Military In Politics - A1: A politicized military pledges allegiance to a political party and/or constantly defends and defends partisan political positions and fortunes. An apolitical, nonpartisan military is one of the norms underpinning American democracy and a hallmark of American military professionalism. The military serves the Constitution by obeying democratically elected civilian officials without regard to political parties or partisan positions. This idea ensures a peaceful transfer of power between presidential administrations and ensures that the American people can make their own governing decisions free from the threat of coercion. Knowing that partisan intent does not provide professional military advice also allows elected officials to rely on the expertise and advice of senior officers. Also, if the military takes a partisan stance or exercises partisan loyalty, voters may assume that the opposition party will not be able to control the military if voted into office. In other words, democratically elected representatives will not be able to faithfully execute national security policy if the military is firmly on the other side. Such a situation undermines the confidence of citizens in the party they do not like or in the military itself and undermines the functioning of the government.
Another critical result of nonpartisan forces is the protection of the military: Because the U.S. military serves elected representatives of the same political party, there is no reason for those representatives to treat the military differently based on of party affiliation. Decisions about the funding, size, shape, and use of the military are less likely to be driven by a desire to defend partisan power and more driven by broader strategic, economic, and public values. In addition, the management of service personnel can remain a professional and non-political process.
Military In Politics
The American military service considers the principle of non-partisan service as a fundamental element of the military profession. While DoD Directive 1344.10, “Political Activities of Members of the Armed Forces,” encourages all individuals in uniform “to fulfill their civic duties,” it also prohibits active-duty personnel from overt partisanship when acting on duty officers Prohibitions include partisan fundraising and management or representative duties in political campaigns, endorsements, or partisan speech, and using "official authority or influence to ... influence the course or outcome of an election". The Uniform Code of Military Justice, Section 888, Article 88, also prohibits commissioned officers from expressing "contempt of officials" who hold elected and appointed positions in the government.
Our Military Is Drowning In Political Correctness'
Q2: Why is it a problem for people in the chain of command (civilians or military personnel) to support their partisan political beliefs and loyalties to a military audience?
A2: Leaders set standards of conduct and emulate company values in both military and non-military settings. The expression of a preference for a political idea or party by a superior, especially in a professional setting, signals to subordinates that their survival and career advancement is best achieved by exercising that preference. For the military, the chain of command still offers limitations and expectations of subordination to a higher purpose. Thus, when someone in the chain of command expresses support for a partisan position to an audience of subordinates, that audience cannot be sure whether they agree or risk disobedience or disrespect.
In general, the military bears the primary responsibility for maintaining its apolitical character. But civilians play an important role in the military's political neutrality, often not calling for military support or advocating political options. This insight is especially important for the civilian political leaders highest in the chain of command: the secretary of defense and the president. Every person in uniform is subordinate to these two officials in hierarchy and law. Refraining from partisan advocacy before uniformed hearings is a critical way for civilian leaders to support the professional and apolitical nature of the armed forces and through the health of American democracy.
A3: The measure of military politicization is qualitative and quantitative. Quantitatively, social scientists have studied the voting behavior of officials and claimed party affiliation for decades. Between 1976 and 1996, for example, a study called the Foreign Policy Leadership Project led by Ole Holsti and James Rosenau studied the attitudes of senior officials and civilians on various political and foreign policy issues. In 1998, the Triangle Institute for Security Studies conducted a year-long survey of civilian and military attitudes under the direction of Peter Feaver and Richard Kohn. More recently, scholars have examined the level of uniform political activity on social media and active duty personnel's personal contributions to political campaigns. Qualitatively, scholars examine public comments made by military officers alongside private policy deliberations; the extent to which services influence, delay, or circumvent civilian policy choices based on designated political party affiliation; how and when partisan civilians seek military support for a cause or campaign; and the political activities of retired officers as a window into the political orientation or exploitation of the broader force.
Cambodian Royal Armed Forces (rcaf) Stand Next To Military Lorries During A Handover Ceremony Of 257 Military Vehicles Donated By China, At An Air Base In Phnom Penh June 23, 2010. Reuters/chor
Data on politicization is indeed a challenge: there is an important distinction between the political affiliation of institutions and the political activities of individual members. The actions of individuals, even those as important as officials, do not always reflect the true direction of an institution. There is also an important difference between personal and professional behavior and choices. However, the data show that the professional standards of "citizen-soldiers" have changed over time from general abstention from political affiliation to the convenience of consistently registering and voting for a political party. Whether this combination of individual choices is driving a deeper shift toward a more politically aware military is an unanswered question.
A4: It depends on the context, and there are many more challenges in practice than in principle. There is general agreement that when military personnel, including officers, retire, they have the same rights and privileges as citizens when it comes to political activities. Donating to causes, volunteering with service organizations, participating in public debates, and even contributing knowledge to political campaigns need not be a problem. What is important to note is whether retired officer posts are used to represent ex-military or even the entire military rather than the individual's views. Although individual personal opinions cannot be used as scientific indicators of institutional preferences, the general public often substitutes the statements of retired generals and flag officers for the opinions of military companies; in fact, the credibility of military experience is the main reason why these opinions are so valued in the political context. It is therefore problematic for retired civil servants to endorse a cause or a candidate because of the implication that there is a broader institutional endorsement behind the individual's advocacy.
Again, this is an area where civilians acting in political capacities are also responsible for protecting the non-partisan identity of military officers and military institutions. Seeking the endorsement of retired officers to lend credibility to partisan campaigns is a slippery slope because it shows the military's loyalty to the party rather than the state or the Constitution. And while it may be harmless as long as both major parties can be lawyer-officers, the growth of partisan activities by military professionals may undermine the development of trust and openness between civilian political officials and military advisers. Ideally, each side of the civil-military relationship can have faith that when it comes to national security policy, the partner is focused on the national interest, not the fortunes of political parties.
Alice Hunt Friend is a senior fellow in the International Security Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.
Don't Drag Military Into Politics, Group Cautions Nigerians
Produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (), a private tax-exempt agency focused on international public policy issues. Research is non-partisan and non-proprietary. does not adopt a specific political position. Therefore, all opinions, positions and conclusions expressed in this publication must be understood solely by the author. have been asked to discuss how the military maintains nonpartisanship under the Trump administration.
President Trump walked from the White House to St. Milley said it was a "mistake" he had learned from, but the incident sparked a discussion about how the military can maintain nonpartisanship in the Trump administration. Patrick Semansky/AP hide caption
President Trump walked from the White House to St. Milley said it was a "mistake" he had learned from, but the incident sparked a discussion about how the military can maintain nonpartisanship in the Trump administration.
Last year, Australian Defense Minister Christopher Pyne, flanked by senior officers, answered questions from reporters. Then they asked him a question focused on politics.
Partisan Politics Has No Place In Today's (or Tomorrow's) Military
As Pyne begins
Military drone range, laser range finder military, military range bags, military range targets, long range military radio, military radio range, military range finder, military long range binoculars, range rover military discount, military range rover, range of military drones, military range bag
0 Comments