Year 2020 will surely go down in history as a tragic year, perhaps rivaling year 1968 with its multiple disasters. Political division, protests, and demonstrations are not new — the nation has gone through this before. But voluntarily shutting down the economy in the face of a fearsome pandemic is new. And the widespread participation — national and even international — in demonstrations over racial issues surely marks this as truly historical.

When national crises occur, our institutions come under stress. We all would like society to operate in an orderly fashion. We obey laws, not because there’s a cop on every corner — there isn’t — but because laws are made for a reason, and we obey them for the greater good.

But sometimes laws are unjust, and should be changed. The Constitution guarantees citizens the right of peaceful assembly to carry grievances to government. 

To guard against the excessive accumulation of power, the Constitution established a system of checks and balances. But those checks and balances are effective only if those with the power to exercise them actually use those powers. Since 2017, we have seen a disappointing lack of judicial and congressional will to use these powers to check the accumulation and abuse of presidential power. 

President Trump’s success at evading consequences of actions that include flouting numerous unwritten norms, soliciting foreign assistance to damage political opponents, sacking inspectors general, and using his office for financially enriching himself and his family, have encouraged him to push still further.

The faltering American economy with the employment slump voluntarily induced to dampen the spread of the coronavirus, and the widespread ongoing demonstrations clearly have Trump in a state of panic. His reaction has placed another important institution under stress, the relationship between civilian and military leadership.  Trump’s threat to use military action to quell protesters if “weak” governors refuse to crack down has raised new alarms.

A fundamental premise of a democracy is civilian control over the military, a doctrine that places responsibility for a country’s strategic decision-making in the hands of civilian political leadership. A leading scholar of this subject cited the paradox: “because we fear others, we create an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection.”

In other words, there is a crucial balance to be maintained.

Several historical examples affirmed civilian control over strategic objectives. For example, in 1862 President Lincoln dismissed General McClellan when he failed to pursue the Confederate Army following the Battle of Antietam. In 1951, President Truman sacked the popular General MacArthur over his public insistence, over Truman’s objections, on the “need” (MacArthur’s view) to expand the Korean War.

The distinction between the military and civilian leadership over national objectives is clear. But the above paradox becomes more relevant in the context of domestic use of military forces.

The Posse Comitatus Act of 1878 prohibits the Army (or Air Force that later evolved from the Army) from engaging in law enforcement activities. Similar prohibitions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps by Defense Department regulations.

However, the President is authorized to use the Insurrection Act of 1807 to circumvent these restrictions and use federal troops to suppress “rebellion.” It is this possibility that prompted alarm among civilian and military personnel.

While the Hatch Act of 1939 that restricts political activity for federal employees does not directly apply to the military, a Department of Defense directive essentially applies the same rules to the military. Active duty military personnel must remain apolitical. The highest ranking officers, such as Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and retired officers with political appointments, have some opportunity to influence the president. It is here that Joint Chief of Staff Chair General Mark Milley, and Defense Secretary Mark Esper, ostensibly urged Trump not to invoke the Insurrection Act to use federal troops to quell demonstrations. Although Esper and Milley accompanied Trump to the now-infamous photo op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church after teargassing peaceful demonstrators in Lafayette Park, both now claim that they were unaware of the president’s intent, or that the crowed would be teargassed.

But it was this event that triggered the extraordinary blistering statement of Trump by former Secretary of Defense, James Mattis, undoubtedly Trump’s best cabinet appointee. 

When Mattis resigned from his post over disagreement with Trump’s withdrawal of American troops and their assistance to the Kurds, he affirmed that the president should have someone more in line with his views. Mattis initially felt that he should not criticize the sitting president under which he served. He did say, however: “There is a period in which I owe my silence. It’s not eternal. It’s not going to be forever.”

That period has obviously ended. His recent statement included, “We must reject and hold accountable those in office who would make a mockery of our Constitution,” and “Donald Trump is the first president in my lifetime who does not try to unite the American people — does not even pretend to try. Instead, he tries to divide us.”

Retired flag officers who generally refrain from criticizing presidents weighed in. These include Adm. Wm. McRaven, commander of the raid that killed Osama bin Laden, and Adm. James Stavridis, former Allied Commander of NATO.

Adm. Mike Mullen called Trump’s desire to use active duty forces to suppress protesters “sickening.”

Army General Martin Dempsey criticized Trump’s comparisons of the demonstrations to battlegrounds as “inflammatory language” that could damage the military’s relationship with the public.

Air Force General Richard Meyers stated that tear gassing of protesters filled him with “just absolute sadness.” 

General Colin Powell became the fourth former Joint Chief of Staff Chair to weigh in, stating that Trump “drifted away from the Constitution.”

While some wish that Mattis would have spoken out earlier, his long delay no doubt added force to his recent statement.

When former flag officers who generally refrain from criticizing presidents weigh in on these matters, it’s high time to pay attention.

— John Waelti can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.net.