Trump and the Generals

There has been an erosion of civilian-military relations during President Trump's term in office and there is plenty of blame to go around. President Trump's decision to appoint General Mattis as his Secretary of Defense, and General Mattis' decision to accept, violated some norms of civilian control of the military though they were not without precedent. Further, the President has gone on to stock many cabinet positions and senior advisors with "his generals".  The sheer number of former military officials, and the President’s insistence on continuing to refer to them by their military rank damages the military’s position as a non-partisan/apolitical organization. There are numerous other charges to be laid at the President’s door in damaging civilian-military relations including his desire for military parades or granting clemency to convicted war criminals,  however much of the responsibility is shared by the members of the military itself. The (mainly) retired military officers that accepted positions from the President knew what they were doing and the impact it could have on public perception of the military.

While the aforementioned actions were damaging to civilian-military relations, worse is the large volume of retired general officers who have frequently and publicly come out to condemn President Trump on subjects are varied as domestic politics, foreign policy, military operations, and his temperament. These retired officers, not content with their jobs as consultants, military contractors, or board members felt it was their duty to condemn the President for his actions and speak of the vast dangers that the President poses to national security. They condemned his actions towards Iran and Syria in public letters signed by dozens of generals. Some like General McRaven, wholly condemned President Trump’s leadership and called for him to be ousted in the coming elections. Retired military officials, like retired presidents, have always been faced with difficult choices once out of office when it comes to current policy issues. By tradition most stay silent or exercise their influence rarely and judiciously, however the outpouring of condemnation (and a trickle of support) from many retired generals risks damaging civilian-military relations in the future. None of the analyses that these generals provide is truly unique, the arguments they make it the NYT or Washington Post condemning the president sit side by side with an article from journalists who argue the same thing. What they actually do, rather than inform, is seek to use the public respect for their former office and institution to fuel partisan debate and thwart the actions of the President which is a far greater danger to America.