As a new ensign stationed in the National Capital Region, I had a front-row view of the defense policymaking process. It was an unconventional first duty station, and this early experience gave me an appreciation for the immense responsibility placed on military officers who work within the broader national security apparatus.
During this formative time, I became friends with many young professionals working for key defense leaders in Congress and the executive branch. Interactions with them were enlightening and sometimes challenging. I was wary when asked for my opinion on policy issues, and I made sure always to note I was sharing my views as an individual, not as a representative of the U.S. Navy.
I tried to go beyond the transactional interactions for which the D.C. social scene is often derided. I had no decision-making authority that would turn heads on Capitol Hill, but I could offer insight into the experiences of sailors in my division—the opportunities they had and the issues they faced. Being a young officer in Washington, D.C., was a license to learn how the policymaking process worked and how it affected my day-to-day duties. Over time, these interactions made me a more effective leader and communicator as I came to better understand the political contexts and practical aims that shape major shifts in the Pentagon or on Capitol Hill.
The Town Where It Happens
With the Pentagon and the Capitol separated only by the Potomac River, civil-military relations are on display every day in Washington. Civil-military relations are most often thought of as the interactions between flag and general officers and their congressional and civilian overseers. For service members, discussions of civil-military relations most commonly manifest in briefings and memos about what not to do.
Civil-military norms range from formal statutes and policies—such as Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits officers from making “contemptuous statements” toward elected officials—to implicit norms about the proper separation between individual political views and affiliation with the armed forces. For senior defense officials—uniformed and civilian—civil-military relations is seen as an area of risk, which explains why throughout the 2024 election cycle, the Pentagon promulgated explicit guidance on permitted and prohibited political activities.
The rules are less clear for retired senior officers, who are still closely associated with the military profession—especially when providing commentary to the public under their “former” rank—but no longer under the purview of the military chain of command.
The rules and norms exist to ensure the armed forces do not exert influence over the democratic process. Failure in that would be a failure in every officer’s first and most important mission: upholding their oath to “support and defend the Constitution.” Junior officers are prudent to begin understanding these norms early in their careers. The prevalence of social media combined with a hyper-partisan political climate create the danger of a “viral moment” that could damage the military’s nonpartisan image. Even worse, foreign adversaries have a clear incentive to amplify messages and sentiments that may erode the public’s trust in the military and undermine cohesion within the armed services.
Despite these perils, I attempted to forge relationships and hold valuable conversations with my age-group peers on Capitol Hill and across Washington. For a junior officer learning how to lead, there are few better ways to understand both effective and ineffective leadership than by listening to junior staffers in the legislative and executive branches. For example, learning about the process of passing the annual National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) helped me understand some of the policymaking quirks that end up affecting the lives of sailors. Understanding the budgeting cycle provided context for why it always takes longer to procure supplies or to receive permanent change of station orders in September or October. This awareness made me a more capable leader, because I was able to be more transparent with my sailors about the causes of certain hardships.
In turn, I hope these interactions benefited my civilian counterparts. I learned how much influence congressional staffers have on the legislative process, and even the Pentagon, and I developed a deep appreciation for how hard many of them work to improve defense policy and boost service members’ quality of life. I was in awe of their herculean efforts on “NDAA mark-up night,” when they worked into the early hours of the morning to read and provide input on the almost-final version of the act. I was equally impressed by the young civil servants who brought their talents to offices throughout the Department of Defense. Many of them could have earned larger salaries in the private sector, while working fewer hours. Their expertise and devotion to duty inspired me to strive to be a better officer.
I would in turn share some of the struggles my sailors faced as they served the country, and how seemingly mundane personnel issues, such as long wait times for medical appointments or shortages in childcare, affected our ability to carry out missions. I hope these informal glimpses provided nuance to the litany of official briefings a congressional staffer may receive on operational and administrative matters.
Relationships that begin between junior officers and junior staffers can develop into trust between senior officers and civilian officials. While effective oversight requires a healthy dose of skepticism, established civilian-military relationships can help when officials must find solutions in policy and practice. A junior officer who has never been to Washington might not understand the motivations and dilemmas elected officials and their staffs face and might instead buy into stereotyped views of how deals are made and promises broken. The knowledge and relationships that develop from participating—even on a small scale—in civil-military relations can help mold junior officers into more effective leaders throughout their careers.
Minding the Gaps
While observing the inner workings of Washington was often fascinating, it was equally frustrating. Seeing the partisan drama made me grateful to be a military officer who did not need to prove my loyalty to one side or the other. My peers held remarkably volatile jobs. A lost election or sudden resignation could force young staffers to scramble for a new job in a matter of days. Unfortunately, I also witnessed a few episodes when the military became caught in the middle of a partisan battle. While such situations were awkward, they were nonetheless good practice for maintaining the professionalism always required of officers, even when out of uniform.
I gained the most understanding from observing some of the less widely covered stories in Washington, such as the tensions among committees. I discovered that the House and Senate Armed Services Committees were somewhat closely aligned with Pentagon desires to authorize programs and grant new authorities to the armed forces. Meanwhile, the House and Senate Appropriations Subcommittees on Defense tend to be more skeptical—their priority is to serve as stewards of tax dollars, and their focus tends to be on issues relating to their members’ districts. Many policies that affect the missions and lives of service members result from compromises between these two camps.
Senior officers would likely hesitate to assign their junior officers to manage relations with Congress or other civilian oversight bodies. Yet, with social media, every service member, regardless of rank, can have a profound impact on the country’s civil-military relations—both positive and negative. But where there is danger, there is also opportunity. Most officers being commissioned now are digital natives—they grew up using social media and digital technology. It is their task to model responsible use of social media, especially concerning political or policy topics. Junior officers must demonstrate both to their sailors and to the public how to use social media respectfully and professionally.
Civ-Mil Beyond the Beltway
Most junior officers will not experience proximity to policymaking until later in their careers, but they must always be aware of civil-military dynamics. Military members’ interactions with friends and family over time can influence views—both favorably and unfavorably—of the military and its professionalism. There is an opportunity for junior officers to lead by example in responsible use of social media, which also creates opportunities for respectful engagement with local communities—especially foreign communities hosting U.S. bases. And just because it is unlikely an ensign or lieutenant will be called to testify before lawmakers does not mean their responsibility to uphold civil-military relations is lessened: Every voter and every taxpayer is also a participant in civilian oversight of the military.
There is a running joke that the first question you are asked at a party in Washington is what you do for work; the second question is who you work for; and the third question is what your name is. This trope makes many Washingtonians bristle, but in my days in D.C., I realized that it does not always reflect transactionalism. Rather, I sensed that other young people in D.C. often had passion for their jobs and an earnest belief in contributing to causes larger than themselves. As a junior officer with a fresh memory of reciting my oath to do the same, I found company and common cause in other devoted young people whom I had the good fortune to call my friends.
