The opinions expressed in this op-ed are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Military.com. If you would like to submit your own commentary, please send your article to opinions@military.com for consideration.
Recent actions taken against the former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley are more than punitive measures taken against a single officer. The retribution moves dangerously close to threatening the apolitical foundation of the military who serve our nation and protect us as citizens. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth's decision last month to initiate an investigation into Gen. Milley, revoke his security detail, suspend his security clearance, remove his portrait from the Pentagon, and potentially reduce his retirement rank is unprecedented and a threat to American civil-military relations.
We are former service secretaries, retired generals and admirals, and senior defense officials who know Gen. Milley's 43-year record of distinguished service, the rigorous meritocratic systems that vetted and elevated him, and the critical importance of preserving the military's apolitical integrity. Punitive actions against Gen. Milley diminish the core principles that keep our military strong, unified, and feared by our enemies.
The Milley decision was not an isolated incident. Coast Guard Commandant Adm. Linda Fagan's recent firing was unconvincingly justified with a list of inaccurate accusations. Even more concerning are reports of a draft executive order that would have a panel of retired generals and admirals review and potentially recommend the removal of serving generals and admirals based on their perceived commitment to the ideals of the current administration.
Intentionally or not, these actions run the risk of sending a message to all uniformed leaders as well as rank-and-file military service members that this administration will not tolerate differences of opinion. They undermine 236 years of tradition since the signing of the Constitution that have served this country well.
This is a dangerous message to send to those we count on to protect our country. It not only undermines morale and cohesion within the ranks but also threatens the American people's trust in the armed forces -- and ultimately endangers our men and women in uniform. Strong and healthy civil-military relations are vital to both a properly functioning democracy and our military's readiness to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We realize that this might seem like an arcane principle to most Americans but, from our experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations, it is of vital importance and not something that we should take for granted.
Since the founding of the republic and formation of our Constitution, the United States has adhered to a principle of civilian control of the military. The president and his appointed civilian leaders make the choices and decisions necessary for our nation's security. Each administration will have its priorities for defense strategy and policy, but civilian leaders' decisions will be ill-informed if senior military leaders don't tell them the hard truths and implications of their policies and strategies because of the threat of retaliation.
The U.S. military's strength depends on its ability to remain above the fray of politics. Our military leaders swear an oath to the Constitution, not a particular person. Actions like those being suggested today will create the perception in the military that disagreeing with political leaders is hazardous to one's career.
Our national security depends on mutual trust and respect between civilian and military leaders based on open dialogue and candid communications. Disagreement by our military leaders can't be seen as an act of disloyalty. We will all be less safe as a result.
