No futurist, however prescient, could ever have predicted a fraction of the events that have occurred over these past several years. Among those is the recent anomalous turn of civilian-military relations that demonstrate how unpredictable the world is.
Conventional concern regarding civilian-military relationships in a democracy is to make sure that the military does not get out of control and impose a strong man autocracy or dictatorship. Instead of this conventional concern, the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and retired flag officers of the Army, Air Force, Navy, and Marine Corps have to remind our president of the proper role of the military in a democracy.
Joint Chief Chair, General Mark Milley, was severely criticized for joining the president for a photo-op after civilians, engaged in peaceful demonstration, were cleared away by tear gas and threatened by a dangerously low-hovering helicopter. Upon advice of trusted retired and active duty personnel, Milley recognized this appearance with the president under these circumstances as sending entirely the wrong message to the public. Understanding this, he ostensibly even considered resignation.
While risking angering the president, Milley publicly apologized. As of this writing, he still has his job, and is justly praised for his public apology. Even if he is sacked, he will be on the right side of history for publicly admitting error.
Secretary of Defense Mark Esper earlier had joined General Milley in dissuading the president from using military force against civilian demonstrators. The president was reportedly angered by this. Esper still has his job, but it is undoubtedly hanging by a thread.
“How Democracies Die,” by political scientists Daniel Ziblatt and Steven Levitsky, is a book that should be read by every aspiring and sitting politician. They analyzed case studies of how democracies have turned into autocracies and dictatorships. No, it is not usually by military coups and takeovers. Democracies have turned into autocracies through the ballot box and subsequent capture of political institutions by autocrats.
It is alarming that we have come to the point where usually-reticent flag officers feel the need to caution a president about using military force against civilians.
In this divided nation that holds so many of its institutions in low esteem, the military remains one of the most respected. The senior officer corps and retired officers are determined to maintain this respect after laboriously rebuilding the military image from its low point after the Vietnam War.
Only a small portion of the current American population has served, or even has a close relative with military experience. This is in sharp contrast to days prior to the all-volunteer forces. When the draft was on most of the male half of the population spent some time on active duty — even during peacetime. That’s not because we were any more patriotic — we weren’t. It had more to do with the Cold War and demographics.
Those of us of military age after the Korean War of 1950-53 were born during the 1930s, and there never were very many of us. To fill the ranks, the draft was still on. If we didn’t enlist, we would have been drafted. On most college campuses, including UW, male college students were required to take two years of ROTC. Some of them took four years of ROTC followed by a stint of active duty as junior officers.
In contrast to today’s growing gulf between the civilian and military worlds, back then, we vets were hired by vets who also had military experience. It was almost considered a rite of passage, something every male went through — no big deal. In fact it was such a “no big deal” that the jerks in Washington even jerked away the GI Bill after January 1955, until restoring it in September 1966. I should have enlisted in the Corps a few months earlier — I could have used that dough when I hit the UW campus.
But I can’t complain. Even without the GI Bill we got off easy. It was peacetime, and we were spared the horror of combat. Besides, I owe whatever success I ever had to that several years of maturity and confidence gained in Uncle Sam’s Marine Corps.
Then came the 1960s and Vietnam. The “domino theory” held that if Vietnam went communist, the rest of Southeast Asia, soon the rest of Asia, even the rest of the world, would follow suit. By the 1960s, we few of the “silent generation,” born during the 1930s, had military service behind us. But there was that huge generation of Baby Boomers coming along, providing a huge pool of draft bait.
But there was a catch.
The Baby Boomer generation was so huge that even during wartime not everyone was needed to fill the ranks. So, who mainly were drafted? Working class kids, of course. Others were spared for various reasons, contributing to the unpopularity of that war — and to the dissention of the 1960s and early ‘70s. A tragedy of that war is the shameful treatment accorded to returning vets who had nothing to do with the nation’s decision to go to war.
Other casualties of that war included the draft and reputation of the military. With the new volunteer Army and other changes, the military strived to regain public esteem. The once-disparaged Vietnam vets received belated recognition for their sacrifice. Some politicians were selectively denounced for their lack of service. Bill Clinton was trashed for a decade as a “draft dodger.” Newt Gingrich and Richard Cheney, who received multiple deferments, somehow escaped that epithet.
Donald Trump had heel spurs. But hey, can’t blame him. There was a war on — a guy could get hurt out there.
But Trump reveres the military, except for POWs and generals he labels as “losers.” He rates the universally respected Marine General Mattis as “overrated.”
However extraordinary, it’s of some solace that so many flag officers are advising Trump on appropriate use of the military. It’s of no solace that such advice is even necessary.
— John Waelti of Monroe, a retired professor of economics, can be reached at jjwaelti1@tds.
