On Veterans Day, the ongoing transformation of the U.S. military under the Trump administration raises significant concerns about its future. This year’s observance highlights the sacrifices of those who have served, but recent actions by Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth threaten to undermine the military’s professionalism and political neutrality. Reports indicate that Hegseth has been removing senior officers not for their performance, but based on personal biases or demographic characteristics.
Last week, an article in the New York Times detailed Hegseth’s efforts to reshape the upper ranks of the armed forces. Allegations suggest that promotions for several senior officers have been delayed or canceled due to their association with former Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Mark Milley, or because of their gender or race. This trend of prioritizing loyalty over competence poses a profound risk to the effectiveness of the military.
Concerns Over Military Effectiveness and Loyalty
The implications of Hegseth’s strategy align with insights from two important works on civil-military relations. The first, Samuel P. Huntington’s “The Soldier and the State,” argues that a professional military is crucial for upholding democratic values. Huntington emphasized that a military should focus on mastering military skills rather than engaging in political interference. While he acknowledged the potential adverse effects of the military-industrial complex, he asserted that a competent military serves as a safeguard against coups.
In contrast, Caitlin Talmadge in her book “The Dictator’s Army: Battlefield Effectiveness in Authoritarian Regimes,” illustrates how authoritarian regimes often select military leaders based on loyalty, undermining operational effectiveness. This practice, she argues, fosters divisions within the military and detracts from preparing for external threats, as leaders become preoccupied with maintaining their grip on power.
These analyses shed light on why Hegseth’s actions are alarming. While there may not be immediate fears of a military coup, the focus on internal loyalty over professional merit raises questions about the military’s readiness to confront genuine threats. The directive to treat perceived domestic opposition as a primary concern indicates a troubling shift in the military’s role.
The Consequences of Politicization
Should this trend continue, several outcomes appear likely. First, prioritizing loyalty over competence may lead to a military led by commanders lacking the necessary experience and skills. This scenario could diminish the overall effectiveness of the armed forces, jeopardizing national security.
Second, the increasingly politicized environment may deter talented officers from serving, as many may choose to leave the military rather than operate within a system that contradicts their values. This loss of talent could further exacerbate the issue, creating an officer corps that is less diverse and more inclined toward partisan politics.
Moreover, assigning the military to domestic missions, such as patrolling urban areas, detracts from its core purpose. As the armed forces become entangled in issues better suited for civilian law enforcement, their readiness to respond to external threats may be compromised. The focus on unnecessary domestic tasks could lead to vulnerabilities in national defense.
Critics may argue that the U.S. military has faced setbacks in recent conflicts, suggesting a need for leadership changes. While it is true that the military experienced challenges in Iraq and Afghanistan, these difficulties often stem from unrealistic missions set by civilian leadership rather than the capabilities of its commanders. The current approach to personnel changes does not address the root causes of these failures.
This Veterans Day serves as a crucial reminder of the importance of maintaining a military that operates free from political influence. As the nation reflects on the contributions of its service members, it is essential to advocate for a military that remains focused on its mission to protect the Constitution, rather than becoming a tool for political agendas. The potential erosion of military professionalism poses a significant threat to the democratic values that the armed forces are sworn to defend.
