Dempsey Calls on Americans to Discuss Civil-Military Relations
Dempsey Calls on Americans to Discuss Civil-Military Relations
By Jim Garamone
American Forces Press Service
WASHINGTON, July 5, 2013 – America’s all-volunteer military has been a success, but society at large and service members must ensure a shared understanding exists between them, Army Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, wrote in a commentary in the Washington Post today.
Dempsey described the all-volunteer force as one of America’s finest achievements. The military is so good, he wrote, that many Americans take it for granted.
“The last decade of war has affected the relationship between our society and the military,” Dempsey wrote. “We can't allow a sense of separation to grow between us. As the all-volunteer force enters its fifth decade, civilians and the military need to maintain the shared understanding necessary for a healthy relationship.”
Dempsey wrote that the nation needs to discuss the military-civil relationship, as well as the nation’s relationship with its service members.
“As a nation, we’ve learned to separate the warrior from the war,” he wrote. “But we still have much to learn about how to connect the warrior to the citizen.”
Since the end of conscription in July 1973, those entering the military have served as volunteers. In his commentary, Dempsey urged America’s civilians to establish a dialogue with their fellow citizens who serve in the all-volunteer force.
“As citizens, we must listen to our veterans,” the chairman wrote. “If we do, we’ll hear stories of pride and courage, anger and pain, laughter and joy. We’ll hear of actions that humble and inspire us. We’ll also hear of moments that break our hearts. These stories represent the best of our nation.”
Service members also bear a responsibility to communicate with their fellow citizens, Dempsey wrote. “We should tell our stories and recognize that those who aren’t in uniform might not know what to say or ask,” he added. “We also have a duty to listen. Our fellow citizens may have different perspectives that we need to hear and understand.”
The services as well as veterans understand the need for fiscal change, the general wrote. Cuts in funding, he added, are not an attack on veterans and their families.
“Modest reforms to pay and compensation will improve readiness and modernization,” Dempsey wrote. “They will help keep our all-volunteer force sustainable and strong. Keeping faith also means investing sufficient resources so that we can uphold our sacred obligations to defend the nation and to send our sons and daughters to war with only the best training, leadership and equipment. We can’t shrink from our obligations to one another. The stakes are too high.”
Service members and veterans must remember that public service takes many forms, Dempsey wrote.
“Across our country, police officers, firefighters, teachers, coaches, pastors, scout masters, business people and many others serve their communities every day,” he added. “Military service makes us different, but the desire to contribute permeates every corner of the United States.”
The nation cannot afford allowing the military to disconnect from American society, Dempsey wrote.
“We must guard against letting military service become a job for others,” he added. “Children of those in the military are far more likely to join than the children of those who are not. And young men and women in some areas never even consider the military as one of many ways to serve our nation.”
Some fault for this, Dempsey said, lies with the military. Service members, he added, cannot just stay on bases and remain in their own world.
“But we didn’t stop being citizens when we put on the uniform,” Dempsey wrote. “We came from small towns and big cities across our country, and we’ll go back one day. Civilians aren’t an abstraction; they’re our parents, grandparents, siblings and friends.”
An all-volunteer force is actually the norm for the United States, the chairman wrote, noting that since 1787, the nation used conscription for only 35 years.
“Except in times of great crisis, we have relied on a tradition of selfless service,” Dempsey wrote. “The all-volunteer force continues that tradition. It has served our nation well for the past 40 years. To do so for the next 40, we’ll have to work at it together.”
“Children of those in the military are far more likely to join than the children of those who are not.” Yep.
“Civilians aren’t an abstraction; they are our parents, our grandparents, our siblings and our friends.” Well, sometimes.
Got to get some headgear or, better yet, a t-shirt made for the wife that says: Army granddaughter, Army daughter, Army wife and Army mother.
The General is correct that we can’t allow a sense of separation to grow between our volunteer military and the civilian population. Three major points got my attention as I reviewed the stated need to reach out to civilians. 1) “As a nation, we’ve learned to separate the warrior from the war…” 2)”We owe much to our veterans and their families, but we shouldn’t view all proposed defense cuts as an attack on them.” 3)”We must also remember our shared values.” Because of some recent occurrences, I saw these three points as adversely effecting that outreach and providing our military with some real challenges.
1. At the lower ranks, where the “close with and destroy” is done, we can separate the warrior from the war. However, at the higher ranks, with those who serve at the will of the president, there is not the separation of which the general speaks. The higher ranks are invariably linked to the administration and their political appointees. I believe some seniors are out of touch with the sophistication of the American public.
2. We shouldn’t view all proposed defense cuts as an attack on veteran’s and their families. While some cuts may be necessary, I believe this is planted in the article to provide the administration and the SECDEF with cover as they cut military forces. This also includes the recent statements concerning the reduction of nukes.
3. We must also remember our shared values. This is the greatest stumbling block as the military would reach out to civilians. What are those shared values? Whose values? Is “gays in the military”, homosexual behavior, male on male sex, a shared value with probably millions of Americans who would, otherwise, like to see their sons and daughters serve? Is the concept of women in combat units a shared value for the majority of Americans? How has the Benghazi issue effected the general perception when there was no military response? That is the “leave no one behind” concept. What about a counterinsurgency doctrine that prioritizes the protection of foreign civilians above the needs of American troops? Is Islam really a religion of peace? There are issues of sexual assaults, which is difficult to explain during any outreach endeavor.
A friend of mine wrote a song: “Broken Soldier.” A line in that song was: “I am a broken soldier trying to make sense of all I see.” I believe many people are trying to make some sense of what they see. The general is right to stress the civilian outreach. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
Another perspective on civilian-military relations that was posted on SWJ not that long ago.
http://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/a-caution-on-civil-military-relations
Another article well worth reading, short quote below the link.
http://www.fpri.org/enotes/201002.owens.civilmilitaryrelations.html
“The failure of American civil-military relations to generate strategy can be attributed to the confluence of three factors. The first of these is the continued dominance within the American system of what Eliot Cohen has called the “normal” theory of civil-military relations, the belief that there is a clear line of demarcation between civilians who determine the goals of the war and the uniformed military who then conduct the actual fighting.”