Current Problems Between Civilian Policy Makers and Military Advisors

Relations between civilian policy makers and military personnel are being tested in today's global environment in the US. In the Trump administration, there is great public concern about the administration's military personnel initiatives. President Trump has a tendency to push decision-making and responsibility to field level commanders. Within public discourse, there is a pervasive narrative that current and former members of the military are the “adults in the room” and will save us. However, this idea only distorts and manipulates public discourse negatively, and the military is held to an unhealthy level of sacrosanctity. Another problem facing civilian-military relations is the use of people's respect for military to undercut non-military matters. In the Trump administration, transgender people were not allowed to join the military because of Trump’s officer’s “respectful disobedience”. This “respectful disobedience” is unhealthy for democracy in the United States if these military officials are allowed to simply choose which policies to heed. 

If the problems between civilian and military policy advisers continue, it is likely that civilians will begin to resent the military policy makers. Additionally, if these policies become more useful, more people will react uncritically of any policy that has to do with “the troops”. The “military expertise” offered by these policy advisers cannot go unquestioned, else there will be future implications for foreign and domestic policy. 

There are three main ways that the issues within civilian and military relations can be more productive. First, civilian policy advisers need to call out these negative trends so they don’t become part of the status quo. If the civilian side of these relations sit idly by while the military personnel practice “respectful disobedience” and choose policies that only work for them, nothing can be accomplished productively. Next, Society needs to talk with, and about, military personnel without characterizing them as either “heroes” or “broken” individuals. Finally, there need to be new norms in the relationship between civilian and military policy advisers. If norms and taboos are not clearly established between the two parties, “respectful disobedience” could become part of the status quo. There needs to be better dialogue between military personnel and civilian policy makers for mutual understanding and better relations. As problems around the world become more complex, it is more important now than ever that civilian policy makers and military advisers work more cohesively to formulate better policies to help each other, and the country.