Polarizing the military: political forces responsibility in the recruiting crisis
There is an explicit connection between lost public faith in the military, politicization, and the ongoing recruiting crisis. The loss of trust in the U.S. military’s important role in civic society can be attributed to societal fatigue following the post-9/11 wars. Recruiting the next generation of Americans remains a challenge for the department of defense, and is made more difficult in an election year where the role of the U.S. military comes into sharp public focus.
Fewer young Americans have favorable views on military service, or have relationships or connections to servicemembers or veterans. Those who would recommend military service have also decreased. Underscoring the loss of public faith in the military stems from failing to understand the role which the military plays in civic society.
With the proverbial Ghost of GWOT (societal fatigue) gradually eroding public faith in the military, politicization has become the contemporary face of lost trust, and is increasingly destructive as election cycles churn. Politicization is a fundamental issue as to why young Americans turn from military service; failure to curtail the military being used as a tool of partisan debate will only widen the division between civilians and the military.
Elected leaders have repeatedly used military issues in partisan discourse, exhibited by Senator Tommy Tuberville’s suspension of senior-leader promotions, or former President Trump’s regular disparaging of senior commanders in public rhetoric. The public narrative driven by congressional democratic leaders about alleged rampant extremism in the military is a key data point in diminishing trust in the defense enterprise.
The sacred relationship
The military’s role in democratic society has suffered from public misunderstanding resulting from polarization. The military holds itself institutionally apolitical and loyal to the constitution above political inclination. The foundation of this construct is civilian leadership over the military, a sacred relationship which forms a foundational pillar in liberal democratic societies.
Samuel Huntington defined that sacred relationship as “objective control” in The Soldier and the State. Herein, the professional military corporatizes itself in the expert management of violence. In doing so, that professional military force abstains from undermining (more explicitly, overthrowing) that civilian control by ceding strategic (grand political) vectoring to those elected political bodies. Huntington called this construct a “special social responsibility.” The American military has continued to carry its charge of professionalizing and monopolizing violence and ceding strategic vectoring of its expertise to civilian leaders of all political parties, for more than two centuries, despite recent political abuses of this sacred relationship. In the public view, however, that sacred relationship is inevitably tarnished by pollical grandstanding, regardless of the services apoliticism.
Societal Fatigue and politicization are distinct root causes, with the former a long-term issue requiring generational recovery, the recent politicization is not new phenomena, but necessitates intervention. Both issues compound the challenge to recruiting the next generation of Americans, but the politicization can be redressed with rapid, definitive, and explicit actions, which would positively impact recruiting.
Redressing the contemporary symptoms
Congress has reasonable options which can have a positive impact on public faith in these affected institutions. First, resolutions which categorically and comprehensively call for cessation of politicization of the military in public and political discourse, which explicitly decries use of rhetorical grandstanding on issues of “wokeism,” “radical ideological,” and other sensationalized claims would achieve bipartisan messaging to the American people that the body politic recognizes its role in stigmatizing military service. Bipartisan collaboration to support and positively affect the defense enterprise is good for all parties involved.
Further, congress and the national party conventions are fully immersed in the 2024 presidential election, with the two likely candidates (incumbent Joe Biden and challenger Donald Trump) being no strangers to controversy involving the American military. As election campaigns are certain to ramp up efforts to reach Americans in the coming months, the issue of the military being used as a tool for continued political grandstanding by both congressional members and party conventions only further harms recruitment efforts. Especially as the sensationalized role of the military in the 2020 election process was brought into focus for Americans when questions on the transition of power were debated. Congress and the party conventions purposefully abstaining from using the military and defense policies as political discourse topics is an opportunity to begin rebuilding that trust between the American public-military-body politick triad.
Rebuilding trust at key times
The issue of military recruitment is indisputably a national security issue and needs bipartisan efforts. This problem goes beyond the societal fatigue of a twenty-year war, and polarization is but one component to this complex issue. But redressing the problem requires a multifaceted approach by the involved civic, government, and military stakeholders, and in this instance, that requires the American body politic to overtly curtail its own politicization of the military if it hopes to help with the challenge of recruiting.
Politicization of the military and the role of the political machine in damaging the sacred relationship between civilians and the military requires deliberate steps to rebuild public faith in both institutions. Public perception resulting from politicization has directly influenced recruiting opportunities in recent years, although most media platforms are reticent to make this claim. The pivotal nature of the 2024 election is a time in our nation’s history—amidst chaotic global events—when the fixing sacred relationship between the military and our body politic can and should be a central and bipartisan issue.
