The serving US military top brass has shown admirable restraint in not kowtowing to the political establishment, especially one that has thrown caution to the winds

In the United States of America, the civilian post of Defence Secretary is a political appointment even though it is usually held by former combatants, who have the domain experience and perspective. Yet it calls for trapeze jugglery as the former Defence Secretary and legendary warrior-scholar, General James Mattis, noted, “Remember that the Defence Department stays outside of politics for a reason. There’s a long-standing tradition, why you do not want the military to be engaged in politics.” With such apolitical and professional instincts, the likes of James Mattis were not expected to survive long with the infamous Donald Trump fickleness. And they didn’t – Mattis joined the revolving door of axed veterans, who couldn’t lower their discourse to match the President’s impetuousness and crassness.

Mattis’s predecessor as Secretary of Defence, Ash Carter, was an international affairs academician, who had spent over 37 years in the Pentagon working across the political divide, and he always believed that the “profession of arms is honour and trust” and that Trump’s brazenly political expectations, interference and insistence would infect the apolitical ways of the US military. Recently, Trump fired his fourth Secretary of Defence Mark Esper and appointed his fifth, Christopher Miller. As the Chief Executive Officer of the United States Department of Defence, the fifth appointee in less than four years is a self-explanatory narrative of Trump’s whimsicality, impatience and unprofessionalism. Except that the timing of this particular change, just after Trump’s electoral debacle, but before Biden’s formal take-over, has sent dangerous signals – because with Trump, anything is possible.

Given his vanity and desperation, fears that he could deploy the US military, in a last-ditch effort of his final two-month tenure, are real. For long, Trump has dangled and invoked the military as a political prop for self-aggrandisement and even as a tool for domestic governance. What gives credence to conspiracy theorists is the tentative relationship that Mark Esper had with the Commander-in-Chief, Trump, especially when the former combatant had disagreed with the idea of using the military during civil unrest. Embarrassingly for Trump, Esper opposed the Insurrection Act of 1807 by stating the institutional belief, “I say this not only as Secretary of Defence, but also as a former soldier, and a former member of the National Guard. The option to use active duty forces in a law enforcement role should only be used as a matter of last resort, and only in the most urgent and dire of situations.” Earlier also, Esper had weighed in favour with the professional view of the “uniformed” fraternity in dissuading Trump from hastening the process of troops withdrawal from Syria and Afghanistan – as this urgency was Trump’s personal and political commitment, but contrary to the institutional and sovereign interests. However, for Trump, who can readily trade military values of restraint and apolitical stances in favour of his political self-interest, professionals like Esper are a burden and not an asset. Replacing Esper with a professionally lacklustre but an avowedly Trump-loyalist has not helped optics either.    

Even though the Trump tenure has compromised and forced many casual liberties on the US military ecosystem, it would not be a cakewalk to get the institution to “fall in line” politically, despite these unprecedented changes. The US military folk have repeatedly shown the spine, moral courage and constitutionality in words and actions to “call out” signs of danger. Foremost among them has been General Mike Milley, Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff, who had earlier unknowingly become victim of a political “photo-op” by Trump during the civic protests, pursuant to which he issued a very public and honest regret that his presence had created an unwanted and wrong perception of military involvement in domestic politics. Later, Milley went further and bluntly denied that he gave permission to use his image in the Trump re-election campaign. Now, as Milley watched the ensuing drama of the untimely change of Secretary of Defence – which is essentially beyond his professional mandate or control – he still chose to word a very deliberate and reassuring message when he said in the midst of the new Secretary of Defence Christopher Miller, “We do not take an oath to a King or a Queen, a tyrant or a dictator. We do not take an oath to an individual!” Milley passionately beseeched that duty was only to the Constitution, which he called the “moral north star” for the institution. His statement that the military “will protect and defend that document regardless of the personal price” was immensely loaded and cautionary against any attempt to politicise or misuse the military. Milley joined the ranks of his illustrious predecessor Marine General Joseph Dunford in managing the political expectations of Trump, whenever things started going adrift.

Esper had alluded to the necessary public perceptions of apolitical anchorage when it came to matters military, when he had spoken about getting “ambushed” in the photo-op.  “Look, I do everything I can to try and stay apolitical and try to stay out of situations that may appear political,” he said, adding, “Sometimes, I’m successful, and sometimes I’m not as successful.” This time that effort to stay steadfast, without succumbing to politicisation of the US military, has led to his ouster but in that sacrifice, Esper may have saved the US military from unimaginable portents of a partisan force. The serving top brass of the US military themselves have shown admirable restraint in not kowtowing to the political establishment, especially with a dispensation that has thrown caution to the winds in terms of diluting, denigrating and politicising the institution. The military invests incalculable emotions in professional character or what we call izzat. As General Norman Schwarzkopf of Operation Desert Storm fame once said, “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” In this melee, it is that apolitical nobility and almost Chetwodian ethos that have been upheld by the US military’s top brass, despite the price to some.

(The writer, a military veter-an, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)