Commentary by Ted Jenkins
Retired Marine Corps Colonel and BGSU Alumnus
Near the end of WWII, when I enlisted in the Marines, the popularity of the U.S. Military was at an all-time high. Three decades later, public perception of our Armed Forces was at an all-time low. In 1973, during this later period, I was a student at the Senior Reserve Officers’ course at the United States Naval War College, Newport, R.I. As a course requirement, I wrote about the fluctuating popularity of the military. Recent events have prompted me to revisit these ideas. Today, when public opinion of the military is so high, it seems appropriate to reflect upon these varying perceptions of the armed forces that I witnessed during my forty-two years of active and reserve duty and consider how it affects those who serve. At the heart of this changeable opinion of the military is the country’s perception of itself and its values: when individualism is valued, the military is both suspicious and counter to that ideal.
When national unity is important, as it is now, the military enjoys widespread support. Our founding fathers had a healthy suspicion regarding standing armies; the Constitution even contains a provision prohibiting Congress from appropriating money to raise and support armies for more than two years. Many nineteenth-century immigrants came to America to avoid military conscription in their homelands. This opposition continued into the twentieth-century. However, with the threats to freedom that resulted from both World Wars I and II, national-even international –unity demanded and supported a strong military establishment. In response to world events, the National Defense Act of 1916 boosted the strength of the armed forces threefold and reorganized the total military to include the National Guard and the Organized Reserve. Even this did not provide the necessary forces for World War I, so in May 1917, the Selective Service Act was passed, and for the first time in the twentieth-century, individuals were conscripted into military service.
The relationship between the military and society also results in competing political agendas. Stephen E. Ambrose, author of The Military and American Society, argues that political priorities and military efficiency are the two factors that must be considered when determining the relationship of the armed forces to society. These two factors compete for public funding, and the question is what proportion should be devoted for military as opposed to social agendas. Thus, when the Federal Budget is prepared, the relative value of social and military expenditures must be determined. When the military enjoys widespread support, there is a tendency both for increased funding and for less political micromanaging.
In the decades following World War II, when the value of unity was displaced by an increased desirability of individualism, public opinion of the military declined, and the subsequent challenge for the military was to attract qualified individuals who would recognize service in the military as an honorable profession. As public opinion of the value and need for a strong armed forces wanes, the micromanaging of the military increases. The lack of public confidence in the military and the charge that military service is not a desired profession undermines the professionalism of those who serve. Military training and discipline clash with the democratic values of civilian society: based on rank consciousness, unit loyalty, unquestioning responses to command, the military’s value system runs counter to the individualistic ideals of American civil society. It is unrealistic to expect a young person to embrace an ideal of service to his or her nation if they are then castigated as a villain. As a result, it is difficult to create an atmosphere conducive to the discipline and commitment necessary for an effective military.
Reflecting on the history of the National Guard illustrates this tension between unity and individualism. For instance, during times of disaster-floods, tornadoes, earthquakes—we tend to band together and want, even expect , a strong military presence to reconstruct our communities and our lives. At those times, the National Guard is welcome and applauded. However, when the National Guard is called upon to limit or restrict what may be perceived to be individual freedoms—riots, strikes, or even acts of civil disobedience—the Guard is often portrayed as the villain. Some still remember Kent State and question role of the Guard, yet after 9-11, the presence of the National Guard at airports provided a feeling of safety and comfort for many.
The fluctuating popularity of the military epitomizes the American spirit that simultaneously respects and resents authority. In The Modern Military in American Society, Charles Walton Ackley writes about the complex ambivalence of the function of the military in this country—reliance on the professional military is mixed with a skepticism about the value of such a profession. He posits that a liberal approach to civil-military affairs is two-fold: extirpation and transmutation. Extirpation (supporting the virtual elimination of all institutions of violence and thus the abolition of civil-military relations) has been the objective during times of peace; during times of war, transmutation (maintaining an armed forces and refashioning it along liberal lines so that it loses autocratic characteristics) has been the expectation by society. In American Military Thought, Walter Millis develops this idea, writing that because the country had emerged successfully from several wars in the early twentieth-century, the public perceived that extant military policy was sufficient.
As a country, we expect the military to be prepared to come to our defense when, ironically, our individualism is challenged: yet, when we are comfortable and confident in our individual rights, we resent a strong military presence. This fluctuating response complicates the professional lives of those in the military. Those of us who have served our country are proud of our role in society; to paraphrase Admiral Vernon Clark, former Chief of Naval Operations, who spoke in Toledo, Ohio: we are proud to wear the “cloth of our country”. This pride does not mean a rejection of the individualistic spirit and civilian control. Samuel P. Huntington in The Soldier and the State argues that military professionalism should be strengthened, which by its nature involves acceptance of civilian control. Greater understanding and acceptance of the role of the military profession as the best means to preserve our constitutional rights may be the best way to enjoy both the freedom of individualism and the security of a unified nation.
