Of
the many unusual and troubling things that Donald J. Trump has done since
becoming president, one that particularly troubles me is his using interactions
with U.S. military forces and individuals like campaign events Ranging from
signing MAGA caps during his Christmas visit to troops in Iraq to using a
recent Pentagon visit to lambast his political opponents, Trump’s actions are
blatantly partisan and definitely inappropriate.
Since George Washington’s speech to army
officers meeting in Newburgh, New York in March 1783 to discuss possibly
defying the U.S. Congress over its failure to provide back pay due them, in
which he opened with the statement, ‘Gentlemen. By an anonymous summons, an
attempt has been made to convene you together, how inconsistent with the rules
of propriety! How unmilitary~! And how subversive of all order and discipline .
. .’ In a long speech, Washington dissuaded the disgruntled officers from
carrying out what would have been, in effect, a military coup, and since that
time, keeping the military shielded from partisan politics has been a
fundamental part of the military profession.
In addition to time-honored tradition,
there are also legal and regulatory controls and restrictions regarding the
military and political activity. Article II, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution
states, ‘The President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of
the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into
the actual service of the United States. This clearly establishes civilian
control of the military, and makes clear that the military must obey the
legitimate orders of the civilian authority. Article 88 of the Uniform Code of
Military Justice (UCMJ) states, ‘Any commissioned officer who uses contemptuous
words against the President, Vice President, Congress, the Secretary of
Defense, the Secretary of a military department, the Secretary of
Transportation, or the Governor or legislature of any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, or possession in which he is on duty or present shall be punished
as a court martial may direct.
It is abundantly clear from all this that
through law and practice, it has never been intended that the military forces
of the United States should be used for political purposes. For a president,
therefore, to so blatantly introduce the partisan into his interactions with
our active duty military forces is troubling on many fronts. For one, it is, in
my view as a veteran of 20 years of military service, a violation of one of our
most sacred positions. It puts military personnel in an uncomfortable and
potentially untenable position. They cannot, by regulation and tradition, rebel
against the commander in chief—the best that they can do, as was demonstrated
in the recent Pentagon appearance, is to stand silently and respectfully. I
fear, though, that there is an even greater danger. As traditional behavioral
norms are slowly cast aside, and the unthinkable becomes more publicly acceptable,
this constant political manipulation of the military has the potential to shift
the military closer to the political sphere. In a country where the military’s
role is to defend the country, not to serve a particular political party or
individual, this is dangerous. To those who say it could never happen, I merely
point to the events of 1783 to show that, without the intervention of George
Washington, it could have happened
early in our history.
It is incumbent that those who have the
president’s ear; the secretary of defense, GOP members of congress, such as
Senator Lindsey Graham (who is himself a military veteran) to point out to him
the potential danger of his actions, and persuade him to cease and desist.
Words have consequences, and actions cause
reactions. We have spent over 200 years building a democratic system that is
(was?) the envy of the world. It behooves us to do everything possible to
ensure that that work is not undone during one four-year period.
No comments:
Post a Comment