In the bustle of the Christmas season, three events likely escaped attention.
The first was the U.S. Military Academy’s (West Point) decision to remove a portrait and bust of Gen. Robert E. Lee, a superintendent of West Point before the Civil War. The service academy made the decision based on Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin’s implementation of the recommendations of a congressional commission, the Naming Commission. Left in place were honored positions for Gen. Ulysses S. Grant.
The second was the ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Washington that the U.S. Marine Corps’ requirement that men be clean-shaven and have short hair didn’t promote diversity and inclusion in the Defense Department, in contrast to the stated goals of the department. The ruling means that two Sikh men who were excluded due to the length of their hair and beards may immediately begin training. Sikh men are forbidden from shaving their facial hair or cutting the hair on their heads. In her opinion, D.C. Circuit Court Judge Patricia Millett wrote that there was no compelling interest for the government in denying the Sikhs’ requests as policies on tattoos and beards have been loosened for medical reasons, for example, razor bumps.
The third was that the Marines are considering banning “gender-specific” salutations such as “sir” and “ma’am” for recruits to address their drill instructors. This consideration is prompted by an academic report from the University of Pittsburgh, which recommended that the Marine Corps eliminate these salutations due to concerns that their use may “misgender” their addressee.
The significance of these events can’t be seen in isolation but rather as the continued attempt to erode civil-military relations in the United States. The U.S. military has been governed by what Samuel Huntington termed “objective civilian control.” That is, in essence, the military is loyal to civilian leadership while civilians permit the military to possess an independent domain where it ensures the combat effectiveness of the force absent of civilian interference.
The first example is important because it demonstrates the erosion of the military history of the United States, including the military leadership that both Grant and Lee demonstrated, which is salient for cadets. All of America’s military history will be found wanting by progressives and thus in need of elimination. It won’t be long before they discover Grant’s 1862 General Order No. 11, which expelled American Jews from his military district, which included parts of Kentucky, Mississippi, and Tennessee during the Vicksburg campaign. Once Grant is canceled, they will be on to his replacement before he, too, is canceled, and then on to Pershing, Marshall, MacArthur, and Eisenhower in an equally absurd and appalling infinite regress worthy of Monty Python. For the logic of progressives, the next steps are the cancellation of West Point, the Army, and the United States.
The second and third examples are civilian violations of objective civilian control. Senior leadership must determine whether the requirements of objective civilian control, including the recognition of the independent military domain, will be respected in these circumstances. If the answer is negative, then senior leadership continues to slide into subjective civilian control—the politicization of the military. This will have profound consequences for national security, the force, and U.S. allies and foes. If affirmative, then the senior leadership must devise solutions regarding how the military domain will be respected and insulated.
To sustain objective civilian control, the warfighting ethos must be kept and internalized by the entirety of the force, particularly senior leadership. It requires officers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and indeed all ranks to be honest, critical, and forthright. It requires individuals to bend their will, religion, and desires to the needs of the military. If objective control isn’t maintained, then the Defense Department can’t avoid becoming a political force that will result in an intellectually listless, careerist, and apathetic officer and NCO corps. The failings of this force will be far worse than the “hollow force” of the late 1970s and will be revealed by our enemies.
Civilian control requires stark honesty, which is difficult to achieve in the best of circumstances. The challenge is far greater in a country enduring ideological upheaval that now encompasses the Defense Department. It would require the department’s highest levels to favor the appeal of the Circuit Court ruling and the leadership of the Marine Corps to defend its domain and state that the study, whatever its merits, overstepped its bounds.
A significant outcome of military professionalism during the Cold War was the positive environment for innovation made possible by institutions—the services, civilian and military leadership, industry, and defense intellectuals—willing to critique forcefully and harshly the needs, objectives, and performance of the U.S. military. All of which helped to sustain U.S. military effectiveness. These virtues are at risk of disappearing.
The elimination of Lee and the trampling of the military domain by courts and academics provides an opportunity for U.S. civilian and military leadership to have a renaissance in military professionalism. But this will only occur if civilian leadership embraces its ethos and maintains its standards. The Pentagon’s leadership mustn’t deceive itself and permit political influences to supplant objective civilian control through gradual erosion by inadvertent or intentional measures, including the perpetual rewriting of history.
The military domain must be sacrosanct in the civil-military relationship. Sound and stable civil-military relations are a necessary and important fillip in the country’s defense, including in the struggle against the Chinese regime. To lose military professionalism is to weaken the military’s requirement to defend the country’s national security interests and diminish its commitment to the American people and its allies.
