If you were to pass Joseph Dunford on the street in his civilian clothes, you may not take a second look. The bespectacled man with a slim, trim build, close-cropped graying hair, and an avuncular smile, could be anyone’s grandfather.
It’s not until Dunford dons the uniform of a four-star Marine general that you might recognize him as America’s highest-ranking military officer.
Dunford’s more than 40 years in uniform includes stints as commander of the 5th Marines during the 2003 Iraq war, top U.S. commander in Afghanistan, commandant of the Marine Corps, and now as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
It’s a job that requires both strategic acumen and deft political instincts. Not to wield power, but to avoid the trap of appearing aligned with one political party or the other.
“I’m an implementer of policy not a maker of policy,” Dunford told the Washington Examiner last month while flying back to Washington from meetings with his NATO counterparts in Brussels. “We have a strong tradition in our country of senior leaders being apolitical, nonpartisan.”
The role of the Joint Chiefs chairman has changed over the years, most notably in 1986 with the passage of the Goldwater-Nichols Act, which specifically designated the chairman as “principal military adviser” to the president, the secretary of defense, and the National Security Council.
While the chairman is the most senior American military officer, paradoxically he commands no combat troops. An exception came during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, when the president inserted the chairman into the chain of command, which normally runs from the president through the secretary of defense to the combatant commander.
But one thing hasn’t changed: the bedrock principle of civilian control of the military and the strong tradition that American military leaders avoid wading into politics.
“Politics isn’t what we do. We carry out the orders of the president, the policies of the president,” said retired Adm. Mike Mullen, who served as chairman under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama. “We always do that, and we do that with great support from the American people to do that, no matter who the president is.”
But Mullen knows firsthand that remaining strictly apolitical is easier said than done.
“Understanding it intellectually, and experiencing it are two different things,” he told the Washington Examiner. “So with two different presidents and two different world views — the same thing I went through — it is particularly challenging.”
Dunford is upholding the standard set by a long line of chairmen, including his immediate predecessor Army Gen. Martin Dempsey.
“He understands it. He watched Dempsey do it. He watched me do it,” Mullen said. “I think in respect to this issue in particular, I think he’s been terrific.”
One way Dunford navigates the rocky shoals of Washington politics is to stay in his lane and avoid calling attention to himself, while working behind the scenes, whether it’s advising the president or negotiating with troublesome allies such as Turkey.
On that noisy plane ride back from NATO last month, and sitting surrounded by four reporters, the Washington Examiner asked him how he sees his role. Dunford seemed a little uncomfortable talking about it.
“I think first and foremost is making sure the president has the full advantage of myself, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Joint Staff. I mean the primary purpose of the Joint Staff is to craft military options and craft military advice so that we can deliver that to the president,” Dunford said.
Not every problem has a military solution, but most foreign policy problems have a military dimension, he says.
“We just talked about Syria, we talked about Afghanistan, we talked about Russia. None of those are military problems. They are problems that have a military dimension,” Dunford said. “So my primary responsibility is to make sure that I articulate what is the military dimension of that particular problem and provide the president with military options to address the military dimension of the problem.”
And the reason that it’s important that his advice remain private is so that he’s not dragged into a political debate by opponents of the president, who would seek to pit the military view against a policy decision by the administration.
“We’re not advocates, we’re advisers,” Dunford said. “I think that it’s very important that whoever is in office can trust the U.S. military to provide him with advice in private, so that advice is not then used by somebody to try to criticize the president or try to influence the outcome.”
It hasn’t always worked that way.
In 1993, when newly elected President Bill Clinton wanted to lift the ban on gays in the military, the very public opposition by his joint chiefs chairman, Gen. Colin Powell, who had served under Bush, contributed to Congress blocking the move.
But Powell was also bound by another promise: To give Congress his unvarnished military advice.
It’s a question all nominees face as a condition of their confirmation by the Senate.
“Do you agree when asked to give your personal views, even if these views differ from the administration in power?” asked Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., at Dunford’s Senate hearing in the summer of 2015.
“I do, chairman,” Dunford replied.
So last year, when asked by Sen. Jack Reed, D-R.I., Dunford offered his opinion that withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal would be a mistake, even though President Trump was promising to scrap the agreement.
“It makes sense to me that our holding up agreements that we have signed, unless there’s a material breach, would have an impact on others’ willingness to sign agreements,” he said.
But don’t expect to hear anything like that from him on one of the Sunday talk shows.
“Generally, Sunday talk shows talk about policy, and I don’t address policy,” he told the Washington Examiner.
“Where I think it’s most important where I be seen is with my allies. I probably spend 50 percent of my time with my counterparts,” Dunford said.
“And I think it’s important that I have a good appreciation for what our men and women are doing around the world. So I’m visiting with them so I can go back and represent them back in Washington D.C.,” he said. “I think that’s the most important part of my job.”
