military means should be understood as just one part of an overall national strategy that is, again, set by duly elected political leaders exercising their appropriate powers entrusted to them by virtue of their political offices.
The bulldog, ultra-aggressive fighting general is not always the best option. The ideal general is a strategically, operationally, and tactically competent commander who understands the task and political purpose of military power.
Aggression vs. caution isn’t the key factor. In 1862, George McClellan didn’t understand the political purpose of his army (destroy the Confederate Army and end the rebellion). He was too cautious. In 1951, Douglas MacArthur didn’t understand the political problem with being too ready to drive towards the Chinese border. He was too aggressive. Both could have been more successful if they had been more politically astute — if they had understood the overall political purpose of their role and the tasking given to them. Both were rightly fired by the president.
Of course Trump’s firings of these generals was political! He didn’t think he was getting, or would get, the results he wanted. Or, perhaps, he simply didn’t like the cut of their jibs. But these “political” firings were also entirely legitimate in our system, which places the military under the command of the president and of the law.
(The wisdom of such firings is another question entirely — and one on which my mind is open.)
What Americans should oppose is not the politicization of the military per se, as if the military were some separate martial caste of mandarins completely outside the framework of our republican constitutional system, but partisanship on the part of any segment of our military.
American officers, when tasked by the president via a lawful order, or when asked for their advice, should do their duty to the very best of their ability. That’s their role. That’s why they’re there.
They should not, however, be cheerleaders or opponents of the politicians, or tolerate an environment in the ranks in which such partisanship can be put forth while wearing the uniform.
Any of us, as citizens, may disagree with the political directives of such and such president of such and such party — but the military’s role is to carry out those directives, as long as they are lawfully given. We should want the generals to follow any tasking given to them by their civilian superiors, whatever it is, even if we disagree with its wisdom. It’s the sandbagging of civilian leadership (of either party, of presidents popular or unpopular) that should cause us dismay.
The proper alternative, of course, should a senior officer disagree with any task, priority, directive, or course of action given him by a president, is to resign, if his conscience so dictates. He may then directly criticize the president, or oppose him, if he chooses. That too is entirely proper — and it’s as much partisanship as we should tolerate from our military.
Some might call this a distinction without much difference. I disagree – it’s fundamental.