Dilshat Zhussupova
The principled and practical arguments for and against the
current case of waiving the rule mandating seven years to pass before retired
Marine Corps General James Mattis may lead the US Department of Defense are
more clear-cut in comparison to the more nuanced considerations necessary when
looking at US veterans’ high profile involvement in politics, to which I would
like to direct your attention.
The importance of not mixing politics with official duties
is taken as seriously today as it was in the most serious of
professionalization efforts of military science in the nineteenth century, with
senior military leaders faithfully upholding the expert and limited nature of
the military profession (Huntington 1957, 70). One could not have specialized
competence within this profession whilst wielding that competence outside it,
namely in politics, which would only serve to undermine military officers’
professionalism and professional values (1957, 71). However, the prohibition of
not mixing politics with official duties does not extend to veterans and, with
a look at the 2016 political campaigns, it is important to consider the
consequent effects on civil-military relations, if any.
Recent examples of veterans’ high profile roles in politics
include Michael Flynn, a retired Army Lieutenant General and former Defense
Intelligence Agency director, participating in the Republican Convention as a
featured speaker and John Allen, a retired Marine Corps General, supporting
Hillary Clinton on the final night of the Democratic National Convention with
an equally passionate speech.
There may be two ways of looking at these developments.
According to Martin Dempsey, retired Army General and former chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staffs, there is wisdom in seeking advice of senior military
leaders like Flynn and Allen yet keeping them off the stage, for it sets a
harmful perception that military leaders may be susceptible to following politics
rather than the professional practice of following the chain of command in
their decision making.
According to Barbara Perry, director of presidential studies
at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, the general public does not mind
but, in fact, appreciates the continued engagement of veterans in public
service due to their invaluable expertise, a sentiment stretching back the
country’s first president and retired Continental Army General, George
Washington. Veterans having adopted a strong political position in their
retirement period appears to be the exception to the general observation of
apolitical veterans, so it appears to be a matter of not whether veterans can
engage in politics or not, but as to where the line that should not be crossed
lies.
A course of action to ensure that lines are not ultimately
crossed may be informed by Huntington’s emphasis on the expert and limited
nature of the military profession. After all, if a professional requirement to
not mix politics with official duties is faithfully upheld by the military
institution, it seems likely that, by their retirement, such behavior would be
sufficiently internalized by individuals so that they would refrain from taking
the path of Flynn and Allen to the extreme.
No comments:
Post a Comment