I’m not sure that things are really spiraling out of hand to the extent that the media is forecasting, but I believe it is safe to say that we are facing challenging times. This country, and the grand experiment that it represents has dodged a bullet or two, on occasion with our collective fates in the balance.
I was recently thinking about the 5th of November 1862, an obscure date in history that won’t immediately register any obvious threat. I am going to try and convince you it was such a time, where the national grand experiment nearly expired, and did just miss doing so.
On 5 November 62, in the middle of the US Civil War, President Abraham Lincoln relieved for cause the Commanding General, US Army, George B. McClellan. No big deal, happens all the time, right? Well, as it happens, McClellan was loved by the public, and adored by his soldiers. He was considered heroic, and a stalwart- because he stood up to that bully Lincoln and would not bend to the pressures of the day. That he was committed to not sacrifice the lives of his soldiers needlessly, was determined to subdue the south as gently as possible, and even lectured the president that this business that they were involved should not be about any newly fashionable or radical social issues (like forcible servitude by race), and should not be a war against people. The man was lauded in the press because of this, and genuinely loved by all.
McClellan’s officers were so offended when he was relieved on 5 November that they petitioned their beloved General to ignore the order and turn the Army of the Potomac around and march on Washington. I believe that he considered it. After all, in his mind, he had all the answers. He also had the people. He considered himself a dignified man of the times. It would have been a cake walk, militarily, and at the time- would have been universally accepted as the bravest and most selfless act of a genuine patriot. Obviously, it would have been an ultimate disaster, and this nation would have folded. To his credit, he did not do so.
The modern military officer who is fortunate enough to attain a level where he interfaces with an elected or appointed civilian as his Commander in Chief has without question experienced a long and blessed career. There are only a handful of individuals so blessed, certainly, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the respective Chiefs of the Services that report to their Secretary, the Geographic Combatant Commanders, and lastly the most junior entrant into this field, the 54 State Adjutant Generals, who report to the Governor of their state as the Commander in Chief.
Those of you that I am acquainted with know that I served as the Adjutant General of the Commonwealth of Kentucky, under Governor Matt Bevin. I will state, up front, that I had no occasion to disagree with the direction that I received from Governor Bevin and was beyond fortunate to have a relationship with a civilian Commander in Chief, that few of those mentioned above could have possibly realized.
I gratefully admit that this consensus was a luxury, nothing more or nothing less. The fact that my Commander in Chief served as an officer in the military gave us a common frame of reference, also a luxury. Most Commanders that serve civilian masters, are not nearly as fortunate as I. Those of my peers, and those of my superiors that did not have such a complimentary relationship have room for complaint, that they will never utter, as a matter of necessity. Military advice and civilian leadership are not normally so utopian.
With this separation of the professional military man with the civilian politician, a common frame of reference, or even a basic understanding can be difficult to obtain. Generally, that is fine with the fellows in uniform, as long as they are largely left alone to do their own thing. Where friction occurs, is those places where civilian interface cannot be avoided, political necessity placed as the priority, or a cause is advanced which would generate adventurism. Tensions become present, and the friction can be overwhelming. The only saving attitude is that the knowledge- and necessity- that military service is and must be subordinate to civilian masters. Still, the temptation is to be McClellan, and play the hero to the masses would be high indeed. To take the hits, even when it is not the best plan or place militarily, shows discipline and commitment to the American professional military standard.
This necessity encapsulates the entire notion that the military must be apolitical. That the force of arms is so powerful and ultimately persuasive that it cannot afford to have preferences in respect to policy. If senior officers had leverage in policy beyond advice, the military would cease to be an asset in obtaining national interests, and a fulcrum in which all things would become entangled, including the very fabric of society. Politicizing the military to the point that gives the Commander the option of nonparticipation is in word, dangerous. Civilian control is a necessity to bridge this nation from any third world antics of a military/ political coup, which would have been the case on 5 Nov 1862.
Again, agreement with the policy is a luxury. In the world absent luxury, after the best military advice is rendered, even if it is not considered, even if it is scoffed or laughed at, even if discredits the Generals in a manner that causes calls for resignation, humiliation, or debacle, subordination to the civilian elected or appointed leadership is the “prime directive” of military servitude.
I have always held in high esteem the character and service of our Chairman, General Milley. I have received his guidance when he was the Chief of Staff, and also had the luxury of agreeing with it, so I consider him an expert in his field and a true American Military Professional. I also know that few have invested more into the good of this nation and for the good of the war effort.
As General Milley is being targeted and criticized for the current state of affairs, does not detract from this professional esteem, rather it enhances it. I am confident, would bet everything that I own that he has performed his duties as expertly as possible within the dynamics mentioned above. That he is shouldering the blame, and doing so as dignified as he is, really says something about the character of the man. The thing that can be said of General Milley, is that he believes in the system, believes in military/ political separation, and will bear what he must bear to see the prime directive through.
The young Lt Colonel, USMC, has in my estimation has not been as dignified. Using a social media platform to demand accountability- speculating and accusing dereliction to appeal to the masses is quite literally against the oath that he had freely taken. It places the military into a position of only following those orders or instructions that we happen to totally agree with, opting out of others, and that is clearly either an attempt to politicize the military, or to place one’s own personal interests above the cumulative.
I understand his frustration. It is also totally possible that I agree with where his head is and see him as more right than wrong. If he is completely right, that right is reserved for the citizens, and this military, the volunteer military, the corporate military, the military that we have positioned not for homeland defense, but for global interests, he is still wrong. I think it is safe to say that many, if not most, military professionals are like minded. They are professionals because they are keeping their peace in support of the prime directive.
He knows he is wrong. A man does not make Lt Colonel without knowing better. Why he is wrong is that he used the uniform as a prop for political theater. He has cashiered the prime directive for the sake of popularity, airtime, book deals, whatever- but certainly has rejected why were there in the first place. And who we are in the second place. His actions have made this country less secure, and the position of this military in a real quandary.
The mantra of any officer that dons this uniform is “Mission, Men, Myself.” That is, the mission- again whether it is one that we happen to agree with or not, takes ultimate priority. Mission defines the task and end state that it is be accomplished and includes restrictions and constraints. If one of those constraints happens to be that the command cannot introduce more forces into theater, because it is politically unsuitable to appear to be looking for a fight; than the abandonment of Bagram is a great deal more reasonable. If the mission is to simply hold one’s force together, and see to the readiness and morale, with the constraints and restrictions to abide by the agreement of one’s oath; and when one commits professional suicide by acclamation, by placing oneself above mission- he will not complete that mission.
These are interesting times, surely. Political discourse and friction resultant from these dialogs have infiltrated nearly every institution, and are prevalent now in the entertainment industry, sports, police, medicine, media, Disney movies, energy, big tech, gender, race, religion, bathrooms, toys, the courts, drugs, and likely a few that I am missing. If the only one that we manage to keep free of political energy, one that can maintain apolitical, one that will find no home for political separatism to infiltrate is the Military, then we- as a society, still have a chance.
If we don’t, and the US Military becomes a political instrument, this nation will never recover. Mark Milley is holding that line for you, today. I hope that he writes a book. If and when he does- or when he does- he’ll be given the professional credit that he deserves.