Editor’s note: This article is based on a study conducted by the author and published by National Defense University Press. Read the full study here.
On June 12, during a hearing before the House Armed Services Committee, Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis stated, “I think it’s important that we make clear not just what the military stands for, but what it absolutely will not stand for.” His statement came in response to Rep. Niki Tsongas’s question about the recent nude photo scandal surrounding the Marines United Facebook page. But with the growth of social media over the past decade, and the failure of military directives aimed at governing servicemembers’ online behavior to keep pace, Sec. Mattis could have been describing any in a range of issues. Among these, another form of inappropriate behavior by members of the military on social media deserves heightened attention, as well—the abandonment of the nonpartisan ethic.
Last month, National Defense University Press published a study I conducted that examined the nature and extent of political expression by members of the military on social media. Centered on a December 2015 survey of more than 500 US military students attending the National Defense University and cadets attending the United States Military Academy, the project asked respondents for their observations of their military friends’ political activity on social media. Some of the findings were unsurprising: nearly half of respondents reported that both their active duty and retired military friends often talk about politics on social media networking sites. Other observations were less sanguine: roughly two in five respondents indicated their military friends encourage others to take action on political issues or “friend” or follow political figures. And some findings were downright disturbing: over one-third of respondents reported their active duty military friends used or shared insulting, rude, or disdainful comments on social media directed against elected leaders, including the president. The results suggest we need to take Sec. Mattis up on his pledge: now more than ever, we must better articulate what the military profession simply cannot tolerate.
The best step toward ensuring servicemembers uphold the nonpartisan ethic is for leaders at all levels to proactively be involved in educating and mentoring the force, at both the unit level and through professional military education. Our efforts should aim at deterring such behavior by more effectively nesting the issue under a broader discussion of professional ethics, rather than litigating our way through this through rigid, hierarchical enforcement that only serves to alienate the very segment of the armed forces we should be trying to reach the most.
However, we also should acknowledge that the formal guidance and directives currently in place—namely Department of Defense Directive (DoDD) 1344.10, which governs the dos and don’ts of political behavior for the military—have done little to ward off active duty members of the military from broadcasting their political views on social media. First, the directive is nearly a decade old, predates the expansion of social media networking sites, and focuses on traditional, if not outdated, forms of political activity. Second, supplemental public affairs guidance issued in advance of the 2012 and 2016 elections only serves to muddy the waters, by assuming servicemembers can make a clear distinction between political and partisan activity and by suggesting that the use of disclaimers following political posts can somehow mitigate the impact of political outspokenness and even contempt.
Normative violations of the nonpartisan ethic by members of the military might not grab headlines like the Marines United scandal, but both have the same net effect of eroding the public’s trust in its armed servants. Updating regulations like DoDD 1344.10 with clearer, more consistent language about political expression on social media is a critical first step in reinforcing the norm of nonpartisanship, and we shouldn’t wait until the next presidential election to do so. Maintaining the military’s reputation as an apolitical institution is at stake.
Heidi A. Urben is a colonel in the US Army assigned to the Joint Staff and holds a PhD in government from Georgetown University. The views expressed here do not reflect those of the US Army or the Department of Defense.
Image credit: Tech Sgt. Randy Redman, US Air Force
One could argue that this ethic is a somewhat modern invention, attributable more to George C. Marshall than George Washington.
The Press Secretary is also a Naval Reservist.
Surely we should be more worried about what professional standards he does or does not maintain and what signal he sends about military involvement in politics than what some private, sergeant first class, or major posts on Twitter or Facebook, so long as they aren't claiming to speak for the services nor portray themselves as having any special privilege on policy matters.
Let's not pretend the "social media problem" is bigger than having a service member be a distinctly political figure parroting talking points from the White House every day.
I'm confused, on several points, by this article. Also, I'm an active-duty officer.
1. DoDD 1344.10. While I agree with your idea of this being an outdated regulation, and every fibre of my being agrees that later modifications of existing (if muddy) policies make rule-following ever harder, I don't understand your point. The regulation gives many specifics, but the "spirit and intent of [the] directive" is to draw the line between the individual and the DoD / DHS. That's all. So "a lot of people feel a certain way" is an interesting point — but in no way comparable to an endemic of disgusting sexual behavior. Apples and Oranges.
2. "Our efforts should aim at deterring such behavior by more effectively nesting the issue under a broader discussion of professional ethics" — I reread this a half dozen times before I realized that this means the following: we should hide this by talking about other things. Is this an answer, by any stretch of the imagination? Perhaps a paraphrase illuminates my frustration: "I have a problem. To solve it, I will bury my issue in other topics." This about sums up that argument. Exactly what we hope for, or perhaps what we've come to expect, from senior officers.
3. "Normative violations of the nonpartisan ethic by members of the military might not grab headlines like the Marines United scandal, but both have the same net effect of eroding the public’s trust in its armed servants. " Demonstrative of a remarkable wit — the very act of uniformed people tending to believe in X subset of ideas, is on par with "Marines United"-like deprecation of the public perspective of uniformed trustworthiness. Interesting that any objective view of the subjective opinion of reporters, viewed as a whole, does not seem to draw the same conclusion of reporters writ large.
4. "… the abandonment of the nonpartisan ethic." Nowhere in DoDD 1344.10 are members of the military directed to abandon what they believe. Rather to the contrary, they are encouraged to " to carry out the obligations of citizenship." Perhaps the author's idea of citizenship implies never discussing how one or one's beliefs, or thinks that an oath to the Constitution implies neutering one's opinions, but as demonstrated in the above point, this is clearly not the case.
5. Bottom line by paragraph as follows. A: it is " inappropriate behavior" for people who wear a uniform to happen to share an opinion. B: " the military profession simply cannot tolerate" individuals sharing their opinions with their friends. C: if we are "mentoring the force," then people will not express their opinions. D: politics is hard. E: people in uniform believing similar things is as bad as "Marines United," and making more laws will fix the public's opinion of the military. … none of which is either true or value-added to the public discourse on the topic of the military-civilian divide built by, and cemented in place by, the all-volunteer force.
Frustrating to hear another voice claiming that those who volunteer their lives to protect the Constitution are so opposed to those in service having opitions.
First, all I will say here are opinions, and therefore as valuable as anyone's else that has already stated theirs or that will state it.
To the core I think I understand the author. As others comments, I would distinguish harassment (sexual or otherwise) from partisanship.
Harassment is poisonous and must be root out. A soldier may disagree with another, may even hate what another do or say when off-duty. But when hell breaks loose one implicitly trusts on each member of the unit. That's cohesion. Harassment destroys cohesion, and therefore affects the core of the unit and ultimately the mission.
There is nothing wrong with partisanship. What needs to be clear is what being a soldier is all about. One may not like what some people say or do. One may even despise some of the actions done by members of that society. But a warrior is bound to defend all members of that society, not just the ones the warrior likes.
Now, I would add that a warrior should never let internal discussions to cloud their vision of who are the adversaries and why. Divide and conquer is a classic military tactic, and our military forces, at any organizational level, should always be vigilant to not fall prey to it.
I fully understand what the author is attempting to communicate, albeit not easy to mine, as @dEVON expresses above.
In my era (post-Viet Nam through the Clinton administration), it was made very clear by our supervisors. It was communicated verbally because it went a step beyond the written reg. All we young fighter pilots were told to "Stay clear of politics while you serve. Period." We were certainly encouraged to vote, but…there was never to be a political bumper sticker or campaign sign in our yards. We certainly had our opinions about this or that policy and even the CinC, but we kept commentary in the shop and kept it civil, respectful, and dignified. That was the "professional ethic." The Carter years were terrible with no money to keep airplanes repaired or us properly trained for the Soviet threats. The Reagan years reversed all that and got us up to speed. The Clinton years were a mixed bag. But we didn't air our laundry publicly.
This ethic served us well. It tended to make us naturally lean Independent and rather non-partisan. I think it is essential for military members to not become overly attached to or opposed to a particular policy, party, political agenda, or even CinC beyond his constitutional authority…because we might well find ourselves an implement of that policy, and there can be no tolerance for a conflict of interest among us. The legal order from the legal authority must be paramount.
IMHO, this ethic would serve the country well if all government employees adopted it. Imagine how the IRS debacle in the previous administration and the unprofessional conduct of various FBI personnel during this administration would have/could have been different if such an ethic was instilled there. There was a time when journalism had such an ethic. That's long gone.
Of course today social media tempts everyone mightily to their "15 minutes of fame;" to somehow convince everyone of their relevance. If only their self-image and discipline could be enough.
I agree with the author that the professional ethic of public non-partisanship must be instilled as an essential part of military service. We are "on duty" 24/7, and our conduct must reflect that at all times. I cling to this ethic today despite being retired. I want to hear what everybody has to say, and no CinC goes without scrutiny or is above criticism. IMO it still needs to be civil and professional. Although retired, I still regard this a perspective that serves our country well.