Politicizing the U.S. Military

The mission of the Department of Defense is to defend the nation. The pride of the American military is its history of not getting involved in domestic politics.

Its vital role of discouraging enemies from attacking the U.S. has been fulfilled so far, despite budget challenges. However, many both within and close to the military correctly perceive the armed forces as being focused on and distracted by issues and programs unrelated to its mission.

The issue arose to prominence during the Obama and Biden Administrations. A 2013 Investors article noted that Obama cleansed the military of any officer suspected of “disloyalty to or disagreement with the administration on matters… An important example includes relieving General Carter Ham, who was dismissed as head of U.S. Africa Command after only a year and a half because he disagreed with orders not to mount a rescue mission in response to the Sept. 11, 2012, attack in Benghazi. In addition, Rear Adm. Chuck Gaouette, commander of the John C. Stennis Carrier Strike Group, was relieved in October 2012 for disobeying orders when he sent his group on Sept. 11 to ‘assist and provide intelligence for’military forces ordered into action by Gen. Ham. Other removals include the sacking of two nuclear commanders in a single week — Maj. Gen. Michael Carey, head of the 20th Air Force, responsible for the three wings that maintain control of the 450 intercontinental ballistic missiles, and Vice Adm. Tim Giardina, the No. 2 officer at U.S. Strategic Command.”

Breitbart listed at least 197 officers relieved of duty by President Obama “for a laundry list of reasons and sometimes with no reason given….” According to Retired U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Paul Vallely, who stated that “He’s (Obama) [is] intentionally weakening and gutting our military, [the] Pentagon and reducing us as a superpower, and anyone in the ranks who disagrees or speaks out is being purged’.”

The controversy continues under the Biden Administration, with a focus on distracting the services from their core defense mission with unrelated priorities.

Almost immediately after taking office, President Biden focused on emphasizing DEI in the military.

In January 2021, President Biden signed multiple Executive Orders (E.O.) to advance equity across multiple focus areas:

• E.O. 13985, Advancing Racial Equity and Support for Underserved Communities Through the Federal Government, January 20, 2021, calls on Federal and DoD agencies to advance equity through identifying and addressing barriers to equal opportunity that underserved communities may face.

• E.O. 13988, Preventing and Combating Discrimination on the Basis of Gender – Identity or Sexual Orientation, January 20, 2021, which emphasizes the need to prevent and combat discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation and fully enforce Title VII and other laws that prohibit discrimination based on gender identity or sexual orientation.

• E.O. 14004, Enabling All Qualified Americans to Serve Their Country in Uniform, January 25, 2021, advances policy that all transgender individuals who wish to serve in the U.S. military and who meet the appropriate standards shall be able to do so openly and free from discrimination.

On June 25, 2021, President Biden issued E.O. 14035 (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Accessibility in the Federal Workforce), which promotes “the vital role DEIA plays in cultivating a workforce needed to mitigate the threats of tomorrow. Consistent with the government-wide priority for each agency to provide DEIA leadership at the senior-most level, DoD appointed the Under Secretary of Defense for Personnel and Readiness as the Chief Diversity and Inclusion Officer (CDIO) who will provide cohesive oversight and integration for DEIA efforts. Increased cohesion and integration allows the Department to strategically approach DEIA beyond the traditional focal areas of demographic representation to better achieve DoD’s broader mission of providing the forces necessary to secure the nation.”

The article concludes tomorrow

Photo: Dept. of Defense

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.