In a pique of anger over Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s resignation letter, President Trump announced over the weekend that Mr. Mattis would be out of a job on Jan. 1, instead of the end of February,as the secretary had recommended in order to provide a stable transition. The hunt for his replacement is now on, setting up a rushed conversation in the news media, and then in the Senate, over what sort of person should follow Mr. Mattis in leading the Pentagon — and with it, a debate about the state of civil-military relations. Given the way the public praised Mr. Mattis, and then bemoaned his departure, we have some work to do.
President Trump originally picked Mr. Mattis because, according to reports, he looked the part of a battle-hardened warrior, and had even been called “Mad Dog” by an enterprising journalist. That Mr. Mattis was equally known for lugging around a footlocker of Western novels and stoic philosophies, testifying in favor of greater spending for diplomacy, standing Christmas watch for enlisted Marines and writing thoughtfully about civil-military challenges 45 years into America’s experiment with an all-volunteer force were, evidently, matters of indifference to the commander in chief.
The president’s political opponents, including me, heaved a huge sigh of relief at Mr. Mattis’s nomination; we knew him as an intelligent, measured leader. But some among us, on both sides of the political divide, went further, anticipating that the recently retired general (and other veterans in the new administration) would save us from the president and his policies — even though, for better or worse, , those policies were a major reason why the American people had voted him into office on the basis of those policies.
Some people also imagined that Mr. Mattis and others would stand in the way of the president should he make ill-advised or apocalyptic military decisions — for example, some questioned whether the Defense Department would carry out a nuclear launch order against North Korea, even though not doing so would dangerously undermine civilian control of the military. Many, in other words, hoped that Mr. Mattis would be willing to subvert American democracy in order to check a bad president.
Many also cheered Mr. Mattis’s forthright resignation letter, which detailed his fundamental differences with the president on national security. But these attitudes, welcome as they are to those of us who share them, need to be tempered by the other important element of the Mattis letter: that the president has the right to have cabinet officials who work assiduously to carry out his policies. This is especially true where the vast power and influence of the Department of Defense is concerned.
Drawing those associated with the military into highly charged political arguments, as the president did when he called Mr. Mattis “sort of a Democrat,” is unquestionably bad for our military as an institution. But the president’s opponents make the same dangerous mistake when they demand a secretary of defense who acts to oppose his or her own president.
Moreover, the president has the right to be wrong, and the Department of Defense has the obligation to carry out lawful orders rather than set themselves up as uniquely virtuous arbiters of the good of the country.
As Thomas Jefferson said, the people are the only safe repository for the ultimate powers of society. We do our military and veterans a disservice by treating them all as comic book heroes and shirking onto them responsibility for policies that protect us from our elected officials. They have done enough by securing our liberty.
But perhaps the Trump presidency may end up being good for civil-military relations in America. By selecting so many veterans for high offices, he has given the public a rare view into the executive competence of our former military leaders. We have front-row seats to judge their abilities and compare them to their counterparts who did no military service. The Trump administration is providing a welcome reminder for us that our veterans, like the rest of our fellow Americans, are a diverse bunch. Jim Mattis is a model of Roman virtues; Michael Flynn is now a felon. And perhaps this exposure, after decades in which the military leadership was largely left in the wings of public policy debates, will help Americans — the overwhelming number of whom have no military experience — develop a better sense of what the military can and cannot do in a democracy.
The solution to the dangers posed by the president is not to put our faith in a Roman tribune. Rather, it is to use the legislative and political tools available to us as citizens to hem in the chief executive, and wrest those powers from him at the ballot box.
Kori Schake is the deputy director general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
We and our partners use cookies on this site to improve our service, perform analytics, personalize advertising, measure advertising performance, and remember website preferences.Ok
Home » Analysis & Comment » Opinion | The Generals Won’t Save Us
Opinion | The Generals Won’t Save Us
In a pique of anger over Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis’s resignation letter, President Trump announced over the weekend that Mr. Mattis would be out of a job on Jan. 1, instead of the end of February, as the secretary had recommended in order to provide a stable transition. The hunt for his replacement is now on, setting up a rushed conversation in the news media, and then in the Senate, over what sort of person should follow Mr. Mattis in leading the Pentagon — and with it, a debate about the state of civil-military relations. Given the way the public praised Mr. Mattis, and then bemoaned his departure, we have some work to do.
President Trump originally picked Mr. Mattis because, according to reports, he looked the part of a battle-hardened warrior, and had even been called “Mad Dog” by an enterprising journalist. That Mr. Mattis was equally known for lugging around a footlocker of Western novels and stoic philosophies, testifying in favor of greater spending for diplomacy, standing Christmas watch for enlisted Marines and writing thoughtfully about civil-military challenges 45 years into America’s experiment with an all-volunteer force were, evidently, matters of indifference to the commander in chief.
The president’s political opponents, including me, heaved a huge sigh of relief at Mr. Mattis’s nomination; we knew him as an intelligent, measured leader. But some among us, on both sides of the political divide, went further, anticipating that the recently retired general (and other veterans in the new administration) would save us from the president and his policies — even though, for better or worse, , those policies were a major reason why the American people had voted him into office on the basis of those policies.
Some people also imagined that Mr. Mattis and others would stand in the way of the president should he make ill-advised or apocalyptic military decisions — for example, some questioned whether the Defense Department would carry out a nuclear launch order against North Korea, even though not doing so would dangerously undermine civilian control of the military. Many, in other words, hoped that Mr. Mattis would be willing to subvert American democracy in order to check a bad president.
Many also cheered Mr. Mattis’s forthright resignation letter, which detailed his fundamental differences with the president on national security. But these attitudes, welcome as they are to those of us who share them, need to be tempered by the other important element of the Mattis letter: that the president has the right to have cabinet officials who work assiduously to carry out his policies. This is especially true where the vast power and influence of the Department of Defense is concerned.
Drawing those associated with the military into highly charged political arguments, as the president did when he called Mr. Mattis “sort of a Democrat,” is unquestionably bad for our military as an institution. But the president’s opponents make the same dangerous mistake when they demand a secretary of defense who acts to oppose his or her own president.
Moreover, the president has the right to be wrong, and the Department of Defense has the obligation to carry out lawful orders rather than set themselves up as uniquely virtuous arbiters of the good of the country.
As Thomas Jefferson said, the people are the only safe repository for the ultimate powers of society. We do our military and veterans a disservice by treating them all as comic book heroes and shirking onto them responsibility for policies that protect us from our elected officials. They have done enough by securing our liberty.
But perhaps the Trump presidency may end up being good for civil-military relations in America. By selecting so many veterans for high offices, he has given the public a rare view into the executive competence of our former military leaders. We have front-row seats to judge their abilities and compare them to their counterparts who did no military service. The Trump administration is providing a welcome reminder for us that our veterans, like the rest of our fellow Americans, are a diverse bunch. Jim Mattis is a model of Roman virtues; Michael Flynn is now a felon. And perhaps this exposure, after decades in which the military leadership was largely left in the wings of public policy debates, will help Americans — the overwhelming number of whom have no military experience — develop a better sense of what the military can and cannot do in a democracy.
The solution to the dangers posed by the president is not to put our faith in a Roman tribune. Rather, it is to use the legislative and political tools available to us as citizens to hem in the chief executive, and wrest those powers from him at the ballot box.
Kori Schake is the deputy director general of the International Institute for Strategic Studies.
Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.
Source: Read Full Article