By naming Army Lt. Gen. H.R. McMaster as his new national security adviser, President Donald Trump has taken a critical first step toward restoring confidence in the White House’s ability to meet the challenges of a trying time. Simultaneously the choice raises profound questions about the relationship between the American military and our government and society as a whole.
In adding McMaster to a line-up that includes retired Marine generals James Mattis at the Department of Defense and John Kelly at the Department of Homeland Security, the Trump policy-making team is now undeniably dominated by military officers, with Secretary of State Rex Tillerson the lone civilian voice at the top of the relevant agencies. White House chief of staff Reince Priebus, adviser Steve Bannon, and Trump son-in-law Jared Kushner, whatever their relationship with the president, do not have the same institutional strength to command.
The risk is not that the presence of so many generals will “militarize” U.S. foreign policy, but that the professional military will become further politicized. That won’t be the fault of Mattis, Kelly, and McMaster, who, in addition to being among the best field leaders of our time, are also among the most intelligent, reflective, and well-read. Ironically, each is also a very serious student of civil-military affairs. McMaster’s 1998 book, Dereliction of Duty, has shaped the attitudes of the officer corps since the day it was published; Mattis just this past year organized, edited, and contributed to a collection of scholarly essays, Warriors and Citizens; Kelly’s recent Memorial Day speeches have been powerful statements of the enduring military professional ethos at a time of rapid social change.
Yet it will be a challenge of the first order to stand clear of the political mayhem that Donald Trump creates, not only from his own late-night tweets and reality-show public appearances but also from the hysteria those provoke in his opponents. In the context of an embittered and divisive domestic politics, the military’s standing as an institution apart from partisanship is increasingly at risk.
This is, particularly, a test of the “All-Volunteer Force” created in the wake of the Vietnam War. Prior to that decision, America had never maintained a large professional standing military. The success of this experiment on the battlefield, where the sheer tactical competence of soldiers, sailors, airmen, and Marines has on many occasions helped to forgive mistakes of strategy, is apparent. It’s also been a huge success as a social experiment; the military has become our truest meritocracy and one of the few American institutions still committed to integrating individuals for a national purpose. In sublimating racial, gender, and ethnic identities to a larger, common identity, the armed services outperform our schools, churches, and most other elements of civic society. And its standing in comparison to other elements of government—not to mention the media—is reflected time after time in public opinion polls. Somewhere in America, the phrase “Thank you for your service” is being spoken at any given moment.
But the all-volunteer experiment is premised upon the separation of military professionals from partisan politics. That is a stance that is inherently difficult to maintain, particularly in an era where politicians believe their profession is to build an invincible “base” of factional interest groups rather than appeal across identity divides to a common good. The man McMaster replaces, retired Army Lt. Gen. Michael Flynn, was a good example of how tempting it has become for senior officers to dive into the fray; it was his early and vocal support for Trump—not his record in uniform—that made him a household name and won him a shot as national security adviser.
Considered for their individual intellects, accomplishments, wisdom, and courage, H.R. McMaster, Jim Mattis, and John Kelly are among the most promising people to hold the offices of national security adviser, secretary of defense, and secretary of homeland security. But these are posts best filled by civilians. They are the points where the government of the people and by the people is meant to connect with the professionals in government and especially in uniform—those delegated to use violent force in our name.
It is also true that, in a government headed by Donald Trump, these three appointees represent some of the best hopes for enlightened policy and strategy-making. Trump, a man who delights in demeaning others, seems to retain a kind of schoolboy admiration for “generals,” and in this case, that’s a good thing. But whether even these most virtuous individuals can maintain their Stoic distance from the pig-sty partisanship of our current politics is an open question. Deranged by Trump, the Democrats won’t be deterred by a military bearing or even—if McMaster remains on active duty—the sight of epaulets; lashed against their will to the Trump mast, congressional Republicans will be all too happy to embrace “the military” as one of their own.
But the loss to the nation if the military ceases to stand above the political fray would be deep, durable, and debilitating. We are, in Thomas Jefferson’s words, an empire for liberty—an experiment to see whether power can be employed in the cause of liberty without corrupting it. The balance between civilian control and military professionalism is to a great degree the measure of our success. That balance has begun to wobble.
Thomas Donnelly is co-director of the Marilyn Ware Center for Security Studies at the American Enterprise Institute.
