The Danger of a Political Pentagon

For almost 14 years, a big part of my job on the Senate Armed Services Committee (SASC) has been listening to and questioning generals and admirals about every aspect of the military, from weapons development to the state of the DIB (that’s Pentagon-speak for Defense Industrial Base), and everything in between.

But before we get to these questions, each of those senior officers has had to go through a confirmation process similar to judges and cabinet members—committee hearings and votes, and approval by the full Senate. An important part of this process is a series of standard questions to each nominee at the beginning of the initial Committee hearing, the most significant of which is, “Do you agree to give your personal views when asked before this committee to do so, even if those views differ from the administration in power?” The answer is always “yes.”

And during most of those 14 years, the officers before us have lived up to that commitment. While they always tried to avoid politics and didn’t go out of their way to cross the Commander-in-Chief, they have been generally straightforward in sharing their views.

Until now. 

Last week, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth ousted Army Chief of Staff Gen. Randy George and two other generals.  And across all four branches of the military, Hegseth has blocked promotions for more than a dozen senior officers whose only offense seems to be that they are either black or female. These moves are bad enough by themselves, but the pattern points to a broader problem.

Over the last six months, I have noticed a subtle shift in the answers that SASC gets on subjects where there may be a split between our witnesses’ personal and professional opinions and those of the Trump Administration. It’s not so much a specific answer here or there but more of a noticeable reluctance to tread into certain areas and give forthright answers that might contradict the Administration line. Recently, I get the feeling that our military witnesses are almost literally looking over their shoulders before giving their carefully parsed answers.

The problem here is obvious—if we can’t get the best data and advice from the senior military, we can’t make good decisions about defense budgets and policy.

But beyond this, I believe what we’re seeing points to a deeper, and much more dangerous, development—the deliberate attempt to convert our professional and stoutly apolitical military into an armed force with greater loyalty to the President than to the Constitution.

The Framers warned us about the dangers of a standing army in a democratic republic and its potential misuse in domestic affairs. Interestingly, Article I, section 8 of the Constitution, in outlining the powers of the new government, said that one of those powers was, “To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years.” No other power defined in the Constitution has such a time limit, and this fact should give us pause.

Since the Vietnam War, we have had a standing (all volunteer) army, but its inherent dangers have been minimized by a strong tradition of a non-political military led by officers who understand that their oath is to the Constitution—not to a party, not to a President, and not to a particular Secretary of Defense (there is no such thing as a Secretary of War).

But it looks to me that this administration has embarked upon a conscious process to intimidate the current officer corps and undermine this principle by an unprecedented round of firings and blocked promotions of qualified and experienced officers who show signs of the kind of independence the Constitution requires. Not to mention the attempted court-martial of a retired officer—my colleague Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona—who had the temerity to point out the obvious fact that soldiers should not follow illegal orders.

Throughout our history, America has been protected from the grave danger of the militarization of our politics by the Constitution itself, by laws prohibiting the military’s involvement in domestic affairs (even one specifically outlawing the military at polling places), and by the apolitical tradition of the officer corps.

But these firings, and the message they have sent, coupled with the creation of National Guard “Quick Reaction Forces” all over the country, the massive build-up of ICE, and the normalization of troops on the streets of Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington, only point in one direction—the potential imposition of some version of martial law at home and, most dangerously, during this fall’s elections.

It’s now time for those of us with the responsibility “to raise and support armies” (I’m looking at you, U.S. Senate colleagues) to acknowledge what is happening and, along with our officers who are loyal to the Constitution, take steps to stop it.