The Military’s Silent Rebellion (w/ Kori Schake) | Shield of the Republic

Kori Schake argues that Samuel Huntington's foundational text on civil-military relations is deeply flawed. Her primary criticisms include its failure to address praetorianism (military threats to civilian government), its assertion that an effective military is fundamentally incompatible with American democracy, and its misinterpretation of World War II civil-military dynamics. Schake believes the book remains influential due to first-mover advantage and the military's preference for its model of 'objective control,' which limits political oversight.

Schake states she 'hates this book' and details four main reasons, including Huntington's omission of praetorianism and his belief that democracy needs to change to accommodate an effective military.

Washington's deliberate act of surrendering his commission to Congress at Annapolis established a foundational norm for American civil-military relations: the military's unquestioning subordination to political leadership. This example set a powerful precedent, emphasizing that civilian leaders do not need to be 'good' at their job to merit military subordination, and that the military's professionalism lies in not being a threat to civilian authority.

Schake highlights Washington's actions at Annapolis and his response to the Newburgh conspiracy, where he refused Hamilton's suggestion to march the army on Philadelphia, stating 'an army is a very dangerous instrument to play with.'

The US military system operates under the assumption that all received orders are legal. However, when orders are ambiguous or potentially illegal, the burden of proof for refusing an order falls on the service member, who risks court-martial. This creates a dangerous 'unprincipled principle' where the system is strained if commanders are forced to make judgments on the legality of orders, indicating a failure at higher civilian echelons.

Elliot Cohen raises the question of military refusal of illegal orders (e.g., taking over elections), and Schake explains the legal hierarchy and burden of proof, stating, 'if we get to the point where actual Navy commanders or Army lieutenant colonels are having to make a judgment about whether the order they are receiving is illegal. We have already failed at several important echelons.'

Historically, periods following major military successes, where the military enjoys high public prestige, often lead to increased civil-military friction. This occurs as the military, emboldened by its success, may push the boundaries of its authority or resist civilian directives, requiring a re-establishment of norms. The hosts and guest cite examples from the Revolutionary War, Civil War, and post-Desert Storm era.

Elliot Cohen notes, 'these times of real civil military friction where the military goes beyond where it should be. It's usually after a big war where the military is very very high prestige.' Schake agrees, citing Andrew Jackson and the post-Civil War period.