Content provided in partnership with

Government Industry

In my view - Letter to the Editor

Naval War College Review, Summer, 2003

IS THERE REALLY "EROSION OF CIVILIAN CONTROL"?

Madame:

Richard H. Kohn's article ["The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today," Summer 2002, pp. 9-59] is one of the most thought-provoking pieces I have read in the Review. I have now read it three times over several months and must comment.

Most Popular Articles in News: The Ten Best Laptop bags; Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market; GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD; Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...; THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY; More »

Kohn acknowledges the oath of officers of the United States, "to support and defend the Constitution ... against all enemies, foreign and domestic... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter." However, I do not think he realizes that most military dissent is based firmly on that oath, rather than in contradiction to it. Unquestioning obedience and compliance with orders that are contrary to that oath are neither intended nor expected by the Constitution. The United States is governed by a system of separated powers, of course. In this, the military has two masters. Military officers are in the military chain of command that extends to the president as commander in chief. But this subordination is not complete. The oath of office does not specify "and obey the orders of the president and the officers appointed over me' as does the noncommissioned oath. Enlisted personnel are required to obey strictly, but members of the officer corps retain moral, e thical, and legal responsibility for their actions. The professional military officer is responsible not only to his or her chain of command but to Congress, which represents the general public to at least the same degree as does the president. In its role, Congress expects and requires honesty and professional judgment from military witnesses, not simply a paraphrase of administration policy. Every congressman, and every military officer who testifies before Congress, understands this implicit ground rule. When one represents the administration or speaks from a role in the administration, one is obligated to present the administration's case as best as one can, without personal or professional bias. But if officers are asked for their professional opinions, they are equally obligated to be frank and forthright with the members of Congress.

I agree with Dr. Kohn that public statements by active-duty officers in opposition to administration policy are not appropriate; nor are leaks to "friendly" newsmen (or academics) designed to undermine an administration program or policy. But I would argue that Dan Ellsberg's "leak" of the Pentagon Papers was a similar offense against the administration and should be viewed in that light. Ellsberg knew what he was doing but believed strongly enough in his position to run the risk of, perhaps even to expect, prosecution. Was he a traitor or a patriot? I suggest he was an organizational traitor but a fervent patriot and that he did not violate his oath of office. Rather he honored it, despite the personal cost.

It seems to me that Professor Kohn's prescription for professional military officers is not far from that required by Hitler of the Wehrmacht's officer corps. Unquestioning obedience and unconditional subordination of the military to presidential control is inappropriate in a democracy. Rather, our admittedly messy system, with its separation of powers and unclear demarcation of powers, demands of our military leaders a dual organizational loyalty to support and assist both the executive branch and the Congress, approval of which is required by the Constitution on questions of defense, on peace and war. The ultimate referent for all the players in this continuing drama is the Constitution itself.

Honest men and women will disagree on serious issues. These require serious consideration of alternative viewpoints. To this end, the Congress will not and should not accept the muzzling of military dissent in their hearing rooms, when those witnesses are asked for their personal or professional perspectives. Congress has no difficulty sifting through controversial subjects. That is its primary task, and although the sifting too is a messy process, it usually produces a solution better than the strictly bureaucratic one.

Military officers have a deep and abiding commitment to the oath of office, a commitment that can transcend organizational loyalty and strict subordination to the executive branch. This is emphatically not a denial of civilian control but recognition that Congress is also a player in the game and that military officers owe them loyalty and professional advice, too--always, when they are asked for it, sometimes privately even when not asked. When officers retire, in my view, they regain all their civil rights of dissent--just as former presidents do. We may often deplore the result in both cases, but we should not try to muzzle either category of former officials.

In 1948 the Marshall Plan was finally approved by the first Republican Congress in twenty years, largely on the basis of a perceived East-West crisis, precipitated largely by the coup d'etat in Czechoslovakia. The mood was also used by Secretary of Defense James Forrestal and the Joint Chiefs of Staff to gain approval for the Harry S. Truman administration's modest increases in military spending. In closed-door testimony, when asked for their personal opinions on how much was needed, the chiefs gave figures well beyond those requested by the administration, which was deeply concerned with possible deficits and inflation. Congress subsequently approved more than the administration wanted. Truman allowed the services to use most of this windfall but sequestered the funds for a seventy-group Air Force and returned them to the treasury at year's end. Were those chiefs disloyal to Forrestal and Truman? Neither man apparently thought so. But the chiefs did not speak in advocacy outside the closed hearings. They di d their duty and allowed the separation-of-powers mechanism to sort out the policy. Many of those officers in 1948 were Republicans confronting a Democratic administration--Dwight D. Eisenhower, Lucius D. Clay, Curtis LeMay, and most of the Navy hierarchy come to mind. No doubt many of them had strong reservations about Truman personally. But they remained loyal to the office of the president, as did Truman himself. Truman honored his military subordinates publicly and privately, and he never expressed contempt for them, as did William Clinton and some of his associates. One of the basic lessons for young officers is this: Loyalty from your troops has to be required, but you must earn their respect. Many of us (I am a retired officer) feel that Clinton never earned our respect, then or now, but we readily transferred our institutional loyalty for the president to George W. Bush, with a sigh of relief in many cases.

Government Industry

In my view - Letter to the Editor

Naval War College Review, Summer, 2003

Find Research Guides for:

Find Featured Titles for: Reference

Most Popular Articles in News

Most Popular Publications in News