February 22, 2019

Post-CHAOS Homework on Civil-Military Relations

From the moment his nomination was hinted, Secretary of Defense James Mattis presented a rich canvas for the civil-military relations wonks and amateurs to ply their trade. There are no comparable moments in recent history where the role of the military — or, more specifically, former general officers — in U.S. politics, policy, and society was so widely and arduously debated. In his career, Mattis gave his mind and body and offered his life for his country; in the last two years, he involuntarily offered his name as an object lesson for those taking to the op-ed pages seeking more complexity — more, perhaps, than a “Mattisism” — on matters of peace and war, civilian and military, veteran and uniformed.

And then Mattis departed. Many scholars of civil-military relations continue and will continue to study his tenure and whether the exceptional Mattis was worth the exception to the law established in the foundations of the Department of Defense barring recent general officers from such roles. Jim Golby does a most admirable job dissecting these two years and how they shaped civil-military relations, for better and worse. But while there is merit in history and beauty in eulogy, the civil-military field would do well to assess the aftermath of “CHAOS” and consider where it goes next: Where has the balance of civil-military relations been reset? What precedents did Mattis, in his effort to preserve stability at all costs, establish? Where did the role of the secretary become that of the marine? As President Donald Trump’s trusted generals have all departed, do the authorities they were delegated remain in the hands of their less experienced successors?

And it’s not only the civil-military wonks who have homework. For two years, Mattis led the most trusted institution in America as the most trusted cabinet member. He was also held in high regard inside the Department of Defense as compared to his predecessors, particularly by uniformed personnel. As in all bureaucracies, his most thoughtless habits became bureaucratic law, as did his personal prejudices, his ideals, his discretion, the tasks he left in the inbox, and his unspoken hierarchy of advisors. And both in and out of government, it became common to assume that a general was all that would — or could — save us. Given the near-cult of personality Mattis represented, a smart successor and a wise Congress should closely examine the civil-military grooves Mattis left behind.

Read the full article in War on the Rocks.

  • Podcast
    • March 28, 2025
    Siliconsciousness: The AI Competition: Public Policy Strategies: Part 1

    This episode comprises the first part of our special event, “The AI Competition: Public Policy Strategies”. The event, co-hosted by MIT Technology Review, brings together some...

    By Dr. ED McGrady

    • Video
    • March 25, 2025
    How Drones in Ukraine Are Reshaping War

    Samuel Bendett, a senior adjunct fellow at the Center for a New American Security, joins The Cipher Brief to discuss the current situation of drones being used in Ukraine.Watc...

    By Samuel Bendett

  • Commentary
    • The Interpreter
    • March 25, 2025
    Awful but Lawful: China’s Australia Flotilla

    As such, this was not a demonstration of Chinese freedom of navigation. It was a show of force....

    By Tom Shugart

  • Reports
    • March 13, 2025
    Safe and Effective

    The promise of artificial intelligence (AI) and autonomy to change the character of war inches closer to reality...

    By Josh Wallin

View All Reports View All Articles & Multimedia