Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 45

TRUST LAPSE

military professionals is vital to the development of effective national security policy, military leaders must ultimately understand the final decision rests in the hands of the president. Any action that creates the appearance that the military is trying to manipulate this process dilutes the credibility of the advice given by military officials and degrades the trust between civilian and military leaders. As military professionals, we possess a unique set of expertise of value to policymakers who formulate and execute defense policy, but we must prevent ourselves from taking action that is inconsistent or contrary to the decisions that are ultimately made by our civilian leadership. A 2010 Army White Paper elaborated on this concept stating “Military Professionals . . . must also develop the judgment to recognize when the bounds of the policy making process might be breeched. When acts of dissent take them beyond representation and advice into policy advocacy or even public dissent, they must recognize that they have gone beyond the limits of their uniformed role and have exhibited behaviors that potentially undermine the authority of those elected officials responsible for policy formulation and execution.”14 Then Secretary of Defense Robert Gates also addressed this topic in a speech to the Association of the U.S. Army, stating “it is imperative that all of us taking part in these deliberations—civilian and military alike—provide our best advice to the president candidly but privately.”15 If we as military leaders fail to live up to this civil-military norm, we foolishly challenge the civilian control of our military and further diminish the trust in our profession. Military leaders believe their expertise and competence allows them to provide the best advice to civilian policy makers in matters of national security. They may even think their expertise in an area is superior to civilian policymakers who are empowered with the responsibility to make the final decisions. When decisions are made that are contrary to the military professionals’ advice, they may conclude that a poor national security decision has been made and in some cases they may be correct. However, as scholar Marybeth Ulrich points out, “military institutions in service to democratic societies should espouse as a fundamental norm of civil-military relations that the profession’s first obligation is to do no harm to the state’s democratic
MILITARY REVIEW ? September-October 2013

institutions.”16 In other words, military professionals in a democratic society are obligated to tolerate poor policy making outcomes to preserve the more important relationship that exists between the military and society. This is what Secretary Gates was alluding to when he warned military officials to offer candid, but private advice. Failing to do so hurts the credibility of our profession and degrades civil-military relations. Aside from the tension that has been created in recent years between military and civilian leadership, there is another aspect of the civil-military relationship that is a growing cause for concern. Representative Ike Skelton said the following in 2010: “My greatest concern is that a chasm will develop between those who protect our freedoms and those who are being protected. I’ve often talked about what I perceive to be a civil-military gap, a lack of understanding between civilians and the military that has grown in the era of an all-volunteer force.”17 A growing separation between the military and civilian populations can be harmful for an allvolunteer force that derives its legitimacy from being a subset of the general population.

1st Lt. Donald Maloy, Company D, 1st Battalion, 8th Infantry Regiment, from Fort Carson, Colo., talks with Iraqi Army Cpt. Zatune Molood Hasaal, commander of 1st Company, 4th Battalion, 2nd Division, during an IA-led raid on a Mosul, Iraq, neighborhood, 1 April 2008. (U.S. Army)

43