Foreign Policy: A book about the US military that everyone should read now | policy

Foreign Policy magazine published a review of a book entitled “The State and the Soldier: A History of Civil-Military Relations in the United States,” prepared by researcher Corey Schack, which discusses the issue of civilian control over the army.

The presentation prepared by Bobby Ghosh, a geopolitical analyst and commentator, stated that this topic currently requires discussion.

Ghosh said that discussions about the relationship between civilians and the military establishment in America are witnessing a strong return to the forefront, in light of increasing questions about the limits of “military obedience” and the role of the army in moments of political crises.

Problems of military obedience

Ghosh explained that this book re-presents the problems of military obedience from a broad historical and analytical angle, stressing that the strength of the American regime does not lie in the intervention of the army, but rather in its strict commitment to civilian authority.

Ghosh begins his presentation of the book with a symbolic scene from the Quantico base in Virginia last September, where hundreds of senior American military leaders were summoned to listen to political speeches from President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, saying that the military leaders, despite the clear political nature of the event, remained completely silent, then returned to their positions, in a scene that reflects the essence of the military system based on discipline and compliance with orders.

Ghosh stated that author Shak believes that this silence is not just a sign of the regime’s strength, but also carries within it a source of concern, as it makes clear that the army will continue to implement whatever the nature of the orders, even under controversial political circumstances. Here Schack poses the central question: What happens to democracy during this constant compliance?

Bobby Ghosh:
The author criticizes the idea that the army can intervene to reject political decisions that some consider unethical, considering that this opens the door to institutional chaos and places military leaders in a political position that they should not occupy.

The history of the relationship between civilians and the military in America

Schack, according to the presentation, bases her analysis on a long history of civil-military relations in America, and identifies two basic criteria for measuring the success of this relationship: the president’s ability to freely dismiss senior military leaders, and officers’ compliance with implementing legal policies that they may not personally agree with. It concludes that the American system still fulfills these two conditions, even in light of severe political tensions.

The book indicates that American presidents in recent years have dismissed a number of senior military commanders, and that the army responded to these decisions without objection. The army also carried out operations inside American territory and abroad based on the orders of civilian authority, even when these operations were the subject of political or legal controversy.

But Schack asserts that the real problem is not weak civilian control, but rather false political expectations that the army can be a tool to save democracy from politicians themselves. She believes that this perception, which is repeated in public discourse, reflects a misunderstanding of the nature of the military institution and its constitutional role.

He rejected any army interference in politics

The author criticizes the idea that the army can intervene to reject political decisions that some consider immoral, considering that this opens the door to institutional chaos and places military leaders in a political position that they should not occupy. Their role, you see, is to implement legal orders and provide professional advice, not to replace political decision-making.

Ghosh continues, saying that “The State and the Soldier” expands this discussion to include the dangers of the gradual politicization of the military establishment, whether through the use of the military in political campaigns or through popular expectations that the military will intervene in moments of political division. Schack believes that this accumulation may lead, over time, to a gradual transformation in the nature of the army, such that it becomes more vulnerable to internal political division.

Schack also indicates, according to Ghosh, that every step of this kind, even if it seems small, contributes to introducing the military institution into the logic of partisan polarization, which may undermine its traditional neutrality in the long term.

Assigning political roles to the army weakens democracy

On the other hand, Schack asserts that the solution does not lie in pushing the army to rebel against civilian authority, but rather in strengthening the political institutions themselves, including Congress, the judiciary, and voters, as the basic guarantee to prevent political deviations.

The article concludes that the strength of the American model lies in the delicate balance between civilian authority and army discipline, and that any attempt to break this balance by assigning political roles to the army will ultimately lead to weakening the democratic system rather than protecting it.