A long article in the US Foreign Affairs website sheds light on what he called the deterioration of civilian control over the military establishment in the United States, and warned of a threat to national security and democracy if the matter was not remedied early.
The article, which was prepared by 3 books: Risa Brooks, a professor of political science and a researcher at the West Point Institute for Modern Warfare, Jim Golby, a retired US Army officer who researches national security affairs, and Heidi Orben, a retired US Army officer, a researcher at the West Point Institute for Modern Warfare, explained that Civilian control over the military establishment in America has quietly and steadily deteriorated over the past three decades.
Constitution and reality
He stated that civilian control of the military is deeply rooted in the United States Constitution.
The armed forces, constitutionally, are accountable to the president and the legislative authority, and senior military officers continue to follow orders and avoid public disobedience, but their influence has witnessed a continuous growth during the past three decades, while the mechanisms of oversight and accountability for them have faltered.
Today, the article noted, US presidents are concerned about military opposition to their policies, as they must account for an institution that selectively implements their executive directives.
All too often, unelected military leaders make civilian options so that generals can manage wars as they see fit.
He explained that this is done because the military filters the information civilians need and carries out orders issued by civilians, thereby exerting a major influence on civilian decision-making.
And even if elected officials still have the last word, they may have little operational control if the generals prepare all options or slow their implementation, as they often do now.
Numerous examples
The article cited dozens of examples of weakening civilian control over the military, including the complaints of former Presidents Barack Obama and Donald Trump about the army forcing them to accept an increase in the number of troops in Afghanistan or refuse to withdraw from Syria.
The American army begins the withdrawal from Afghanistan (Al-Jazeera)
Of course, senior military commanders do not always get everything they want, but they often get more than they should, as their authority extends beyond the decisions that make headlines about overseas deployment or troop reductions, he said.
The military's influence is evidenced hundreds of times a day through bureaucratic maneuvering in the Pentagon, in political debates at the White House, and during testimony before Congress.
He went on to say that these interactions, perhaps more than anything else, directed the decision-making process away from civilians in the defense minister's office, and toward uniformed personnel.
Within the Pentagon, for example, military commanders often anticipate civilian personnel advice and analysis by sending their proposals directly to the secretary of defense, bypassing the complex authentication process that civilian personnel must navigate.
The role of Congress
The article also cited indications of an erosion of civilian control outside the Pentagon, saying that Congress rarely demands the military bow to civilian power, and instead acts selectively and for partisan reasons.
In extreme cases, some opponents of Trump have urged senior military commanders to consider removing him from office.
The oversight process itself has also become politicized, as politicians increasingly turn to the military expertise to run the Pentagon.
Meanwhile, the public could not insist that the elected leaders hold the military accountable, as many Americans attach high importance to the forces and show their admiration from afar, and the repetition of the slogan "support our forces" has become a substitute for the national duty to hold accountable the civilian institution they serve.
Act 1986
The three writers noted that, in 1986, Congress inadvertently passed the Department of Defense Reorganization Act, which transferred power and resources from civilian leaders to their military counterparts.
Since the passage of that bill, civilians in the Pentagon and many government institutions have been replaced by military personnel.
Today, ambassadors and other civilian officials frequently rely on regional army commanders for the resources, including aircraft and logistical support, to do their jobs.
Unelected military leaders determine civilian options so that generals can manage wars according to what they see (Al-Jazeera)
Regional combatant commanders have also come to assume transnational responsibilities, giving them effective diplomatic authority and frequent contacts not only with their military counterparts abroad but also with leaders of foreign governments, further marginalizing their civilian counterparts in the State Department.
By 2018, this situation had deteriorated to the point where the Bipartisan National Defense Strategy Committee - appointed by Congress - concluded that the lack of civilian voices in national security decision-making "undermines the concept of civilian control."
These problems became more acute during the Trump administration, when the Pentagon was filled with agency officials and vacant positions.
After September 11th
Party polarization also undermined civilian control.
After September 11, 2001, the public’s appreciation of the military rose, and politicians took notice.
Elected leaders became increasingly willing to ignore civilian and military norms, eschew serious oversight and accountability of the military, and encourage military disobedience to score political points against their political opponents.
Today, given the army's popularity, politicians in both parties are trying to take advantage of the military's prestige to protect themselves from criticism and attack their opponents.
During election campaigns, candidates often claim that the military favors them over their opponents.
The army itself also played a role in the decline of civilian control as the value of partisan neutrality within it diminished.
Until late 1976, most senior military officers did not sympathize with any political party, but today nearly three-quarters of them do so, according to surveys conducted between 2017 and 2020 among senior officers enrolled in various war colleges.
Difficult but necessary task
The three writers said that resetting this broken relationship is a difficult task, and called on Congress to persistently continue its oversight role and hold the military accountable, regardless of who occupies the White House, and that this requires defense ministers to appoint skilled civil servants made up of political appointees and civil servants.
But most importantly, it requires an alert audience that is prepared to hold civilian leaders and the military accountable.
The article concluded by warning the American people that if they do not acknowledge the erosion of their ideal vision of civilian control, the civil-military crisis will worsen, stressing that this people must realize that democratic traditions and national security depend on this delicate relationship.
Without strong civilian oversight of the military, the United States will not remain a democracy or a world power for long.