Congress Should Recommit to Civilian Control of the Military

Gen. Lloyd Austin’s appointment is a milestone, but the political nature of his role runs counter to the apolitical ethos of the military.

By and
9

Retired Gen. Lloyd Austin’s nomination to become the nation’s 28th secretary of defense is an important historical milestone marking the first appointment of an African American to the position. Given his accomplishments, and considering that we’re in a moment when white nationalist and racist forces are attacking our democracy, it is easy to see the appeal of a swift confirmation. 

That said, his Senate confirmation requires a second, related action from Congress: to waive a long-standing law that prohibits former military officers from serving as secretary unless seven years have passed since their retirement. Both chambers approved a waiver on Thursday, paving the way for his confirmation. This approach leaves the law and our republic’s longstanding principle of civilian control over the military severely wounded.

The principle underlying this prohibition is as old as our republic. Alexander Hamilton devoted attention to the subject multiple times in the Federalist Papers. After World War II, Congress saw fit to make the prohibition explicit in the 1947 National Security Act, when it charged the secretary of defense with serving as the principal assistant to the president in all matters related to the management and functioning of the Department of Defense. The rationale for the law is multi-faceted. First, it addressed the Founders’ concern  about the dangers that standing armies present the longevity of democratic republics. When Congress created the modern-day Defense Department, the civilian role ensured that intramilitary service rivalries would be managed fairly under an impartial civilian leader.

While echoes of both rationales remain today, the most common justification for the law was captured by Secretary James Mattis, who also had to receive a waiver to serve in the role, during his Senate confirmation hearing in 2017: “Civilian leaders bear these responsibilities because the esprit-de-corps of our military, its can-do spirit, and its obedience to civilian leadership reduces the inclination and power of the military to criticize or oppose the policy it is ultimately ordered to implement.”

Keep reading with a free account
Create a free Dispatch account to keep reading Get Started ALREADY HAVE AN ACCOUNT? SIGN IN
9
By and
Comments (9)
Join The Dispatch to participate in the comments.
 
  1. Avatar photo
    erasmus

    From the founding of the United States, we've had Secretaries of War who had been veterans, including high officers. The law requiring a certain duration between military service and becoming Secretary of Defense was a creation by Congress, and then immediately afterwards Congress put in a waiver allowing a 5-star general into that position. Clearly neither the writers of the Constitution, nor the early American leaders, nor the Congresspersons who created the Department of Defense, saw veterans or high officers as opposed to civilian control of the military

    Yeah, civilian control is crucial, call them Secretary XXX, not General XXX, so forth. There are institutional and cultural issues at hand, one shouldn't always defer to warfighters, and there is a role for insight and leadership from purely civilian experts in national security issues. I see lots of weirdly overwrought complaints though, lacking context

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      erasmus

      Not to say this article was overwrought, but many are, and the debate shouldn't be "Are we going to maintain civilian control of the military" but rather, "How do our actions affect the norms, expectations, and institutional attitudes toward the relationship between the military and its civilian leaders". Admittedly that is a mouthful, and less catchy

      Collapse
  2. Avatar photo
    Kevin M. James

    "We've got to have *this* person so badly--this person and no one else, out of 330 million of us--that the normal rules should not apply."

    Few of the problems we have today--in national politics, and also well beyond--can match this one in its combination of pervasiveness and corrosiveness.

    Damn every last one of these fools who voted for the waiver, this time just the same as last.

    Collapse
  3. Avatar photo
    Victor Clairmont

    I think this is a well used argument with historical analysis that is true here. While I don’t mind both the new general, I think it is important to keep the civilian control there and going forward, we should stop going around the bush (unless a time of war needs quick action) and allowing the military and exemption for these posts.

    Collapse
  4. Avatar photo
    Scarlette Tarte

    Totally agree. Here is one issue conservatives and liberals could get together on.

    Collapse
    1. Avatar photo
      Victor Clairmont

      And non-affiliated/independent peeps.

      Collapse
  5. Brett

    Well-written and well-argued. Each party got a waiver now. Compromise - we aren't doing this again going forward.

    Collapse
  6. Avatar photo
    Dave

    I'm going to take the contrarian view on this: there should be no different requirements for the Secretary of Defense than for any other cabinet position. Ultimately, the President is commander-in-chief, and the SecDef is subject to the orders of the President (and to protect and defend the Constitution). There is no such requirement for the President, there should be no such requirement for the President's cabinet.

    Collapse
  7. Matt D

    Thanks to the authors and The Dispatch for highlighting this issue.

    Collapse