Civil-military relations in the United States have been in turmoil ever since President Donald Trump began his second term. There has been an unprecedented sacking of senior military officers for reasons other than professional competence or moral misconduct.
The political reasons for doing so were crudely spelt out by Secretary of Defense nominee and now incumbent, Pete Hegseth, in November: “First of all, you’ve got to fire the chairman of the joint chiefs. Any general that was involved, general, admiral, or whatever, that was involved in any of that DEI (diversity, equity and inclusion) woke shit has got to go.” It is alleged that a list of senior officers to be axed has been drawn up by his team. The US military hierarchy is on tenterhooks, with an apprehension of “who’s next?”
On 21 February, Trump abruptly fired General Charles Q Brown Jr, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the senior-most military officer and second African-American to hold the appointment. Five other top officers were also fired along with him – Admiral Lisa Franchetti, Chief of Naval Operations (equivalent of the Chief of Naval Staff) and the first woman to lead the US Navy; General James Slife, the Vice Chief of Staff of the US Air Force, and the Judge Advocates General (heads of legal branch) of the army, navy and air force, who are responsible for interpreting the law to determine the constitutionality of orders that commanders receive from the government.
The above sackings were preceded by termination of the service of Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Lee Fagan, a four-star Admiral and the first female uniformed leader of an armed force to hold such rank on 21 January. On 3 April, General Timothy Haugh, Director of the National Security Agency and Cyber Command, and Deputy Director Wendy Noble were fired.
The reasons why?
Any dictator, or for that matter any elected autocrat, in order to impose his will and policies without opposition, has to control the military, the religious narrative, the business community, and the media. This is a time-tested model perfected in Europe in the 1930s. Trump’s autocratic tendencies are well known. In his first term, he had been fairly successful in garnering the support of all these elements except the military.
The US has an unbroken record of maintaining the supremacy of the civil government over the military since its independence. The armed forces uphold the constitution, but are accountable to the nation under the control of the elected president and overwatch of the legislature. The military gives considered advice, and the president makes the decisions. However, the concept of lawful command based on constitutional values and legislated laws is deeply ingrained in the military ethos at all levels of command, implying that any unlawful command of the executive will not be obeyed.
This was the root cause of Trump’s tumultuous relationship with the military in his first term. He demanded personal and political loyalty overriding the constitution, and the military leadership remained steadfast in upholding it. The ongoing purge of the military top brass is his endeavour to conquer the last frontier.
The aim of Trump and his team is to cleanse the military hierarchy appointed by the previous government and perceived to be the executors or beneficiaries of DEI policies that have since been reversed. More than that, the objective is to replace the leadership with one that will be personally loyal to the president as well as aligned with his ideology. Women and African-Americans have been specifically targeted, as also those closely associated with General Lloyd Austin, former Secretary of Defence and General Mark Milley, former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Such is the ire of the Trump administration against General Milley that his photographs have been removed from the Pentagon and his security withdrawn. In anticipation, President Joe Biden had preemptively granted him presidential pardon.
Also read: Trump is offering India stale weapons. Not in sync with Aatmanirbharta
Acid test of US military
The US President has absolute power to appoint or fire senior military commanders. The Congress can only intervene through confirmation hearings of new appointees, where voting is generally along party lines, and more often than not, the president’s nominations are upheld. Even courts do not question presidential powers. Since no specific reasons of incompetence or unbecoming conduct have been cited, the media can do very little except speculate. However, what remains to be seen is the conduct of the new hierarchy.
In my view, Trump is in for a surprise. Despite its appointment in controversial circumstances, the new military hierarchy will adhere to the constitutional values and legislated laws, and strictly apply the principle of lawful command to orders received from the executive. This is exactly what happened in the case of General Mark Milley. He was specifically selected by Trump for his perceived loyalty and alignment with his ideology. Milley’s selection was controversial, with his initially timid and pliant conduct drawing criticism from Congress members. However, he carried out course correction after the Lafayette Square incident, standing by military ethos and constitutional ideals and ensuring a smooth change of power.
The new nominee for the post of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Air Force, the retired Lieutenant General Dan “Razin” Caine, is in an unenviable position. If confirmed, he would replace the first Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff ever relieved by a president and would be the first to be brought out of retirement for the role. He does not fulfil any of the laid-down criteria for the post except that he has been selected by the president for his perceived loyalty, ideological alignment, and aggressive approach.
At the Senate Armed Services Committee confirmation hearing, he presented himself as apolitical, saying that he was willing to face dismissal and would push back if President Trump asked him to carry out illegal orders. He pledged to follow US laws and the constitution –”I’ve always strived to do the right thing and that’s not going to change now.”
He even called out Trump’s “story” of their first meeting.
The US president recently recounted meeting Caine for the first time in Iraq in 2018. Trump had described how service members put on “Make America Great Again” hats at a gathering to greet him in a military hangar. Trump also claimed that a service member said that he loved the president and said, “I’ll kill for you, sir.” According to some reports, Trump claimed that Caine had worn a MAGA hat and made the “I’ll kill for you, sir” statement.
When questioned by senators at the hearing, Lt Gen Caine said: “I have never worn any political merchandise,” adding that doing so would “probably” constitute partisan political activity. As regards the “I will kill for you, sir” statement, he said that he had re-listened to Trump’s comments, and it appeared that he was referring to someone else.
Only time will tell whether the US military will pass the acid test. As per my assessment, the military hierarchy will uphold the constitution and strictly apply the principle of lawful command while interpreting the president’s directions. However, Trump’s policy of changing the military top brass with change in government is certainly aimed at politicising the US armed forces.
Also read: Indian Army must adopt subterranean warfare to counter China. Learn from military history
Lesson for Indian military
All personnel of the Indian Armed Forces undertake a constitutional oath before they are formally attested as soldiers or officers, wherein they swear to “bear true faith and allegiance to the Constitution of India”. Ironically, neither the Constitution nor the relationship between constitutional loyalty and civil control is formally taught or studied, and consequently, there is no intellectual understanding of the same.
The concept of “lawful command” is enshrined in Section 41 of the Army Act as related to the Army’s internal command system. It is defined in the explanatory notes to Section 41 as a command or order “justified by military as well as civil law and usage”. However, the directions of the government given directly or through the Ministry of Defence on its behalf, are not put through the test of whether these are justified as a “lawful command” under the Constitution.
In view of the above, the default norm is that the hierarchy adheres to political directions, treating them like military orders without questioning their constitutional propriety. The problem is compounded by weakness of character of the leadership, which indulges in partisan political and religious actions. The issue is moral, and all you need to uphold the Constitution is a straight spine.
Lt Gen H S Panag PVSM, AVSM (R) served in the Indian Army for 40 years. He was GOC in C Northern Command and Central Command. Post retirement, he was Member of Armed Forces Tribunal. Views are personal.
(Edited by Zoya Bhatti)
The problem with Indian constitution is that third-rate-socialist leaders have made it ideologically socialist. So, allegiance should be to India, not the socialist constitution.