Carrie A. Lee
Keywords: presidential elections, military endorsements, civil-military relations, Democrats, Republicans
This January will see a new administration take office, and the world will watch to see if the United States can put the shock of the January 6 US Capitol attack in the rearview mirror and return to its long history of peaceful power transition. Indeed, as we look ahead to another inauguration, it is hard to ignore the events of four years ago that pulled the national guard, active-duty military, and veterans into the spotlight in various ways—not all of them positive. Civil-military scholars and practitioners opined in 2020 about whether the military would be called on to enforce (or subvert) election results. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff General Mark A. Milley was vocal that servicemembers “don’t take an oath to an individual” but “to the Constitution, . . . to the idea that is America.” The Joint Chiefs of Staff issued an unprecedented letter to the force after January 6, 2021, affirming their commitment to the peaceful transition of power. In September 2022, five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and eight former secretaries of defense published an open letter calling for a return to principles of civilian control of the military.1
Some may say these actions prove the US military profession abides by a democratic ethos and the oath to protect and defend the Constitution. Nevertheless, it remains difficult to define a democratic ethos or what it means to take an oath to a document that is as contradictory and, at times, vague as the US Constitution.
Existing attempts to define the democratic ethos fall short. The traditional way of comparing it to the warrior ethos is problematic because it is not clear that the two are mutually exclusive. Similarly, the literature’s disproportionate focus on civilian control of the military as the defining feature of a democratic ethos is incomplete. Civilian control of the military is not unique to democracies—as Joseph Stalin, Robert Mugabe, or Mao Zedong would attest. Referring to the oath to the Constitution, as others have done, is also dissatisfying, however, because it is not clear that everyone has the same interpretation of which constitutional protections are most deserving of defense. This confusion leaves our understanding of the oath ripe for misinterpretation and motivated reasoning. After all, veterans who join the far-right militia known as the “Oath Keepers” also presumably believe they are upholding their own oath.2
Marybeth P. Ulrich and Alice Hunt Friend provide the closest articulation of what the democratic ethos looks like. Ulrich describes the democratic ethos as a celebration of American values and “why we fight,” while Friend takes a more legalistic approach grounded in the constitutional legitimacy granted to civilians. To synthesize their contributions, one could say that the democratic ethos is, at its core, a commitment to defending and upholding a system of government where political leaders derive their legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Some of the most important civil-military practices and norms derive from this overarching principle, including commitment to civilian control of the military, norms against resignation in protest, and nonpartisanship.3
The upcoming transition in Washington also highlights the paradoxes inherent in maintaining a democratic ethos during moments of domestic crisis. Military officers swear an oath to defend and uphold the Constitution but are expected to remain on the sidelines during constitutional crises, such as January 6. That same defense is expected to be “against all enemies, foreign and domestic,” but the idea of using the military against American citizens is anathema to civilians and military leaders. This is the central paradox among military oath-takers in democracies undergoing a crisis: efforts to save democracy also require eroding it. The alternative—blind obedience—does not sit well, either, with military officers who take their constitutional oaths seriously. Pauline Shanks Kaurin identifies the challenge succinctly in her outstanding book, On Obedience, stating, “[T]here are many aspects to the professional military ethic, and while many of them intersect, there will be times when the elements are at odds and/ or in conflict.”4
Given that the challenge is difficult, with no clear and obvious answer, many default to a solution that the question is one for the courts or domestic law enforcement. This answer is deeply dissatisfying, however, and ignores the central paradox. Rather, we need better theory to explain what the democratic ethos is and how it should be operationalized during times of tranquility and in moments of domestic crisis. This suggestion is not a thought exercise—Parameters and other war college journals have featured many recent motivating cases that explore the dilemmas associated with constitutional oaths. From the challenge of veteran extremism to the politics associated with congressional testimony to concerns about obedience to an “unprincipled principal,” existing theory has not offered guidance for military officers at the center of the storm.5
The prospects for a peaceful transition in January are good; there is little to suggest today that the US military will again face the dilemmas that it did on January 6. To paraphrase Dwight D. Eisenhower, it is the planning that will ultimately see the United States through its next crisis—whenever and if ever it next occurs. Rather than ignore the paradoxes laid bare by the last decade of civil-military interaction, we should use the opportunity to prepare for the next challenge.6
Carrie A. Lee
Carrie A. Lee is the director of the US Army War College Civil-Military Relations Center and chair of the Department of National Security and Strategy. Her award-winning research and writing have appeared in publications such as Foreign Affairs, Texas National Security Review, Journal of Conflict Resolution, War on the Rocks, and The Washington Post. She is a term member with the Council on Foreign Relations, a contributing editor for War on the Rocks, and an adjunct fellow with the Center for a New American Security. She received a PhD in political science from Stanford University and a bachelor of science degree from MIT.
Disclaimer: Articles, reviews and replies, review essays, and book reviews published in Parameters are unofficial expressions of opinion. The views and opinions expressed in Parameters are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Department of Defense, the Department of the Army, the US Army War College, or any other agency of the US government. The appearance of external hyperlinks does not constitute endorsement by the Department of Defense of the linked websites or the information, products, or services contained therein. The Department of Defense does not exercise any editorial, security, or other control over the information you may find at these locations.
Endnotes
- Luke Broadwater, “ ‘You’re a Go’: How Miscues and Confusion Delayed the National Guard on Jan. 6,” The New York Times (website), May 7, 2024, https://www.nytimes.com/2024/05/07/us/politics/miscues-confusion-national-guard-delay-jan-6.html; Mark Denbeaux and Donna Crawley, The January 6 Insurrectionists: Who They Are and What They Did (Seton Hall University School of Law Center for Policy and Research, August 2023), https://ssrn.com/abstract=4512381; John Nagl and Paul Yingling, “ ‘…All Enemies, Foreign and Domestic’: An Open Letter to Gen. Milley,” Defense One (website), August 11, 2020, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/all-enemies-foreign-and-domestic-open-letter-gen-milley/167625/; Kori Schake and Jim Golby, “The Military Won’t Save Us – and You Shouldn’t Want Them To,” Defense One (website), August 12, 2020, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/08/military-wont-save-us-and-you-shouldnt-want-them/167661/; Mark A. Milley, “Outgoing Joint Chiefs of Staff Chair Mark Milley Speaks at Farewell Ceremony,” C-SPAN (website), September 29, 2023, https://www.c-span.org/video/?530826-2/outgoing-joint-chiefs-staff-chair-mark-milley-speaks-farewell-ceremony; Joint Chiefs of Staff, memorandum, “Message to the Joint Force,” January 12, 2021, https://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/JCS%20Message%20to%20the%20Joint%20Force%20JAN%2012%2021.pdf; and former secretaries of defense and former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, “Open Letter – To Support and Defend: Principles of Civilian Control and Best Practices of Civil-Military Relations,” War on the Rocks (website), September 6, 2022, https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/to-support-and-defend-principles-of-civilian-control-and-best-practices-of-civil-military-relations/. Return to text.
- Marybeth P. Ulrich, “The USAF at 75: Renewing Our Democratic Ethos,” Æther 1, no. 1 (Spring 2022): 71–81, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/AEtherJournal/Journals/Volume-1_Issue-1/10-Ulrich.pdf. Return to text.
- Ulrich, “USAF at 75”; Alice Hunt Friend, Mightier Than the Sword: Civilian Control of the Military and the Revitalization of Democracy (Stanford University Press, 2024). Return to text.
- Jim Golby and Carrie Lee, “The National Guard Has Been Called Out in Washington, D.C. Here’s What You Need to Know,” The Monkey Cage (blog), The Washington Post (website), January 7, 2021, https://goodauthority.org/news/the-national-guard-has-been-called-out-in-washington-d-c-heres-what-you-need-to-know/; Jessica Blankshain et al., “I’m from the Government and I’m Here to Help: Public Perceptions of Coercive State Power,” American Political Science Review, FirstView (April 2024): 1–18, https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055424000339; and Pauline Shanks Kaurin, On Obedience: Contrasting Philosophies for the Military, Citizenry, and Community (Naval Institute Press, 2020), 64. Return to text.
- Schake and Golby, “Military Won’t Save Us”; Marybeth P. Ulrich, “The Politics of Oath-Taking,” Parameters 50, no. 2 (Summer 2020): 43–50, https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol50/iss2/7/; David J. Wasserstein et al., “Review and Reply – On ‘The Politics of Oath-Taking,’ ” Parameters 51, no. 2 (Summer 2021): 111–16, https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss2/11/; Matthew Valasik and Shannon E. Reid, “The Alt-Right Movement and National Security,” Parameters 51, no. 3 (Autumn 2021): 5–17, https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss3/3/; Charles Dunlap et al., “Review and Reply – On ‘The Alt-Right Movement and US National Security’ and Authors’ Response,” Parameters 52, no. 1 (Spring 2022): 181–92; and Pauline Shanks Kaurin, “An ‘Unprincipled Principal’: Implications for Civil-Military Relations,” Strategic Studies Quarterly 15, no. 2 (Summer 2021): 50–68, https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/Portals/10/SSQ/documents/Volume-15_Issue-2/Kaurin.pdf. Return to text.
- Dwight D. Eisenhower, “Remarks at the National Defense Executive Reserve Conference,” November 14, 1957, The American Presidency Project (website), https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/remarks-the-national-defense-executive-reserve-conference. Return to text.