The Military's Role

I am amazed at the calls by some, often on the left but not exclusively so, for the military to obstruct civilian orders on the assumption that the military will make it impossible to carry out orders that opponents of the government don't like. A David Ignatius column is the latest to argue the military should push back when it disagrees with civilian orders. This is crud. This is dangerous crud, in fact. A military more interested in pushing back than in winning wars is a military that is on the road to being just a political party with all the guns. Mackubin Owens has a good piece opposed to this idea:

Of course, it is the soldier’s duty to convey his concerns to civilian policymakers forcefully and truthfully. But the American traditions of civil-military relations requires that he not engage in public debate over matters of foreign policy, including the decision to go to war. Moreover, once a policy decision is made, the soldier is obligated to carry it out to the best of his ability, whether his advice is heeded or not. Ignatius’s call for “push back” seems at odds with this tradition.

Our military is superb. But it must obey civilian orders. Period. Give advice. But when the orders come down, salute and carry out those orders. We aren't some banana republic and the military needs to remember that it is not the guardian of the decisions of our republic, it is the guardian of the republic from extenral enemies. Should an officer be so opposed to a policy then that officer can resign their commission. But push back? On that day my pride in my military service ends. On that day my pride in our military that has done so much to protect us will die.

Our military has never sullied its history with such a view of its role. Keep this proud tradition alive. Our military must never betray the trust our people have placed in its hands by pushing back.