Re-politicizing the Military: A Case for Civilian Oversight and Accountability
By S.L. Nelson
May 17, 2025
U.S. Marine Corps
Military and foreign policy professionals often warn against the “politicization of the military.” Yet the phrase has become so reflexive and vague that it obscures the reality: the U.S. military is already an intensely political institution.
In answering Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller’s question—How can the military build a screening system to assess the performance of key leaders?—the answer requires something bold and often unpopular: politicians must assert more influence over military affairs.
They should evaluate military leadership for three key reasons: to uphold the morality of war, to ensure trust in institutional decision-making, and to enforce accountability when performance falters.
Moral Responsibility Is Political Responsibility
In wartime, civilian leaders are not merely strategists or managers but moral actors. Delegating war-making authority does not absolve them of ethical accountability. Even decisions operational in appearance—targeting, casualty thresholds, or force posture—carry profound political and moral weight.
Winston Churchill offers a clear example. In preparation for Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Nazi-occupied France, Churchill demanded that bombing plans limit civilian casualties to under 10,000. When Air Marshal Arthur Tedder forecast 160,000 potential civilian deaths, Churchill objected: “You are piling up an awful load of hatred.” That wasn’t simply an emotional response but a political judgment. Churchill understood that high civilian deaths could damage Britain’s postwar legitimacy and moral authority.
https://www.realcleardefense.com/articles/2025/05/17/re-politicizing_the_military_a_case_for_civilian_oversight_and_accountability_1110816.html
