Politicization of Military by Social media and Trump’s politics

Author: Daniyar Tengelbay

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/pentagon-survey-twitter-facebook-military-politicization-235378

http://taskandpurpose.com/opinion-sorry-politico-but-social-media-and-trump-arent-responsible-for-politicizing-the-troops/

According to Huntington (1991), objective control of the military is better than subjective one. He highlights that it includes three main points: expertise, corporateness and responsibility. The aim of the military is to manage violence and serve the general society. And he argues that for achieving these aims professionalism of the military and objective civilian control over it are necessary. Military should be an autonomous institution that does not interfere into the politics, while civilians do not interfere into the military affairs. There should be a proper professional division of duties. One of the significant qualities of the military is political neutrality. People accept them as nonpartisan; and they are the most respectful institution. The author of the article, Bryan Bender (2017), argues that as a military officer person should be fully suspended from politics. While, as a person out of military he has full rights to represent election official, participate in political club, share his views, but not to be a part of political party.

            Bender’s main concern is the role of social media in recent civil-military relations. The rules that separate military from politics are old and social media was not concerned during that time. According to these rules a uniform officer cannot participate in any political actions, but there is nothing about social media in those rules. Meanwhile, sharing and reposting political posts or news can mean active participation in promoting certain political views and ideas. According to the poll, soldiers and officers actively practice such political participation. This leads to loss of the value of military professionalism. Military is high rated institution by public. However, if such “online” political participation will continue, military will lose both its value and public support. The idea of objective control will not matter anymore.  

            Moreover, author says that Trump’s embraces of military and use of retired military generals on his side will also diminish the brand of US military as nonpartisan and professional institution. He provides a link between those two things - the survey and Trump’s election. However, according to “Task and purpose” (2017), a site that analyzes veterans and military affairs, the survey was conducted in 2015, long before Trump’s election. They also argue that “Politico” is ironizing that military was fully out of politics and just started to be involved. It could be said that both are right to some extent. Social media is really a tool that affects people and helps to promote certain ideology or views and it is increasing the political involvement not only of military, but of general public as well. However, as “Task and Purpose” says, military was not fully out of politics as in administration of presidents there have always been retired officers and generals. This does not mean neither that military is politicized, nor that it fully out of politics. It keeps being professional prior of various changes in politics of the state. Therefore, it is wrong to say that Trump is politicizing the military, while the increasing role of social media is clear.

Military Veterans' High Profile Politics

Dilshat Zhussupova

Link: http://www.militarytimes.com/story/military/election/2016/08/06/retired-generals-election-questions/88289162/

http://www.militarytimes.com/articles/mattis-questions-defense-secretary-rules-retired

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.