Prepared Floor
Remarks by U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley of Iowa
Sage Advice for
Improving Civil-Military Relations
Wednesday,
November 16, 2022
I
come to the floor today to share some words of wisdom.
These
words come from thirteen former top civilian and military leaders – eight
former defense secretaries:
·
Dr.
Ashton Carter (recently deceased)
·
William
Cohen
·
Dr.
Mark Esper
·
Dr.
Robert Gates
·
Charles
Hagel
·
James
Mattis
·
Leon
Panetta
·
Dr.
William Perry
And five former chairmen of the Joint Chiefs
of Staff:
·
General
Martin Dempsey
·
General
Joseph Dunford, Jr.
·
Admiral
Michael Mullen
·
General
Richard Myers
·
General
Peter Pace
They
offer sage advice for improving civil-military relations.
It
appears in an open letter published on the sixth of September in the national
security blog “War on the Rocks.”
I
intended to speak about their letter at the time, but due to the extended
recess, I am just getting to it.
These
former leaders warn us about “extreme strain” in civil-military relations
coming from all directions:
·
Pandemic
with social disruptions
·
Wars
that ended with unachieved goals
·
Humiliating
withdrawal from Afghanistan
·
Rising
great power rivalries
·
“Extremely
adverse” political environment caused by the divisiveness of polarization
·
Contested
election and shaky transfer of power
They
predict rising tensions.
It
is a red flag. Civil-military relations are out of balance.
Though
alarming, the open letter is educational and reassuring. It offers guidance and
remedies.
Sixteen
“core principles and best practices” are spotlighted for restoring “healthy
American civil-military relations.”
Most
hinge on the all-important principle of civilian control of the military.
I
spoke on that subject here on the floor on
July
14th.
The
letter views civilian control as I do -- “the bedrock foundation of American
democracy.” It is ultimately “wielded by the will of the American people as
expressed through elections.” That core constitutional principle keeps our
“powerful standing military” from threatening democracy.
“Healthy
civil-military relations” are instrumental to civilian control. They must rest
on a rock-solid foundation -- “mutual trust.” Mutual trust and respect between
civilian and military leaders are essential for healthy civil-military
relations. They are fostered, in part, by honest deliberations over policy
choices.
According
to the open letter, mutual trust is cultivated when civilian leaders
“rigorously explore alternatives that are best for the country regardless of
the implications for partisan politics.” A “dynamic and iterative process” for
policy development helps “civil-military teams build up a reservoir of trust.”
That extra measure of trust will defuse friction when the military must
“faithfully implement directives that run counter to their professional
military preference.”
When
tensions rise over disagreements with the commander in chief’s policy choices,
the former Pentagon leaders offer this guidance -- in their words:
“Elected
(and appointed) civilians have the right to be wrong, meaning they have the
right to insist on policy or direction that proves, in hindsight, to have been
a mistake. This right obtains even if other voices warn in advance that the
proposed action is a mistake. Military officials are required to carry out
legal orders the wisdom of which they doubt. Civilian officials should provide
the military ample opportunity to express their doubts in appropriate venues.
Members of the military accept limits on the public expression of their private
views – limits that would be unconstitutional if imposed on other citizens.
Civilian and military officials should also take care to properly characterize
military advice in public. Civilian leaders must take responsibility for the
consequences of the actions they direct.”
Their
advice is honest, direct and square with the Constitution.
The
commander in chief’s orders must be obeyed. The military must refrain from
criticizing the president in public. And the president is accountable for
policy choices.
On
partisan political activity, the former chiefs offer this straightforward piece
of advice:
“There are significant limits on the public
role of military personnel in partisan politics, as outlined in long-standing
Defense Department policy and regulations … Military and civilian leaders must
be diligent about keeping the military separate from partisan political
activity.”
The
final best practice covers the responsibilities of military leaders during the
transfer of power after presidential elections.
They
have a “dual obligation.”
First,
they must “assist” the incumbent commander in chief “in the exercise of his or
her Constitutional duty.”
And
second, since the voters choose the new commander in chief, they must prepare
to assist “whomever the voters pick.”
They
carry out their responsibilities regardless of who sits in the White House.
To
summarize, the open letter provides sound advice that could help to moderate
civil-military strife.
It
telegraphs a message to the top brass: It’s time to hit the reset button and
rebalance civil-military relations.
Some
of it may be pointed directly at the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff,
General Milley.
My
advice to him: Take their sage advice to heart. A dose of humility burnishes
one’s integrity.
As
the nation’s most senior military officer, General Milley has a responsibility
to set an example of excellence and cease all partisan political activity.
Partisan
political activity is harmful to civil-military relations and has the potential
for creating dangerous divisions within the ranks of the armed forces.
Military
personnel must stay out of politics. Period end of story!
