Good think piece, though this sentence jumped out at me - "There is no obvious reason to think that those with military experience are better suited to controlling the military on behalf of Congress or the president—and plenty of reasons to suspect the opposite." ... I believe there are plenty of obvious reasons to think a person with military experience, familiar with roles and capabilities, is better suited to controlling the military. If the job involves advising up and directing down, I feel the obvious choice is to have someone with experience in the institution. I feel the LESS logical choice would be to appoint someone who didn't serve but had more experience as a politician or statesman/women, though there may be good reason to do so WRT civil/military authority.

Good article!

The relationship is broken. Part of the problem is the enormous swings that seem to be happening with each new administration but also the oversight from Congress and the public isn't happening either. It's a wonder we still have public trust.