U.S. War Decisions Rightfully Belong to Elected Civilian Leaders, Not the Military by LTG David Barno (USA Ret.), Washington Post.
The Sept. 6 commentary by retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales [“A war the Pentagon doesn’t want,” Washington Forum] marks a dangerous breach of the fundamental civilian-military relationship in the United States. It’s corrosive premise - that our civilian leadership is not up to the task of deciding the nation’s course in war - must be addressed before our military begins to believe that it should have the biggest say in decisions to go to war.
Scales, a military historian and former commandant of the U.S. Army War College (from which I graduated), is a powerful voice among the Army’s retired generals. His words are all the more dangerous because they carry such weight…
Comments
I'm sorry, but I just didn't read the Scales article the other day and walk away from it feeling the general was impeaching the constitutional relationship between civil and military leadership.
But perhaps I missed something. And while I also support the constitutional arrangement, and that when a military officer is unable to support the decisions of civilian leadership he resigns...I feel we must at least touch on a few points where theory meets practicality.
1. In reality, the military obviously gets enough influence into a decision to constitute a vote. From a passive vote in what advice and how that advice is given to civilian decision makers, to an active vote in testimony to Congress, the use of leaks, currying favor with sympathetic elected officials, and the sheer weight of military bureaucracy. This too has a role in the fracas that is our democracy because not only do our civilian leadership need to hear military advice - so do the people from whom the civilian leadership come.
2. While military service is service in part because one gives up certain constitutional rights to join (e.g. freedom of assembly), excepting a few, military members are still citizens of this country. As free persons, serving voluntarily, they also exercise certain practicalities in the exercise of their citizenship. One is to exercise the ethical right of putting some consideration into the cause for which they are being asked to risk their lives. Volunteer, professional militaries exercise this right less often and less aggressively than conscript militaries, but it is still a practical reality. It is impractical, and beyond expectation, to expect citizens to volunteer for military service and suspend reason to become automatons for the duration of their service.
In sum, both Scales and Barno are right. The military does execute the legal orders of civilian leadership. It is important that Americans remember that the military works for them - like police and firefighters - and can and should be judged, from performance to compenstation. But, the military is also mostly made up of American citizens who can use the avenues - formal and informal - open to them to express their thoughts about the missions they are being asked to execute.