The New York Times ad by MoveOn.org portraying General Petraeus as potentially betraying America continues and threatens to exacerbate a trend that has developed over the past thirty years.  Democrats have slowly, but surely, alienated themselves from the military.  While words of “support for the troops” and “we are patriots, too” are all very likely true, the hard truth is that a strong majority of the military population believes that the Democratic Party does not have the best interests of the American military in mind and, at the extreme, hates the military. This unfortunate circumstance poses serious problems for American civil-military relations over the next decade.

The heavy percentage of military and active reserve leaders identify as moderate or somewhat moderate while more civilians, both veteran and non-veteran, identify themselves as moderate to somewhat liberal. In 1976, the Foreign Policy Leadership Project survey found that 55 percent of respondents self-identified as independents, other, or none. By 1996 that number had shrunk to 28 percent of active duty and 27 percent of reservists.[1] In 1999, about two-thirds of the officer corps self-identified as Republican compared to about one third for the general population. Less than ten percent of the officer corps identifies as Democrat in contrast to about one third of the general population. [2]

Peter Feaver of Duke University, writing in the Washington Post, observed that this pattern was, to some extent, self-inflicted. It appears that even when trying to do what they honestly believe is the right thing to do for America, the way Democrats say it somehow appears to demean the military.

Despite an extraordinary effort to woo the military, the Democrats still have not overcome their traditional tone-deafness when it comes to civil-military relations.[3]

Much has been written on this, beginning with some of the well-known incidents in the early years of Clinton’s presidency. Many wrote it off as a specific problem of that particular administration. However, Feaver appears to be correct and if the Democrats want to regain control of the White House and provide civilian control of the military in something resembling a healthy environment, the Democratic Party is going to have to change some of the ways they do business.

Since the departure of Sam Nunn (D-GA) from the Senate in 1996, Democrats in Congress have few members who have any expertise in Defense. Ike Skelton (D-MO) and John Murtha (D-PA) may be the only Democrats with any recognizable expertise in military matters. Some Democratic members have active duty or National Guard military experience, but that number is small compared to a few decades ago. If the Democrats want to regain authority in the defense area, they have work to do.

Kurt Campbell and Michael O?Hanlon have recently published a recipe for Democratic resurgence in defense matters. Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security offers some policy recommendations to what they describe as hard power Democrats and moderate Republicans.[4] It is well worth reading.

Whether or not one is a partisan Democrat, the specter of one party having the appearance of being the enemy of the military cannot be good for American civil-military relations. More Democrats need to take time to understand the military and develop and expertise in military matters.  It is patently unhealthy for the United States to have a military favoring one political party over the other.  Such a pathology left unchecked can lead to serious repercussions.

Feaver and Gelpi have repeatedly told us that there is a very real difference in the way the military and civilians view the use of force.[5] They also note that civilians, both veterans and non-veterans, who have been more closely associated with the military (familial or professional association) or who have enrolled in Professional Military Education courses (the war colleges) take on a deeper understanding of the military and on the use of military force. Such association brings with it a deeper respect for the military.  With respect come a better capability of working together despite differences of opinion.

There is a very real possibility that a Democrat is going to sit in the White House following the 2008 elections. If attitudes don’t change between Democrats and the military we stand to have some tense times between the Pentagon senior leadership and the executive branch in early 2009. While I am not predicting anything along the lines of a military coup, inattention will lead to serious divisions in government that can have serious impact on national security.  I urge more attention to this on the part of all, but especially those in the Democratic Party who are in a position to influence such attitudes and behavior.

[1] Ole R. Holsti. Of Chasms and Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilians and Military Elites at the Start of a New Millennium, in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001. .

[2] James A. Davis. Attitudes and Opinions Among Senior Military Officers and a U. S. Cross Section, 1998-99, in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians. Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001.

[3] Peter D. Feaver. Whose Military Vote? Washington Post, Oct 21, 2004, p. A23.

[4] Kurt Campbell and Michael O’Hanlon. Hard Power: The New Politics of National Security. New York: Basic Books, 2006

[5] Peter D. Feaver and Christopher Gelpi. Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force.nbsp; Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2005.