Recently a very thoughtful colleague in an online discussion group concerning national security challenged us to draft a paper on what politicians should know about employing the US military. Such would be a tutorial of sorts with historical vignettes, lessons learned, and perhaps an assessment of how other selected nations think and act in the national security realm. He may be onto something. What should senior military leaders provide to political and national security specialists that represents their “best military judgment and advice” on any given situation? Here are some abbreviated thoughts to begin the discussion.
It’s important to remember that military professionals aren’t politicians, but they’re quite sensitive to offending the very political structure that funds the defense of the nation. To be sure, most senior military leaders will be forthright in their opinions when asked by our political leadership. Understandably it’s a touchy business, particularly if in sharing their best judgment they upset the Secretary of Defense or the service secretaries by being a bit too candid in providing opinions to Congress or the Administration that are controversial, to say nothing of stray comments that could jeopardize future promotions.
To be fair, most truly professional military officers think this through and offer advice that is at once honest but measured. One may think that the Army needs three full corps and 16 divisions; I do. But budget cycle realities might require a less ambitious posture, not to mention reducing the resulting heartburn for civilian secretaries of whatever — who are, after all, political appointees. Nonetheless, what should guide military leaders as they are confronted with providing advice on topics like the war in Ukraine or a potential one with China over Taiwan?
First, military leaders should insist that political leaders receive genuine and accurate information on the circumstances surrounding a crisis at hand. It does little good to offer advice in an assessment vacuum, particularly one that is a composed of a thin atmosphere of press reports, commentary, and cable news blather. Biased reporting, slanted editorials, and self-absorbed talking heads are no substitute for expert analysts using credible and verifiable intelligence. Moreover, these briefings should best be done out of public view. While “transparency” is often cited as a requirement of good government, it can work against protecting sources and methods our intelligence system relies upon.
Second, military leaders should base their advice on what is in the best interest of national security. Indeed, in sharing their advice, military leaders should not presume that their audience is fully aware of either the current national security policy goals or the national military strategy to attain those objectives. So, in offering their advice, military leaders must couch it in the specific and lawful strategy objectives of the nation. Simply put, politicians are not trained national security experts, having arrived in political office advocating for issues that are at best remote to national security. Many politicians would benefit from tutorials on how national security objectives are developed.
Third, the advice offered by military leaders must be clear and unambiguous. No waffling. Politicians can smell equivocation ten miles away. They are well familiar with the aroma of tergiversation. After all, they’re experts at dispensing it. Moreover, when a military leader offers clear and forthright advice, if it’s not heeded or if it’s rejected and failure follows, they live to fight another day having secured for themselves the credibility that their advice was sound and should have been followed. There is some evidence today that having warned the commander-in-chief that a precipitous departure from Afghanistan would be catastrophic for US national interests, those same military leaders who found their advice rejected in that case would be successful in counselling wiser policies in the Ukrainian war that would follow just months afterwards.
Fourth, sound advice must be couched in achievable recommendations. Unlike dictatorships, America is a constitutional republic and military budgets are not unlimited. So, the key to good advice is to make recommendations which can be realistically financed. Sound military advice comes in the form of practical solutions to problems. When you can demonstrate to politicians how they can attain solutions without too much difficulty, you are well on your way to achieving your purpose.
Fifth, military leaders must remember that their advice to congressional and domestic audiences is also consumed by our adversaries. That means it must be resolute and credible.
Finally, this. At the end of any military recommendation are the lives of soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen, or coast guardsmen. So, with that in mind, good military advice requires that military leaders remember that their oath is to the Constitution, their obligation is to the American people, but their loyalty is to their fellow service members. That’s the ultimate test in offering the “best military judgment and advice” on any given situation.
0 Comments