🇺🇸 On #F24Debate, @carriealee.bsky.social of @gmfus.bsky.social contrasts the motives of terrorists and drug traffickers and warns against conflating them.

More in #F24Debate ➡️ f24.my/Bb73

Ultimately, we are living in essentially unprecedented civ-mil times. This requires deep engagement and a re-evaluation of existing norms--especially because I fear that there are far more challenging situations up ahead, and senior leadership will find themselves tested like never before. 7/7

There are no easy answers, but the choices are not as stark as obey/disobey. We should instead start by re-evaluating civil-military norms--particularly those that discourage public resignation and resignation in protest. Other norms may also need to be re-evaluated as time goes on. 6/

I also argue that liberal democracy is central to our modern understanding of the profession of arms because it preserves professional ethics in a way that other systems cannot. Serving in an illiberal state means abandoning the profession itself. 5/

Given that each scenario outlined by Mitchell is an authoritarian one, "senior leaders should instead be asking, 'To what degree does continuing to serve as an officer in the U.S. military do more harm than good to the democratic values I swore an oath to bear true faith and allegiance to?' 4/

Yet, I argue, "[M]ilitary and political leaders in the United States will not simply wake up one day, a la Rip van Winkle, to find themselves in a world where there is suddenly a new political order." So we should instead be asking a different question! 3/

The piece is a response to Peter Mitchell's Oct 31 essay demanding that officers must contemplate what service looks like in a post-liberal America. It's a dangerous and damaging piece that explicitly undermines norms while presenting as a simple thought experiment. 2/

The PoA is a newer concept, but relies on the same ideas. The military has specialized expertise that could do significant harm to society if abused. It requires ethics, judgement, and legitimacy in addition to training/education/soldiering.

Yes, very different. The classic professions are law, medicine, and clergy. They are much more than just some people doctoring or lawyering, but instead a cohesive group with a set of ethics that assures the public they can be trusted with health, legal protection, spiritual guidance, etc.

The tension lies in legitimacy. The legitimacy of the profession rests with society (because of the public trust req), even though the military serves the regime. So when the regime is illegitimate (read: non liberal) a military with public trust is a threat, and so regimes undermine the profession.

Mostly I suspect “no” because the kind of autonomy and independent ethics necessary for a true profession of arms that is not also a threat to the state are unlikely to survive political interference in a non-liberal setting.

But as a policy solution, asking senior leaders to prepare to serve civilians without values—or even take up political leadership themselves!!!—does far more to harm the profession the author is reportedly trying to save. 22/22

Thought exercises are one thing: “can you still have a profession of arms in a country not based on liberal values?” is an interesting question for theoretical and empirical investigation. I suspect that the answer is no, for a number of reasons I won’t go into here (this thread is long enough). 21/

We should be asking better questions about American democracy and the democratic process, and teaching junior officers about the messy but beautiful *form of government* they swore an oath to support and defend. 20/

We should be asking how (and whether) breaking certain norms can protect and further those principles, including the integrity and ethics of the profession. 19/

We should be asking and investigating how well the CMR norms we’ve thought so important are serving us when these principles come into conflict. Not questioning the principles themselves, but rather whether the norms still serve those principles. 18/

So what else should we be asking right now? It is undeniable that we are in a moment that challenges all three major principles of American civil-military relations: the democratic ethos (from which civilian control is derived), military legitimacy, and the profession of arms. 17/