Publishing Disclaimer: In all of its publications and products, Army University Press presents professional information. However, the views and opinions expressed therein are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Army University, the Department of the US Army, or any other agency of the US Government.

Illustration of military personnel taking a selfie in front of a political campaign sign, with their actions being observed by another soldier.

Instilling the Nonpartisan Ethic at the Unit Level

Heidi A. Urben

A version of this essay will be included in the forthcoming Army University Press anthology, The Civ-Mil Primer, edited by Col. Todd Schmidt and Dr. Trent Lythgoe. Note. An earlier version of this guide appeared in Heidi A. Urben, Party, Politics, and the Post-9/11 Army (Amherst, NY: Cambria Press, 2021).

We must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military that is so deeply rooted in the very essence of our Republic. And this is not easy. It takes time and work and effort. But it may be the most important thing each and every one of us does every single day.¹

General Mark A. Milley

The relative durability of the nonpartisan ethic in the U.S. military's officer corps is impressive, considering the limited extent to which it is formally taught and reinforced throughout an officer's career. Moreover, measuring compliance or noncompliance with the nonpartisan ethic is not only a subjective endeavor, but a difficult one. There is no such thing as service-wide databases of violations of the nonpartisan ethic. And yet, assuming the nonpartisan ethic remains healthy and intact in the armed forces may inhibit introspection and self-assessments among service members. As highlighted by General Milley's public apology following his appearance in the Lafayette Square photo-op referenced in the quote above, it may be that officers do not deeply reflect upon the nonpartisan ethic until the issue has become so salient, that the officer corps then finds itself in a civil-military relations crisis, or worse yet, its credibility as a nonpartisan institution has already been damaged.

Calls for reinvigorated professional military education to better address fundamental principles of civil-military relations are necessary, but insufficient to bolster the officer corps' understanding of and commitment to civil-military norms. Focusing only on reforming professional military education lets commanders off the hook for failing to promote what should be a core aspect of professionalism throughout their formations. It also reinforces the fallacy that professional military education can and should solve all sorts of professionalism deficiencies within the ranks. As the military's abysmal record in combatting sexual harassment and sexual assault demonstrates, commanders should be more - not less - engaged when it comes to demonstrating personal leadership on core matters pertaining to the profession. Outsourcing such matters to others outside the chain of command generally reflects leader disinterest and therefore signals to service members of all ranks that these issues just aren't that important.² Certainly, professional military education, especially at the staff college and senior service college levels, should be reformed to include purposeful instruction on civil-military relations and the nonpartisan ethic. More must be done at the unit level, however, to ensure officers of all ranks have a foundational understanding of what it means to be nonpartisan. Commanders and leaders in the armed forces are charged with promoting all sorts of aspects associated with professionalism - teaching and modeling the nonpartisan ethic should be no different than any other discussion of professional ethics.

This brief guide is intended to assist leaders, especially unit commanders at the O-5 and O-6 level, in establishing professional development programs on the nonpartisan ethic with their officers, although, it can and should be adapted for noncommissioned officer development as well. Guides such as this are necessary to ensure commanders employ a common approach, grounded in both regulations and norms. Absent such frameworks, discussions at the unit-level can become unmoored, reflect the idiosyncrasies of individual leaders, and lack uniformity, as some characterized the 2021 extremism stand-down across the Department of Defense.³ If clumsily done, such efforts could even backfire by taking on the appearance of partisan activity. In this regard, officers, especially commanders, who are stewards of the profession, should be guided by the Hippocratic Oath of, "first do no harm," and do nothing that could inadvertently politicize the institution. As with all aspects of leader development, senior officers and commanders should take ownership of this program and resist the temptation to delegate the responsibility of leading such discussions to their Judge Advocates. Certainly, Judge Advocates play a critical advisory role and must be included in such professional development sessions; however, allowing Judge Advocates to lead them runs the risk that discussions will center solely on debates of what is and is not permissible.

Rules and regulations typically outline the formal minimum requirements for standards of conduct, while norms are informal mechanisms that govern behavior. Although understanding service and Department of Defense directives is necessary, a deeper understanding of professional norms must center on how officers should behave - even when certain activities may technically be allowable. Some commanders might be intimidated about or feel uncomfortable leading discussions with their officers that fundamentally point back towards politics - especially domestic politics. And this might explain why commanders often default to their Judge Advocates to spearhead such discussions, figuring that Judge Advocates are best poised to answer tough questions and provide clear interpretations of regulations - this is a mistake. Unit commanders are not only responsible for maintaining good order and discipline in their formations, but they must also guard their unit's reputation, and by extension, the reputation of the profession of arms. Topics pertaining to professionalism rarely offer black and white prescriptions but instead depend on candid discussion and debate, which commanders are best suited to lead.

This guide includes required and recommended professional readings, broken down by foundational lessons on military professionalism and the roots of civilian control, the intersection of partisan politics and social media, the much-debated role of retired flag officers in partisan politics, and finally the overarching debate regarding politicization of the military. It is by no means an exhaustive treatment of all civil-military relations dynamics, nor is intended to cover all aspects of how the military as an institution intersects with politics. It solely addresses how leaders might attempt to talk about the importance of nonpartisanship within the ranks. Commanders could envision this as a four-part series; each section builds on the next and concludes by offering follow-on discussion questions that can be employed in group settings. All of the readings are readily accessible online. This guide also includes hypothetical partisan scenarios that officers are likely to encounter throughout their careers, along with considerations officers should weigh when they do inevitably confront these situations.

Group of soldiers in uniform attending a training or classroom setting, taking notes.

Figure 1. This guide is intended to be used in classroom settings as well as informal discussions about how the military as an institution intersects with politics. Courtesy of the US Army.

Roots of Civilian Control and Professionalism

Any discussion of politics and the officer corps should first be grounded in a broader discussion of the foundations of civilian control and the military as a profession. All officers should understand the constitutional roots that subordinate the armed forces to civilian authority, as outlined in Article I, Section 8 and Article II as well as the democratic traditions that have shaped and reinforced civilian control in the United States. During the Newburgh Conspiracy in 1783, a group of officers in the Continental Army came close to mutiny over Congress's inability to consistently pay Continental soldiers during the Revolutionary War. George Washington put a stop to the plotting in an eloquent speech about the importance of civilian control of the armed forces that appealed to the officers' sense of duty and selfless service. He encouraged them to trust Congress and not to do anything that would tarnish their dignity and honor, and he made it clear that anyone who would do otherwise would "overturn the liberties of our country," and "open the flood gates of civil discord."⁴

In September 2022, eight former secretaries of defense and five former chairmen of the joint chiefs of staff took the extraordinary step of writing an open letter in which they reiterated bedrock principles of civilian control of the military and healthy practices in civil-military relations.⁵ The sheer fact that these former officials felt compelled to publicly reaffirm these core principles is itself noteworthy and recognition of the decay of critical civil-military norms during such a politically divisive time in American history.⁶ Service members should pay close attention to the core principles of civilian control articulated in the open letter and reflect on the role they all play in upholding them.

Few have done more to advance an understanding of the military as a profession than Don Snider, emeritus professor in West Point's Department of Social Sciences and former Professor of the Army Profession at the U.S. Army War College. His writings on the military profession, as Nathan Finney highlights well, help ground any discussion of the importance of nonpartisanship into a broader examination of the professional ethic and the characteristics of the military profession.⁷ Lastly, in addition to contemplating the difference between partisan and political as well as the difference between nonpartisan and apolitical, officers should also reflect upon why the norm of nonpartisanship is a critical aspect of professionalism.

Required Reading

Open Letter. "To Support and Defend: Principles of Civilian Control and Best Practices of Civil-Military Relations," War on the Rocks, September 6, 2022. https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/to-support-and-defend-principles-of-civilian-control-and-best-practices-of-civil-military-relations/

Recommended Readings

Washington, George. Newburgh Address: George Washington to Officers of the Army, March 15, 1783. https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-sources-2/article/newburgh-address-george-washington-to-officers-of-the-army-march-15-1783/

Hattem, Michael. "Newburgh Conspiracy." The Digital Encyclopedia of George Washington at the Fred W. Smith National Library for the Study of George Washington at Mount Vernon. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/newburgh-conspiracy/

U.S. Constitution. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

Finney, Nathan K. "Views on the #Profession from the Professional," The Strategy Bridge, January 28, 2015. https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2016/1/28/views-on-the-profession-from-the-professional

Babcock-Lumish, Brian. "Uninformed, not Uniformed? The Apolitical Myth." Military Review, September-October 2013, 48-56. https://www.armyupress.army.mil/Portals/7/military-review/Archives/English/MilitaryReview_20131031_art009.pdf

Brooks, Risa. "Beyond Huntington: U.S. Military Professionalism Today." Parameters 51, no. 1 (Spring 2021): 65-77. https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol51/iss1/8/

Questions for Discussion

* What does civilian control of the armed forces mean and how is it specified in the Constitution? Why is civilian control of the military an important feature of democracies? What are some of the democratic ideals in the Constitution that military members swear an oath to support and defend?

* What does it mean to be part of a profession? What marks professions as different from other jobs or occupations? As officers, what are your responsibilities as custodians of a professional ethic?

* When reflecting on why the American public ranks the military as the most trusted institution, General (Retired) Martin Dempsey once remarked, "Maybe if I knew what it would take to screw it up, I could avoid it."⁸ Why is trust such an integral component to the profession of arms? What do you think could cause the public to lose trust in the military? Why?

* Harold Lasswell once defined politics as, "who gets what, when, and how?" Despite this value-neutral, matter-of-fact definition, the word "political" has taken on a negative connotation in society and especially in the military today - why?

* What is the difference between political and partisan? Why is nonpartisanship a critical aspect of military professionalism?

Text-based scenario describing a brigade commander making inappropriate comments about political candidates during a televised debate.

Figure 2. Pitfall #1: Watercooler Talk Just Among Friends.

Text-based scenario of a squadron commander mocking Congress in a speech at a military ball.

Figure 3. Pitfall #2: Jokes at Congress's Expense.

Partisan Politics and the Profession: on Social Media and Beyond

While the point of officer professional development is to move beyond a simple retelling of dos and don'ts, all officers must at least be familiar with the few regulations or directives that guide political behavior within the uniformed military. Some of these regulations are outdated, like Department of Defense Directive 1344.10, Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces on Active Duty, which has not been updated in over 15 years and fails to address social media considerations. Others, such as the military services' social media policies address operational security but are vague in outlining what is and is not allowable regarding political speech. While there are a few exceptions, these regulations provide a fair amount of latitude to service members, allowing them to express their First Amendment rights like other citizens.

Required Reading

Department of Defense. Political Activities by Members of the Armed Forces. DoD Directive 1344.10. Washington, D.C.: Department of Defense, 2008. https://www.esd.whs.mil/Portals/54/Documents/DD/issuances/dodd/134410p.pdf.

Recommended Readings

10 U.S. Code 888 - Article 88, Contempt toward officials. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/10/888.

Childress, John, Dave Richardson, and Heidi Urben. "It's Time to Revise Guidance on Political Activities for Members of the U.S. Military." War on the Rocks, July 6, 2023. https://warontherocks.com/2023/07/its-time-to-revise-guidance-on-political-activities-for-members-of-the-u-s-military/.

Urben, Heidi. "Partisan Activity on Social Media Hurts the Military Profession." Proceedings 147, no. 9 (September 2021): 64-67. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2021/september/partisan-activity-social-media-hurts-military-profession

Questions for Discussion

* Department of Defense directives outline certain restrictions on political activities for active-duty service members. Is compliance with these regulations sufficient to maintain the military's nonpartisan ethic? Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 was last updated in 2008. If you could update it, what else should be included?

* Only officers are subject to the provisions of Article 88 in the Uniform Code of Military Justice, which prohibits them from using contemptuous words against the president and other elected officials. Since they are not prohibited from doing so, is it appropriate for noncommissioned officers to make disparaging comments about the president and other elected leaders? Why or why not?

* How do service members' social media activity and behavior impact their professionalism in the army? What are the benefits and pitfalls from service members engaging on social media sites? Should senior uniformed leaders maintain an active presence on social media? Why or why not?

* What considerations should service members weigh when engaging on social media, especially on matters pertaining to politics?

* Using a disclaimer on your social media sites, that your views are yours only and do not reflect the official views of the U.S. military is always a good practice. If service members use a disclaimer, but it is still clear they are affiliated with the military, is it still okay for them to post partisan material on their social media page? Why or why not?

Illustration of military personnel engaging in political activity on social media, sharing a political cartoon.

Figure 4. Pitfall #3: Posting in a Private Capacity.

The Role of Retired Flag Officers in Politics

Retired generals and admirals have made headlines for endorsing political candidates for office during election campaigns, speaking at presidential nominating conventions, serving as high-profile political appointees, and much more in recent years. Yet, the vast majority of the roughly 7,500 retired general officers choose not to engage in partisan politics. Many who defend retired four-stars' involvement in partisan politics point to the precedent set by George Washington, Ulysses S. Grant, and Dwight D. Eisenhower when they were elected president following their military service. However, when retired officers run for office, they unambiguously shed their military identity in favor for a partisan one and subject themselves to the full scrutiny of the electorate. Retired flag officers, who mix their military personas with partisan ones through campaign endorsements, face no such accountability. Despite this, survey data of active-duty officers finds many officers serving today are comfortable with the political outspokenness of retired flag officers, indicating more work is required to sensitize officers to the negative impacts that partisan politics can have on the institution - even from those who are no longer in uniform.

Historical photograph of President elect Dwight D. Eisenhower speaking at a press conference surrounded by journalists.

Figure 5. President-elect Dwight D. Eisenhower speaking with reporters at the White House, on the occasion of his transition meeting with President Truman. Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration.

Required Reading

Dempsey, Martin E. "Keep Your Politics Private, My Fellow Generals and Admirals." Defense One, August 1, 2016. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/08/keep-your-politics-private-my-fellow-generals-and-admirals/130404/.

Recommended Readings

Barno, David and Nora Bensahel. "How to Get Generals Out of Politics." War on the Rocks, September 27, 2016. https://warontherocks.com/2016/09/how-to-get-generals-out-of-politics/.

Gelpi, Chris. "Retired Generals are People Too!" Duck of Minerva (blog). August 9, 2016. https://duckofminerva.com/2016/08/retired-generals-are-people-too.html.

Griffiths, Zachary. "Let's Use Peer Pressure to End Political Endorsements by Retired Generals." Defense One, February 18, 2020. https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2020/02/use-peer-pressure-stop-retired-generals-making-political-endorsements/163034/.

Robinson, Michael. "Danger Close: Military Politicization and Elite Credibility." War on the Rocks, August 21, 2018. https://warontherocks.com/2018/08/danger-close-military-politicization-and-elite-credibility/

Questions for Discussion

* How might partisan actions and behavior by retired officers negatively affect the military or society?

* Do retired officers - especially retired general and flag officers - still speak for the institution? Should retired general and flag officers be held to a different standard than other retired officers when it comes to partisan political commentary? Why or why not?

* How do partisan political endorsements by retired generals and admirals differ from other types of political commentary? Are there any benefits from retired general and flag officers speaking out on political issues?

* When generals and admirals retire from the military, they are subject to a "cooling off" period, preventing them from engaging in lobbying activities towards the Defense Department for one to two years, depending upon their rank. Should retired flag officers face a similar "cooling off" period regarding their involvement in partisan politics? Why or why not?

* Recent survey data suggests most Americans may not distinguish retired general officers from those on active duty? How does this affect the debate over retired general officers' role in partisan politics?

Text-based scenario discussing a retired general engaging in partisan activities and an active-duty officer endorsing them online.

Figure 6. Pitfall #4: Retired Officer Political Speech and Its Impacts.

Is The Military Politicized?

Alice Hunt Friend defines a politicized military as one that "exercises loyalty to a single political party and/or consistently advocates for and defends partisan political positions and fortunes."⁹ Politicization of the military does not happen overnight, and both civilians and the uniformed military bear responsibility here. Even if politicians are deemed to be most culpable in politicizing the military, members of the military, especially senior leaders, should be accountable and play an important role in preventing and resisting attempts to politicize the military. It is important for officers to reflect on the particular responsibility they have in keeping those in uniform out of the partisan political fray. During times of partisan polarization, this is even more challenging, as virtually every political issue carries partisan connotations. Lastly, service members of all ranks and grades should purposefully reflect on the oath they take to the Constitution and the democratic principles within it that they swear to support and defend. Doing so, at routine intervals in one's career, may serve to remind military professionals about how to navigate times of great political uncertainty and tension.

Required Reading

Friend, Alice Hunt. "Military Politicization." Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 5, 2017. https://www.csis.org/analysis/military-politicization

Recommended Readings

Milley, Mark. Keynote Address to National Defense University Class of 2020 Graduates. 2020. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7AKmmApwi0M.

Urben, Heidi and Peter Feaver. "The All-Volunteer Force at 50: Civil-Military Solutions in a Time of Polarization." Just Security, June 28, 2023. https://www.justsecurity.org/87053/the-all-volunteer-force-at-50-civil-military-solutions-in-a-time-of-partisan-polarization/.

Thornhill, Paula. "How to Teach Troops About the Constitution." Defense One, February 18, 2021, https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/02/how-teach-troops-about-constitution/172117.

Ulrich, Marybeth, Lynne Chandler Garcia, Sydney Fitch. "Renewing Democracy Through Oath Education at the Air Force Academy." War on the Rocks, April 11, 2023. https://warontherocks.com/2023/04/renewing-democracy-through-oath-education-at-the-air-force-academy/.

Questions for Discussion

* First, what does it mean when we say the military is or could be politicized? Has the military been politicized or are these claims overblown? What evidence can you provide to support your assessment, one way or the other?

* What steps should those in uniform take to ensure the military does not become politicized?

* Like any other citizen, all service members have the right to vote. But why is it important for the uniformed military to play no role in elections and campaigns?

* In General Milley's 2020 commencement address to National Defense University graduates, he tells officers to keep the Constitution close to their hearts. What does this mean in practice? How might doing so strengthen the nonpartisan ethic?

* As a leader in the armed forces, how might you go about teaching your subordinates about the Constitution and the democratic principles they swear to support and defend?

Text-based scenario of a junior officer volunteering for social causes and encouraging military members to vote.

Figure 7. Pitfall #5: Getting Out the Vote.

Soldier in uniform reading a pamphlet on how to vote absentee while stationed abroad.

Figure 8. Voting can be very confusing for members of the military, their families, and Americans living abroad. The Federal Voting Assistance Program, a non-politically affiliated organization, can assist as it was designed around informing Soldiers about the elections and the election process. Courtesy of the US Army.

Text-based scenario describing an ensign discussing politics at a family event after deployment.

Figure 9. Pitfall #6: Sharing One's Political Opinions with Friends and Family.

Notes

Amanda Macias and Dan Mangan, Joint Chiefs of Staff Chairman Milley Apologizes for Appearing with Trump at Church Photo-Op," CNBC, June 11, 2020, https://www.cnbc.com/2020/06/11/george-floyd-joint-chiefs-chairman-milley-apologizes-for-appearing-with-trump.html.
Fort Hood Independent Review Committee, Report of the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee, November 6, 2020, https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/forthoodreview/2020-12-03_FHIRC_report_redacted.pdf.
Carrie Lee and Celestino Perez, Jr., "Education Against Extremism: Suggestions for a Smarter Stand-Down," War on the Rocks, July 16, 2021, https://warontherocks.com/2021/07/education-against-extremism-suggestions-for-a-smarter-stand-down/.
George Washington, Newburgh Address: George Washington to Officers of the Army, March 15, 1783, https://www.mountvernon.org/education/primary-source-collections/primary-source-collections/article/newburgh-address-george-washington-to-officers-of-the-army-march-15-1783.
Open Letter, "To Support and Defend: Principles of Civilian Control and Best Practices of Civil-Military Relations," War on the Rocks, September 6, 2022, https://warontherocks.com/2022/09/to-support-and-defend-principles-of-civilian-control-and-best-practices-of-civil-military-relations/.
Peter Feaver and Michele Flournoy, "Let's Stop Being Cavalier About Civilian Control of the Military," Lawfare, September 13, 2022, https://www.lawfareblog.com/lets-stop-being-cavalier-about-civilian-control-military.
Nathan K. Finney, "Views on the #Profession from the Professional," The Strategy Bridge, January 28, 2015, https://thestrategybridge.org/the-bridge/2016/1/28/views-on-the-profession-from-the-professional.
Jim Gourley, "What Is the Tipping Point for America"s Trust in the Military? And Are We Near It?" Foreign Policy, February 14, 2014,https://foreignpolicy.com/2014/02/14/where-is-the-tipping-point-for-americas-trust-in-the-military-and-are-we-near-it/.
Alice Hunt Friend, "Military Politicization." Center for Strategic and International Studies, May 5, 2017. https://www.csis.org/analysis/military-politicization.