Politicization of the Military: Causes, Consequences & Conclusions
Heidi A. Urben, “Politicization of the Military: Causes, Consequences & Conclusions.” Dædalus 154, no. 4 (Fall 2025).
Heidi Urben argues that the politicization of the U.S. military represents the most serious contemporary civil-military challenge because, as the state’s “legitimate instrument of violence,” the military loses its democratic foundation when perceived as partisan. She defines politicization broadly—encompassing active alignment, passive support, or even the perception of partisan preference. she then identifies three responsible actors: civilian politicians who exploit military prestige for electoral gain, military members (especially retired flag officers) who publicly endorse candidates or express partisan views, and an American public that lacks both understanding of and commitment to military nonpartisanship norms.
The essay traces the steady erosion of the military’s nonpartisan ethic over the past three decades, accelerated by social media, elite behavior, and partisan incentives. Urben demonstrates how attempts to “push back” against politicization can paradoxically deepen the problem, then closes with concrete solutions: curtailing partisan exploitation by civilian leaders, modernizing nonpartisanship training within the force, reducing endorsement activity by retired generals and admirals, and investing in public education about civil-military norms. Her central warning: without intervention, confidence in the military will fracture along partisan lines, recruitment will suffer, and the institution’s effectiveness will degrade as political loyalty supplants merit.
The Stakes: Why Politicization Matters
“The military is the state’s legitimate instrument of violence. When this instrument becomes politicized or is perceived to be politicized, it undermines the very foundation of democratic governance.”
“The politicization of the military occurs when the military actively or passively supports partisan causes or is perceived to be aligned with one political party over the other.”
“In reality, three actors bear varying degrees of responsibility for politicizing the military: civilian politicians (and their surrogates), the military, and the American public.”
The Nonpartisanship Norm: What ‘Healthy’ Looks Like
“The military’s norm of nonpartisanship, as long as it is upheld by the three main actors in the civil-military relationship… is the strongest bulwark against the politicization of the military.”
“William Tecumseh Sherman once wrote that ‘no Army officer should form or express an opinion’ on partisan politics.”
“When the norm is healthy, civilian political leaders respect these boundaries and do not use the military to score partisan points.”
Erosion Inside the Force
“The military’s norm of nonpartisanship has steadily diminished over the past half-century… By 1996, only 22 percent of senior officers self-identified as Independents and 74 percent identified as partisans, a trend that has persisted.”
“Moreover, the advent of social media has provided a means for service members to broadcast their partisan views wider than ever before. Social media is an inherently public sphere, where commentary has an exponential reach and a lasting, written record.”
“Recent surveys… found that one-third of respondents reported their active-duty friends used or shared rude or disparaging comments about the president and other elected leaders… an offense punishable under Article 88 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice.”
Retired Flag Officers: Blurred Lines and Outsized Impact
“Survey research has shown that few Americans can distinguish retired general and flag officers from those on active duty, and most think retired officers’ views reflect the views of those on active duty.”
“These officers retain the title of general or admiral for life and play a unique role within the military profession… Their obligations to represent their branch of military service in retirement—especially safeguarding its professional norms—should be more stringent than for service members of lower ranks.”
“General Omar Bradley once remarked that ‘the best service a retired general can perform is to turn in his tongue along with his suit and to mothball his opinions.'”
Civilian Politicians: The Biggest Offenders
“Civilian politicians are the biggest offenders and bear most of the responsibility for politicizing the military. Most often, they politicize the military when they try to leverage the military’s prestige for their own partisan advantage, especially during campaigns and elections.”
“Donald Trump told a military audience at MacDill Air Force Base that ‘you liked me and I liked you. That’s the way it worked.'”
“Senator Tommy Tuberville of Alabama set a new precedent through an eleven-month block of all general and flag officer promotions… preventing more than four hundred senior officers and their families from moving to their next assignment.”
The Public’s Role: Ignorance Meets Reverence
“To put it bluntly, the public is a lousy judge of civil-military norms… In short, for many years, the public has looked at the military with both ignorance and reverence.”
“The public wants the military to be their copartisan and interprets nonpartisanship as the military siding with them and their party.”
“The 2025 Gallup poll on confidence in institutions already reflects this. Just seven months into Trump’s second administration, Republicans’ confidence in the military increased by 18 percentage points, while Democrats’ confidence decreased by 21 percentage points.”
Consequences: Degraded Democracy, Effectiveness, and Trust
“First, [politicization] degrades civilian control of the military, a foundational principle in all democracies… [It] weakens civilian control by distracting from what should be close scrutiny and oversight.”
“Third, politicization degrades military professionalism and effectiveness. Purges of senior officers and promotions based on partisan litmus tests rather than merit will likely divide the military and undermine unit cohesion.”
“Public confidence in the military is not just about the military’s popularity… It carries real implications for both recruiting and retention in an all-volunteer force.”
The Backfire Effect: When Pushing Back Makes It Worse
“Efforts to push back on the politicization of the military can often backfire… Using retired generals instead of other politicians to carry this message… only serves to further enmesh the U.S. military in partisan politics.”
“Service members lack the moral autonomy to selectively choose which lawful orders they wish to obey… Encouraging the military to resist lawful but awful orders… subverts democracy by undermining civilian control.”
Solutions: What Can Be Done
“The solutions to stop the politicization of the military are not unlike the solutions required to stop democratic backsliding. They require norms and rules to be defended and enforced; they also require efforts to educate the public.”
“First and foremost, to stop the politicization of the military, civilian political leaders on both sides of the aisle must refrain from using the military for partisan and electoral benefit.”
“The best way to deter civilian politicians from using the military as a partisan tool is to make the practice electorally unsustainable and rebuke offenders at the ballot box.”
“The Department of Defense needs to update its rules on political activity to better account for the realities of political activity and speech today, starting with clearer, enforceable guidelines on service members’ political speech on social media.”
The post Politicization of the Military: Causes, Consequences & Conclusions appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.