George C. Marshall
Five Star General George Marshall was a quiet American legend. Unlike most of his “brother” Five Star’s from the Second World War, Marshall did not lead troops into battle, or sail fleets onto the seas. Marshall was the ultimate administrator. He first earned his reputation by training the Army for World War I. Then he was the force behind organizing and training the largest military in world history for the Second World War.
After World War II, Marshall became the Secretary of State, and created the plan to rebuild Europe named for him. The Five Star General was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for his efforts. He then served as the Secretary of Defense as the nation entered the Korean War.
Marshall didn’t have the “flash” of MacArthur or Eisenhower, nor the dramatic reputation of Admirals Halsey or Nimitz. But Marshall was the one. The one who organized the military for war, and the world for the unsettled peace of the Cold War.
Unlike MacArthur or Eisenhower, Marshall eschewed politics. He didn’t even register to vote, making the point that the Army should be an apolitical portion of the government. He served without comment on his Presidents, and became the role model for what the modern military leadership should do while in service.
Trump’s Generals
Current military leaders often cite his example today. Retired Three Star General HR McMasters served as the National Security Advisor to President Trump as his last assignment. McMasters recently authored a book about foreign policy in the 21st Century, Battlegrounds, but intentionally did not write a “tell-all” about his experiences in the Trump Administration.
He holds Marshall as his example. McMasters isn’t a registered voter, and makes it clear that he doesn’t agree with those retired generals who are openly critical of Trump. By implication, that includes the two retired Four Stars who also served Trump, John Kelly and Jim Mattis. Both of them have made critical statements about the President. But even as McMasters makes the “circuit” of cable news shows to publicize his book, he presents a carefully balanced evaluation of the Mr.Trump.
US Code
There is concern today about what role the military may play in the election of 2020. President Trump has made it clear that he may question any election result that favors his competitor. Trump has shown his willingness to use Federal forces to enforce his will. That includes using Federal police forces in Portland, and Federal military forces to put down civil unrest in Washington, DC. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Four Star General Mark Milley even walked the streets of the Capital in full combat fatigues to gain an understanding of the so called “battle space”. It was only later that he expressed regrets for that action.
The President has the Insurrection Act of 1807 (10 US Code §253) to justify direct Federal military intervention should “civil unrest” occur. And if he refuses to accept the results of the election, it might take military intervention to control the “righteous might” of the American people rising up to remove him.
Which all leads back to the question posed by Generals Marshall and McMasters. If the military is to remain “apolitical”, then how are they to react to a Presidential order to put down civil unrest caused by a disputed election? Should they refuse his “lawful” order under the Insurrection Act, or should they choose a different section of the US Code to follow: the “posse comitatus” law (18 US Code §1385)? This section makes it a Federal crime to use the military to “execute” the laws (though there is an exemption for a declared “insurrection”).
What Role
In a more “general” (sorry) way, what do we expect of our military leaders? If all the information about President Trump that we’ve learned is true, what is their obligation? The military is sworn to “…support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic”. While the “chain of command” ends at the Commander-in-Chief, at what point will military leaders determine if that Commander has issued an “unlawful order” that they cannot legally obey?
And even more importantly what should we expect of our leaders, both military and political, in the face of what may be a corrupt and incompetent President? Former Director of National Intelligence Dan Coats believes that Donald Trump is somehow under the influence of Vladimir Putin. Kelly and Mattis have both made disparaging comments about Trump, as has former Secretary of State Rex Tillerson. And while the Senate of the United States passed a resolution unanimously calling for a peaceful transition after the election, no Republican Senator has spoken out directly against the President’s statements, with the exception of Nebraska’s Senator Ben Sasse who stated, “He says crazy stuff”.
We expect that our leaders will “…preserve protect and defend the Constitution…” but so far, it doesn’t feel like that’s what going to happen. If they continue to accept the new “norms” of the Trump Administration, they may well remain quiet in the face of new attacks after the election, just as they have remained quiet before. Trump has not made an all-out assault on the Constitution. It’s been more of an incremental erosion of Constitutional values. And, like a sandbar just off shore, once it’s all gone, there will be nothing left to stand on. Who will support us then?
