William McRaven, James Mattis, and Civ-Mil Relations

War on the Rocks' recent podcast on civ-mil relations raises some important points, but still only went skin deep on a few topics. The hour-long show is worth listening to in its entirety, but here are a few ideas that weren't raised, or were only touched on briefly:

1. Different ethical standards for different professions
The panel points out early on that it is a violation of ethics for military professionals to overstep their bounds in public discourse, using former Adm. William McRaven's recent New York Times op-ed as an example. They also discuss the prospect of journalists seeking out opinions from military professionals as "problematic."

While it may be a violation of military ethics to enter the fray like this, journalists are not beholden to military ethics. Journalists are beholden to their own set of ethics. It is well within a journalist's ethical bounds to seek out the opinion of an expert on a subject and to provide a platform for that individual's expression of free speech. There may well be a conflict here, but it's only on one side. Lawyers aren't beholden to the same ethical norms as doctors. Politicians have a different set of ethics than lobbyists. It's up to each group to set and enforce its own norms.

2. A severe lack of understanding of civ-mil norms
Even among those with experience in military matters, there's a dearth of knowledge about norms, expectations, and forces at work in civ-mil relations in the US. One panelist relates a story about an ROTC student stating in class that the SECDEF is always an active duty member of the military.

The gaps in American civics education are cavernous. This particular lack of knowledge would be understandable if it came from a civilian and not a future military officer. But in 2019, it's likely past time for public schools to devote a bit of time to an understanding of how the military does and does not work. At the least, it should be reinforced that the US military remains under civilian control (and why that is the case). It's a fundamental part of our origin as a nation. In the modern world, the US military probably plays as big a role in public discourse and daily life as other parts of civics which are given greater attention in classrooms.

3. Degrees of political involvement by military figures
Though not explicit, the decision of a retired general or admiral to join a president's administration may be interpreted as a tacit endorsement of that president. Similarly, the decision to resign may be interpreted as a sign of disapproval. Look no further than James Mattis for an example of the latter.

This also raises the sticky issue of how far removed former military figures should be when they enter another line of work. Mattis needed a congressional waiver to become SECDEF (retired military members must be out of the armed forces for seven years to serve as SECDEF). Should there be a similar waiver for former military members running for federal office? For state office? What about those who become lobbyists?