The Importance of Civilian Control of our Military

2017-02-15T11:46:02-05:00

Having served as a military officer since 22 years of age, with deployments to Afghanistan as my formative experiences, I held a sharp skepticism of Congressional Representatives believing that their commitment to their responsibilities was obscured by their need to appeal to the broadest population for their election cycles. In my youthful hubris, I also believed that I intrinsically had the capacity to assess motivations and intentions of said Congressional members through visual cues, without knowing them or even reading about them. I have equally been suspicious of military leaders that are idolized. History that has shown that they are also people, and sometimes commit grievous errors. Time and experience, however, has tempered my criticism to be more reflective about what truly motivates people and not be so critical from the onset. What I always believed, however, was that civilian control of the military was necessary to ensure that “the civil state remains in full vigor”, as Alexander Hamilton emphasized in ‘The Federalist Papers’.

In 2016, I witnessed my first Congressional hearing hosted by the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC). Getting to see first-hand the execution of our democracy through an annual testimony of Combatant Commanders to the SASC, I learned that there were more similarities between the Congressional domain and the military domain than I had initially realized. The military approaches service to the country through life and death terms in the application of violence. The Congress fulfills their commitment through much broader means and that are centered on the citizenry. What became very clear that day was that they are both staunchly committed to protecting this nation and its citizens.

Over time I have come to appreciate that our country was founded both on freedom and a keen understanding of citizens and their inclinations. Civilian control of the military has been a key principle that has ensured that freedom. The Congressional hearing for GEN (Ret) James Mattis was an awe-inspiring hearing for me. I had developed deep reservations about providing an exception to the seven year moratorium for retired officers. With GEN (Ret) James Mattis, I purposely chose not to read too much about him before watching his confirmation hearing to avoid becoming biased. GEN (Ret) Mattis’ responses, as the first appointee in the past 70 years (since GEN George C. Marshall) to need an exception to the seven year moratorium, truly impressed me as a military professional and patriotic citizen.

GEN (Ret) Mattis showed acuity in fielding hard questions about the civilian-military separation that is critical for the health of the United States’ democratic system. Testimonies earlier in the week by Dr. Kathleen Hicks and Dr. Eliot Cohen supported his nomination in spite of their concerns about the need to constitutionally ensure clear civilian control of the military. Drawing from a lifetime of military experience, GEN (Ret) Mattis emphasized that the role of the Secretary of Defense would require a much wider scope of thinking than his time as a military officer, in order to provide the best military advice to the president. During numerous questions about what he believed the role of the military should be in the national security sphere, he responded with a mix of deep understanding and reflection. Referencing historical context throughout his testimony, he emphasized that the military should not be relied upon to solve all of the nation’s problems. The other instruments of national power: diplomacy, information, and economy needed to be utilized just as much as the military tool in order to achieve strategic ends.

Dr. Cohen stresses in his book ‘The Big Stick: The Limits of Soft Power & the Necessity of Military Force’, that credible military options that are made clear to potential adversaries work as an effective deterrent measure against their use of force. GEN (Ret) Mattis stressed this very point when answering questions during the hearing. The goal is not for the military to begin engaging in endless conflicts around the world, but rather to selectively apply force in order to clarify US priorities and utilize the other tools of foreign policy in order to advance our goals. The military is not the “golden goose” and cannot achieve victory on its own, rather it needs to work in concert with all the other instruments.

For me, this key point underscores his commitment to civilian control and helps to assuage any concerns about a preponderance to overuse the military. Additionally, the exception is only for GEN (Ret) Mattis and the seven year moratorium remains in effect after his confirmation. Acknowledging that there will probably be conflicts between himself and senior military leaders, there is no person that simultaneously also has the confidence of PEOTUS and commands such broad support. GEN (Ret) Mattis is not infallible, but appears to possess the requisite respect for American democratic traditions and capacity to reflect on deep and multidimensional problems that are needed for the Secretary of Defense.

---
MAJ Vincent Dueñas is an Army Foreign Area Officer, a recent graduate of the Johns Hopkins School of Advanced International Studies and an Associate Member of the Military Writer’s Guild. The views represented are his own and do not reflect the position or official policy of the US Government or any of its agencies.
--
IMAGE
“Old Guard Museum” https://www.flickr.com/photos/oldguardmuseum/ [login to see]

1956-06-13-Presentation of US Army Flag to 3rd Infantry Color Guard, US Capitol

The official Department of the Army Flag was presented to Secretary of the Army Wilber M. Brucker by Vice President Richard M. Nixon in formal ceremonies at the Capitol Building. Secretary Brucker then presented the flag to the US Army Chief of Staff, General Maxwell D. Taylor. Members of the Color Guard were (unreadable) Robert C. Spott, Sergeant First Class Eugene Mills, Specialist 3 William B. Kennedy and Private William P. Madden. 13 Jun...

Response by SPC Margaret Higgins made Feb 15 at 2017 12:00 PM

2017-02-15T12:00:14-05:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member:
I am in accordance with these concepts. Let freedom eternally ring!
I believe thoroughly that: my Brothers and Sisters should not be over-extended.
I send my most fervent prayers to all of my Brothers and Sisters who are deployed into combat.
God Bless America!
-With My Sincerest regards to You Sir,
Margaret C Higgins US Army (Ret)

Response by SFC George Smith made Feb 15 at 2017 12:02 PM

2017-02-15T12:02:48-05:00

most interesting... The civilians may need to Control The Military ... But they need to at least have a working Knowledge of the Military and Not View as a dangerous and Foreign Entity... that Poses a threat...

Response by SGT Private RallyPoint Member made Feb 16 at 2017 11:05 AM

2017-02-16T11:05:42-05:00

Agreed Sir

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Apr 23 at 2017 6:26 PM

2017-04-23T18:26:21-04:00

Response by Sgt Kelli Mays made Jun 15 at 2017 8:38 PM

2017-06-15T20:38:55-04:00

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member I can see some of your points of view, but in the long run, I believe without being in the Military, experiencing the Military and knowing the Military ....it's not enough that there are similarities with the Military and Congress. I that any one sitting on the Armed Services Committee should have some Military experience whether it is active duty or serving through the reserves.

Response by Cpl Kevin Partlow made Jun 27 at 2017 11:53 PM

2017-06-27T23:53:50-04:00

You make many good points regarding the necessity for the military to function toward the benefits of the U.S citizens referenced in you article as civilians. Being in the Healthcare field, it is necessary for us as Healthcare providers to recognize the health goals of the public population. Just as you do not want a lawyer or mechanic dictating what medical/Healthcare procedures and policies are to be utilized by the Healthcare field to improve public health, you don't want lawyers and politicians determining the strategies and having the last say in policies used to complete the militarys mission. Citizen oversight is important in ensuring that the military has our best interests in mind but the Secretary of Defense serves as liason of citizen interests to the military and as such should be an expert in military strategy and be devoted the the citizens that the military represents and defends. We may very well be in agreement with one another but I do not agree with the idea of "civilian control of the military " as it is essentially political control of the military but rather we should have citizen oversight of a military "controlled" by the goals of U.S citizen interest and carried out by military experts. Thanks you for your thoughtful post.

Response by SFC William Stephens A. Jr., 3 MSM, JSCM made Jun 29 at 2017 10:14 AM

2017-06-29T10:14:15-04:00

Here's my take on the whole Civ and Mil Leadership thing, Behind closed doors we really don't know who really running them Big generals but let me tell this I believe that there is an organization higher then the Masons and the Shriners who run this country and who select our POTUS because they say its about the people voting and all that but I want you to look back 8 years ago when Obama was running and Hillary was running and she stepped down. Why did she step down because she was told to by this organization because she was not ready yet and will never be ready like her husband Bill and rest of the POTUS that at selected to run our country. I think Civ run our country behind closed doors and give the natural orders to the Officers appointed in the positions to control the Armies. The Defense Department is mostly Civ and half Mil. I've had this vision for years and shit is starting to get deep as we see the decision are starting to be made in the White House about problems going on in the Middle East, these problem will go on forever. I our special organization want this to all end they would just tell the POTUS to end it and this never ending battle in the Middle East would be over but this is how we make money and survive as a country building new equipment to kill the enemy. Who really runs the show.

Response by SSG Edward Tilton made Aug 12 at 2017 8:46 PM

2017-08-12T20:46:34-04:00

Seems to me the Generals are running the show

Response by CW2 Private RallyPoint Member made Aug 5 at 2019 12:34 PM

2019-08-05T12:34:29-04:00

Interesting read, but very informative. Thank you for your views and experience.