The Citizen-Soldier: At Twilight Or Mid-Day? - Letter to the Editor

Parameters, Autumn, 2001

To the Editor:

The Summer 2001 issue of Parameters contained a fascinating series of articles on America's citizen-soldier tradition, articles that took a hard look at the meaning of the citizen-soldier tradition today. None was more thought-provoking than Eliot Cohen's article, "Twilight of the Citizen-Soldier," in which he argues that the citizen-soldier paradigm does not apply to today's Army, although he cites one pernicious exception. Cohen's argument is provocative, but unfortunately it is wrong on several key points.

Cohen uses three criteria to distinguish the citizen-soldier from his professional counterpart. It is his third criterion, that "the true citizen-solder's identity is fundamentally civilian," on which I want to take him to task. On the surface, his definition seems self-evident. Cohen applies the term to America's mass armies that fought the Civil War, World War I, and World War II, but unfortunately leaves out of his discussion today's Reserves and National Guard, and also the tiny Regular Army that existed between those wars. In other words, Cohen defines citizen-soldier in such a way that citizen-soldiers can exist only as a result of mobilization for a large-scale war. While he states, "the true citizen-soldier's identity is fundamentally civilian," he describes the National Guard and Reserves as "merely part-time professionals," and otherwise excludes them from his analysis. It is unfortunate that the traditional banner-carriers of the citizen-soldier tradition are slighted in this way, for more than ha lf the Army today exists in the reserve components, and National Guardsmen and Reservists are increasingly called on to perform operational missions worldwide. Yet they are "fundamentally civilians," whose "participation in military life is temporary and provisional," to use Dr. Cohen's own definition.

Professor Cohen correctly asserts that the citizen-soldier "issue is one of identity." The true citizen-soldier is always, at his core, "a member of civil society." Cohen argues that the contemporary American soldier is not a citizen-soldier because he identifies as being a professional soldier, not a civilian. But an analysis of the American citizen's core values versus those of the soldierly profession can give us a deeper understanding of the dynamics involved. For lack of a more definitive set, let us use the values of the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson's values of "Equality" and of course "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" as the values of the American citizen. It is certainly useful shorthand in identifying what Americans hold most dear. In contrast to this are the Army's stated values of "Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage." In other words, if a soldier truly embraces his profession, he embraces values that contrast sharply with the citi zen's values. Where the individual is supreme in American society, the soldier is taught to subordinate his interests to those of the group--to his unit, to the Army, and ultimately to the interests of the nation. Loyalty and Respect seem in conflict with Life and Liberty. Selfless Service and Duty are the polar opposites of Pursuit of Happiness.

All of this would seem to support Cohen's argument that today's soldiers are no longer citizen-soldiers, but only if they truly embrace their institutional values. While to-day's soldiers talk a good talk, there are disturbing examples where they are not walking the walk. Indeed, Cohen provides the perfect case in point. Where the Army's values would imply that one's personal welfare comes after the nation's and Army's interests, our military dialog is increasingly dominated by talk of substandard housing, low pay, and disruptive overseas deployments. (This is not to discount the legitimacy of these concerns.) While Eisenhower voted for President his first time in the election of 1952- because to vote while in uniform would somehow detract from the loyalty he owed the next Commander-in-Chief-today's soldiers not only vote as an important exercise of their citizen's obligation, but also "write, call, or email their representatives in Congress," and "delight in ripping into the high command" in the nation's ed itorial media.

And recently, when the number of volunteer enlistments threatened to dry up, the Army trooped out a new recruiting slogan-"An Army of One." The slogan perfectly embodies our national values, and contradicts those of the Army. The firestorm of debate over the slogan within the Army is illustrative, for it underscores the Army's current crisis of identity. While the rank and file are appalled by the slogan and the message it sends, the Army's senior leaders are pleased with the positive response from the target audience and ignore the contradictions.

Dr. Cohen's central question is whether today's soldiers fit the citizen-soldier model, and he concludes they do not. However, comparing America's peacetime Army of today with the mass armies that fought World War I and World War II, which in essence is what Cohen has done, does little to advance our understanding of the citizen-soldier dynamic. If one compares soldierly values against the American citizen's values, we arrive at quite a different answer. Today's soldiers appear to be more "civilian" and less the "soldier" than their grandfathers and fathers who manned the peacetime force in the 1930s or 1950s. The real question to grapple with is whether our nation is better served by this new generation of soldiers.