In a democracy, a military swears loyalty to the nation and flag, not leaders

Many democracies India included have had their own experiences of civil-military discord.

US President Donald Trump fired the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), Air Force General CQ Brown, along with five other admirals and generals on February 21 in an unprecedented shake-up of the top US military leadership.

This radical decision – what his critics in the US legislature have termed as being “deeply dangerous” for the country – was taken a day after the Trump team completed one month in office and has left the US military dazed even as hundreds of civilian employees in the US Department of Defense are being laid off.

No specific reason was provided by the White House for this unceremonious sacking of America’s top military leaders – General Brown and Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the CNO (Chief of Naval Operations). Both of them are highly accomplished four star officers but the pattern is revealing of the Trump purge list: citizens of colour and women.

It has been reported that President Trump plans to appoint a retired three-star general to the post of JCS - Lieutenant General Dan Caine. This is also unprecedented and the JCS appointment, which needs US Senate approval, may face some hurdles.

American presidents have sacked military brass earlier

Is this Trump decision to sack the military top-brass unprecedented for the US? History tells us that it is not. From President Abraham Lincoln to Harry Truman, some presidents have invoked their right to exercise civilian control over the military – a cardinal principle of an elected democracy.

But it’s different this time

How and why this civilian authority is exercised varies from nation-to-nation and leader-to-leader. It merits recall that in the recent past, former US President Barack Obama (2009-17) also had a testy relationship with his military brass and many of them were compelled to resign. A list compiled by Breitbart, a far-right US news website, listed 197 officers who were sacked, forced to resign or had to relinquish command during the Obama years and this includes General Jim Mattis and Lt. Gen Michael Flynn.

However, while reasons such as insubordination, incompetence and moral turpitude were the triggers for earlier presidential decisions of dismissal or resignation, the Trump rationale is different. The senior officers summarily dismissed, including the top legal officers, did not conform to the ideological framework driving the Trump governance agenda.

Furthermore, loyalty to Trump as an individual is an overriding determinant and it has been reported that in his first term in the White House many senior officials and military officers were summarily ‘fired’ for either speaking truth to power or failing the loyalty test.

In democracies, civilian oversight and loyalty to the nation and flag are paramount

Many democracies India included have had their own experiences of civil-military discord. It may be recalled that during PM Vajpayee’s tenure, Navy Chief, Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat, was relieved of office in December 1998 for actions that were deemed to be in ‘defiance of the government.’

Stable and harmonious civil-military relations are at the foundation of a viable and vibrant democracy, wherein the elected representative is acknowledged as the superior authority and the military functions under political guidance and control as mandated in the Constitution.

Thus military officers at the highest level who are legally authorized to use force (including apocalyptic force as in the nuclear weapon) to safeguard national sovereignty and territorial integrity owe their allegiance to the Constitution and operate within this framework. Loyalty is to nation and flag and not to a political party and much less a single leader.

Militaries under authoritarian regimes have a fundamentally different approach

Authoritarian regimes have a different template and the military in such cases swears fealty to the Supreme Leader – North Korea is an example.

In the case of China, the military (PLA – People's Liberation Army) is subordinate to the CCP (Chinese Communist Party) and not the state. Thus it is as the General Secretary of the CCP that Xi Jinping demands and commands the loyalty of his senior generals and he exercises his power and control of the military as Chairman of the CMC (Chinese Military Commission) . Not as President of China.

Trump’s personal preference is for a very different civil-military equation

It is evident that Trump would like to have that kind of control over his senior generals and admirals and this has been confirmed by those who served in the White House in the first Trump term (2017-21).

Marine Corps General John Kelly who served as Chief of Staff to President Trump (2017-18) revealed that Trump often praised Adolf Hitler’s generals for their blind loyalty to the Fuhrer and that he wanted U.S. military leaders in that mould – that of the German Wehrmacht under the Nazis.

General Mark Milley, who was the US Army chief and later Chairman JCS in Trump 1.0, described his former boss as the “most dangerous person to this country” and a “fascist to the core.” General Mattis who was fired in the Obama tenure was appointed as Defense Secretary by Trump in the first term but he resigned over policy differences with the President who forced him to leave office abruptly in late December 2018. Later Mattis co-authored a memoir titled ‘Call Sign Chaos: Learning to Lead’ and added that the 45th POTUS (Trump 1.0) was “more dangerous than anyone could ever imagine.”

Essence of military leadership

Leadership in the military is carefully nurtured and certain inviolable core values and principles are honed over the decades and the top brass leads by example of professional competence and personal integrity. This is internalized by young officers who have the grave and onerous responsibility of discharging their duties (the use of force) in a legitimate and authorized manner as they lead their troops into battle – when required.

Morale is an intangible yet precious quality for any military and by disparaging the top brass and demanding unctuous compliance, considerable institutional damage would be done to the US military. In compelling the senior brass to proclaim loyalty to the persona of the President, Trump may indeed fulfil a different MAGA objective – make American (military) gutted, alas.