Civil-Military Relations and the Profession of Arms

I talk about the importance of “trust” at every opportunity.  Trust is the cornerstone of our profession.  It binds us with those we serve-the American people and the elected officials who represent them.  This trust relationship cannot be taken for granted.  We must continually earn and re-earn it every day.

One way we earn this trust is by avoiding partisan activities.  I wrote about this in a recent Joint Force Quarterly article.  We must understand why our military as a profession embraces political neutrality as a core value.  We show fidelity to the Constitution every day by embracing this foundational principle.  We are not elected to serve; rather, we elect to serve.

Of course, we are all entitled to our private and personal opinions.   And, I know we all take our obligations as citizens seriously.  No uniformed member should ever feel constrained in their well-earned right to vote.

The uniform, however, brings its own obligations.   All those who actively wear the uniform should be familiar with the regulations that guide political activity.  The lines between the professional, personal—and virtual—are blurring.  Now more than ever, we have to be exceptionally thoughtful about what we say and how we say it.

In my judgment, we must continue to be thoughtful about how our actions and opinions reflect on the profession beyond active service.   Former and retired service members, especially Generals and Admirals, are connected to military service for life.  When the title or uniform is used for partisan purposes, it can erode the trust relationship.  We must all be conscious of this, or we risk adversely affecting the very profession to which we dedicated most of our adult lives.

I welcome your thoughts on this topic.  To gain additional perspective, I commend to you a speech given in May 2006 by Gen. Charles G. Boyd, USAF (ret.) at Air University.

Check out these other posts:

This entry was posted in Chairman's Corner, DoD News and tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.
  • http://twitter.com/AmenBailBonds Amen Bail Bonds

    A highly decorated Army lieutenant colonel says he was essentially blacklisted by his superiors after more than 50 Muslim groups complained about a course he taught on radical Islam. Now he is fighting to get his career back.
    As previously reported by TheBlaze, Lt. Col. Matthew Dooley, a West Point graduate and decorated combat veteran, was an instructor at the Joint Forces Staff College at the National Defense University, where he was reportedly popular among students and fellow staff members,FoxNews.com reports.
    How do you reconcile this behavior towards a highly dedicated,officer standing for the US Constitution while censoring him? Begs the question, why would you censor such a message that is pro American, pro Constitution? Presumably, all of our military personnel share the same objective to protect our US Constitution as it’s sole objective. If your office believed this to be true, then why the need to censor? Alternatively, if we have military personnel that do not share this primary, common objective, how did they get in? At what point does your trust diminish among American citizens if you censor the very message you are placed to protect? At what point do you begin to question domestic government about diluting and undermining the constitution with executive orders, AG gun deals to Mexico, Federal agencies arbitrarily enacting regulations that undermine the constitution and dilute personal freedoms? At what point do you pay attention to domestic government as the possible threat to our freedom and US Constitution?
    Lastly, will you personally guarantee that each and every military member receives their ballot to vote timely?