Actions against Mark Milley ‘negatively impact’ national security
Former service secretaries, a general, and admirals penned an opinion article addressing Trump administration actions against military officers. They mentioned Retired General Mark Milley and former Coast Guard Commandant Admiral Linda Fagan to showcase their argument. The authors claimed that these actions risk sending a message to the ranks that the Trump administration will not tolerate differences in opinion. They felt that treating military officers this way would endanger currently serving troops.
From Military.com:
Intentionally or not, these actions run the risk of sending a message to all uniformed leaders as well as rank-and-file military service members that this administration will not tolerate differences of opinion. They undermine 236 years of tradition since the signing of the Constitution that have served this country well.
This is a dangerous message to send to those we count on to protect our country. It not only undermines morale and cohesion within the ranks but also threatens the American people’s trust in the armed forces — and ultimately endangers our men and women in uniform. Strong and healthy civil-military relations are vital to both a properly functioning democracy and our military’s readiness to defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. We realize that this might seem like an arcane principle to most Americans but, from our experience in both Republican and Democratic administrations, it is of vital importance and not something that we should take for granted.
Since the founding of the republic and formation of our Constitution, the United States has adhered to a principle of civilian control of the military. The president and his appointed civilian leaders make the choices and decisions necessary for our nation’s security. Each administration will have its priorities for defense strategy and policy, but civilian leaders’ decisions will be ill-informed if senior military leaders don’t tell them the hard truths and implications of their policies and strategies because of the threat of retaliation.
The U.S. military’s strength depends on its ability to remain above the fray of politics. Our military leaders swear an oath to the Constitution, not a particular person. Actions like those being suggested today will create the perception in the military that disagreeing with political leaders is hazardous to one’s career.
Additional Reading:
Caldera, L., Casey, G., O’Keefe, S., Abbot, S., & Allen, T. (2025, February 14). Punishing military officers for political reasons endangers our troops and threatens national security. Military.com. Link.
Category: Editorial, Op-Ed, Veterans in the news
