Why does the public have more confidence in the military than banks, religious organizations, and the government?1 A contributing factor is certainly the military’s obligation to remain apolitical. In a time of bitter political divisiveness, Americans do not feel they have to contradict their political views, no matter what they are, in supporting the military. All military members are required to uphold this confidence, but junior officers play an especially instrumental role in maintaining this public support.
Plenty has been written about how active-duty and retired admirals and generals should conduct themselves in the political realm, including Vice Admiral Doug Crowder’s October 2019 Proceedings article, “Generals and Admirals, Stay Out of Presidential Politics.” Crowder’s title summarizes the crux of many of these articles—the importance of senior military leaders staying out of politics. But less has been written about the role of junior officers. This is understandable, as flag and general officers are closer to the apex of civil-military relations and interact with elected officials far more frequently. However, while less influential, junior officers must still be aware of the important role they play in leading their subordinates, influencing their military and civilian seniors, and interacting with foreign peers.
I was inspired recently by former Secretary of Defense General James Mattis, during a talk he gave in Seattle about his book, Call Sign Chaos. He stressed the importance of the military remaining apolitical, especially now, when politics are more divisive than ever and the U.S. relationship with many allies is under great strain. As a military professional in this environment, remaining apolitical is not as easy as it might once have seemed. Likewise, the naval services are populated with individuals from all sides in a more stridently partisan nation, so keeping politics out of the workplace and presenting a unified front to the public and foreign allies is not as straightforward as in generations past. Leaders at all levels must be extra vigilant.
Civilian control of the military is a key foundation for a democratic government. Elected officials remain in charge of the military, with admirals and generals to provide best military advice to civilian leaders.
Junior officers must set aside their own political views and carry out any lawful orders. Apolitical allegiance while in uniform is codified by the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Department of Defense (DoD) instruction also prohibits military professionals speaking out on politics in a professional capacity. From DoD Directive 1344.10:
A member of the armed forces on active duty shall not use official authority or influence to interfere with an election, affect the course or outcome of an election, solicit votes for a particular candidate or issue . . . in keeping with the traditional concept that members on active duty should not engage in partisan political activity.
SecNav Instruction 5720.44 states, “As a matter of long-standing policy, DoD members acting in their official capacity may not engage in activities that associate the DoD with any partisan political campaign or election, candidate, cause, or issue.” These policies prevent an erosion of public trust in the military by ensuring active-duty members do not engage in partisan activity in conjunction with their professional duties.
It is no coincidence both instructions mention similar themes of “long-standing policy” and “a traditional concept,” as military leaders staying out of politics is an enduring pillar of our democracy, dating back to our first president. It is no secret George Washington was not thrilled about becoming the first president of the new Republic, saying, “My movements to the chair of government will be accompanied with feelings not unlike those of a culprit who is going to the place of his execution: so unwilling am I, in the evening of a life nearly consumed in public cares, to quit a peaceful abode for an ocean of difficulties.”2 However, he is the only president to assume the office without being affiliated with a political party. In his 1796 Farewell Address, he recognized the potential for political parties to divide a nation and said that while political parties “may now and then answer popular ends, they are likely, in the course of time and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and to usurp for themselves the reins of government.”
Officers must remain outwardly apolitical not just to maintain the public’s trust, but also to maintain the cohesion of their unit. Just as fraternization can erode a unit’s camaraderie, so too can political discourse. Officers should be able to engage in conversation that stimulates thought and political insight without sowing discontent or revealing their own closely held views. They should encourage their subordinates to exercise independent thought, critical analysis, and their constitutional right to vote and participate in the democratic process. As Mattis also states, “Leaders must shelter those challenging nonconformists and mavericks who make institutions uncomfortable; otherwise you wash out innovation . . . If you’re uncomfortable dealing with intellectual ambushes from your own ranks, it’ll be a heck of a lot worse when the enemy does it to you.”3 By fostering sailors and Marines who are willing to question the status quo, officers can improve their organization. But questioning the status quo can never take the form of being overtly political, either for or against the party in power.
Perhaps the most important aspect of officers remaining apolitical is the need to present a unified front to foreign allies. There is a longstanding tradition in the United States that domestic politics end at the water’s edge. When it comes to U.S. foreign policy, officers must demonstrate unwavering support of decisions made by civilian leaders. To do otherwise risks eroding the confidence foreign allies have that the United States is willing to put its money where its mouth is and fulfill its promises. Military leaders openly disparaging policies laid out by civilian leaders could erode that foreign nation’s faith that the plan or policy will be efficaciously implemented and risks destroying potential partnerships or allied ventures. Junior officers in particular may find themselves interacting or working with foreign peers, so it is important they demonstrate a commitment to upholding the policies put forth by civilian leaders.
At any command, one will find supporters of every political party. Junior officers have an obligation to foster a sense of unity that suppresses these differences and curates a sense of common purpose. Through prudent leadership, these individuals look past their petty differences and take up arms together because they are professionals, have an intense sense of camaraderie, and understand they defend a higher purpose. They do not see each other as Democrats or Republicans, but rather as Americans—or, as George Washington explained in his Farewell Address, “The name of American, which belongs to you in your national capacity, must always exalt the just pride of patriotism more than any appellation derived from local discriminations.” Everyone in this country could learn a lesson from the example set by U.S. sailors and Marines in faithfully representing the values touted by George Washington.
- Jonathan Ladd, Joshua Tucker, and Sean Kates, “2018 American Institutional Confidence Poll,” John S and James L Knight Foundation and Georgetown University Baker Center for Leadership & Governance, 2018, aicpoll.com.
- George Washington, letter to Henry Knox, 1 April 1789.
- Jim Mattis and Bing West, Call Sign Chaos (New York: Random House, 2019), 184.