ArgumentMilitary Prestige during a Political Crisis: Use It and You’ll Lose It
Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walked himself into a civil-military problem when he walked across Pennsylvania Avenue – in his battle fatigues! – last week. Jim Golby and Peter Feaver write that Milley was literally following President Donald Trump, who was on his way for a photo-op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in order to counter stories about the president holed up in his basement while riots raged outside. “Presidents who are struggling politically have a powerful incentive to wrap themselves in military garb precisely because the American public holds the military in high esteem. But, when the language of national security is stretched to provide cover for what is otherwise viewed as a nakedly partisan effort, it jeopardizes the very esteem for the military on which the administration relies,” they write.
Gen. Mark Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, walked himself into a civil-military problem when he walked across Pennsylvania Avenue – in his battle fatigues! – last week. Jim Golby and Peter Feaver write in War on the Rocks that Milley was literally following President Donald Trump, who was on his way for a photo-op in front of St. John’s Episcopal Church in order to counter stories about the president holed up in his basement while riots raged outside. Milley has since tried to distance himself from the visuals.
The damage, however, may have already been done, Golby and Feaver write, adding:
Our research suggests that linking the prestige of the military to controversial policies carries with it unintended consequences, including the potential for reduced overall confidence in the military and increased doubts about the military’s competence, truthfulness, and other dimensions of trustworthiness.
In survey experiments we conducted last June, we found that priming the public to think the military supported or opposed the president on another politicized issue — Trump’s border policy — significantly damaged public trust in the military, causing drops of eight to 11 points overall. The precise results varied with both the partisanship of the respondent and whether the military was depicted as supporting or opposing the measure. But, the overall effect was marked: Wrapping the military uniform around a controversial policy comes at a price in overall public attitudes about the military.
Therein lies the problem for both the military and the nation:
Presidents who are struggling politically have a powerful incentive to wrap themselves in military garb precisely because the American public holds the military in high esteem. But, when the language of national security is stretched to provide cover for what is otherwise viewed as a nakedly partisan effort, it jeopardizes the very esteem for the military on which the administration relies.
In other words, when what the military is really being asked to do could look very much like a cover for a partisan political stunt rather than a serious national security concern — then partisan politics can distort the legitimacy of the action. The very act of using the prestige of the military for naked political purposes, in order to portray these naked political purposes as somehow related to national security, “undermines the foundations of that prestige. Having the military give voice to and visually undertake politicized maneuvers erodes the very trust that leaders want to appropriate.”
