Carrie A Lee
@carriealee.bsky.social
Former public servant: Democracy, Civ-Mil, NatSec & Strategy. Senior Fellow @gmfus.bsky.social, Visiting Scholar @perryworldhouse.bsky.social, Member @cfr.org, Truman Project. Running enthusiast.
The PoA is a newer concept, but relies on the same ideas. The military has specialized expertise that could do significant harm to society if abused. It requires ethics, judgement, and legitimacy in addition to training/education/soldiering.
October 31, 2025 at 12:25 PM
The PoA is a newer concept, but relies on the same ideas. The military has specialized expertise that could do significant harm to society if abused. It requires ethics, judgement, and legitimacy in addition to training/education/soldiering.
Yes, very different. The classic professions are law, medicine, and clergy. They are much more than just some people doctoring or lawyering, but instead a cohesive group with a set of ethics that assures the public they can be trusted with health, legal protection, spiritual guidance, etc.
October 31, 2025 at 12:25 PM
Yes, very different. The classic professions are law, medicine, and clergy. They are much more than just some people doctoring or lawyering, but instead a cohesive group with a set of ethics that assures the public they can be trusted with health, legal protection, spiritual guidance, etc.
The tension lies in legitimacy. The legitimacy of the profession rests with society (because of the public trust req), even though the military serves the regime. So when the regime is illegitimate (read: non liberal) a military with public trust is a threat, and so regimes undermine the profession.
October 31, 2025 at 10:54 AM
The tension lies in legitimacy. The legitimacy of the profession rests with society (because of the public trust req), even though the military serves the regime. So when the regime is illegitimate (read: non liberal) a military with public trust is a threat, and so regimes undermine the profession.
Mostly I suspect “no” because the kind of autonomy and independent ethics necessary for a true profession of arms that is not also a threat to the state are unlikely to survive political interference in a non-liberal setting.
October 31, 2025 at 10:54 AM
Mostly I suspect “no” because the kind of autonomy and independent ethics necessary for a true profession of arms that is not also a threat to the state are unlikely to survive political interference in a non-liberal setting.
But as a policy solution, asking senior leaders to prepare to serve civilians without values—or even take up political leadership themselves!!!—does far more to harm the profession the author is reportedly trying to save. 22/22
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
But as a policy solution, asking senior leaders to prepare to serve civilians without values—or even take up political leadership themselves!!!—does far more to harm the profession the author is reportedly trying to save. 22/22
Thought exercises are one thing: “can you still have a profession of arms in a country not based on liberal values?” is an interesting question for theoretical and empirical investigation. I suspect that the answer is no, for a number of reasons I won’t go into here (this thread is long enough). 21/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Thought exercises are one thing: “can you still have a profession of arms in a country not based on liberal values?” is an interesting question for theoretical and empirical investigation. I suspect that the answer is no, for a number of reasons I won’t go into here (this thread is long enough). 21/
We should be asking better questions about American democracy and the democratic process, and teaching junior officers about the messy but beautiful *form of government* they swore an oath to support and defend. 20/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
We should be asking better questions about American democracy and the democratic process, and teaching junior officers about the messy but beautiful *form of government* they swore an oath to support and defend. 20/
We should be asking how (and whether) breaking certain norms can protect and further those principles, including the integrity and ethics of the profession. 19/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
We should be asking how (and whether) breaking certain norms can protect and further those principles, including the integrity and ethics of the profession. 19/
We should be asking and investigating how well the CMR norms we’ve thought so important are serving us when these principles come into conflict. Not questioning the principles themselves, but rather whether the norms still serve those principles. 18/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
We should be asking and investigating how well the CMR norms we’ve thought so important are serving us when these principles come into conflict. Not questioning the principles themselves, but rather whether the norms still serve those principles. 18/
So what else should we be asking right now? It is undeniable that we are in a moment that challenges all three major principles of American civil-military relations: the democratic ethos (from which civilian control is derived), military legitimacy, and the profession of arms. 17/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
So what else should we be asking right now? It is undeniable that we are in a moment that challenges all three major principles of American civil-military relations: the democratic ethos (from which civilian control is derived), military legitimacy, and the profession of arms. 17/
Instead, senior leaders should really be asking, “at what point does continuing to serve as a military professional and steward of the profession do more harm than good to the values I swore to support and defend?” 16/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Instead, senior leaders should really be asking, “at what point does continuing to serve as a military professional and steward of the profession do more harm than good to the values I swore to support and defend?” 16/
The underlying assumption here, in case you missed it, is that continued service is most important rather than the purpose of that service. As though staying in the Army is the most important thing rather than the values that Army was defending. That’s… let’s just say flawed. 15/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
The underlying assumption here, in case you missed it, is that continued service is most important rather than the purpose of that service. As though staying in the Army is the most important thing rather than the values that Army was defending. That’s… let’s just say flawed. 15/
For the reasons given above, the logic to get there is both flawed and dangerous. But really, he’s approaching this question from the wrong way. As written, the author is asking, “how can I continue to serve as a professional in a state with no values?” 14/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
For the reasons given above, the logic to get there is both flawed and dangerous. But really, he’s approaching this question from the wrong way. As written, the author is asking, “how can I continue to serve as a professional in a state with no values?” 14/
Fundamentally, the primary flaw comes out at the end. He highlights a central and important question that CMR scholars and snr leaders are grappling with: what do you do when civilian orders violate your constitutional oath? The answer he comes to, though, is that it is the oath that must give. 13/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Fundamentally, the primary flaw comes out at the end. He highlights a central and important question that CMR scholars and snr leaders are grappling with: what do you do when civilian orders violate your constitutional oath? The answer he comes to, though, is that it is the oath that must give. 13/
This ethical, and yes moral, code is *critical* to the existence of a healthy profession because it upholds trust. Yet the author would have the military profession be without values as it serves whatever leader in whatever capacity happens to be in charge. You can’t have a profession that way. 12/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
This ethical, and yes moral, code is *critical* to the existence of a healthy profession because it upholds trust. Yet the author would have the military profession be without values as it serves whatever leader in whatever capacity happens to be in charge. You can’t have a profession that way. 12/
What do I mean by this? Professions require expertise, extensive training, and continued education. They also require the maintenance of public trust, which is aided by the profession’s ability to self-police according to a higher, internal code of ethics. 11/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
What do I mean by this? Professions require expertise, extensive training, and continued education. They also require the maintenance of public trust, which is aided by the profession’s ability to self-police according to a higher, internal code of ethics. 11/
Third, the author tries to tie this to the “profession.” But profession in this case seems to only mean “professional”—I.e. there are norms and standards and discipline—as opposed to the things necessary for a true profession. 10/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Third, the author tries to tie this to the “profession.” But profession in this case seems to only mean “professional”—I.e. there are norms and standards and discipline—as opposed to the things necessary for a true profession. 10/
The importance of civ control stems from the very principles enshrined in the Constitution that the author is saying leaders should be prepared to dispense with. Civs are only legitimate because they are elected/confirmed. Without that, who cares whether the leader is wearing a uniform or not? 9/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
The importance of civ control stems from the very principles enshrined in the Constitution that the author is saying leaders should be prepared to dispense with. Civs are only legitimate because they are elected/confirmed. Without that, who cares whether the leader is wearing a uniform or not? 9/
(Also newsflash: there’s *always* conflict between the branches. District courts *regularly* disagree about constitutional interpretations. It’s why the Constitution has Article III to begin with—and the courts still even fight about that! Thats the system officers swear to support and defend.) 8/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
(Also newsflash: there’s *always* conflict between the branches. District courts *regularly* disagree about constitutional interpretations. It’s why the Constitution has Article III to begin with—and the courts still even fight about that! Thats the system officers swear to support and defend.) 8/
Second, civilian control of the military flows *from* the oath to the constitution, not the other way around. So the whole premise of the article is flawed. You don’t dispense with the constitution in the name of civilian control, even when there’s conflict between/within civilian branches. 7/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
Second, civilian control of the military flows *from* the oath to the constitution, not the other way around. So the whole premise of the article is flawed. You don’t dispense with the constitution in the name of civilian control, even when there’s conflict between/within civilian branches. 7/
The solution to the profession, then, is not the *end* of a profession based upon classical liberal values but rather the rebirth of one. Very different conclusion, to say the least. 6/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
The solution to the profession, then, is not the *end* of a profession based upon classical liberal values but rather the rebirth of one. Very different conclusion, to say the least. 6/
He is dealing with the *tension* between authoritarian military culture and the rights-based liberal society, not mixing the two! This misunderstanding poisons his whole argument: eg Brooks in fact argues that it is the anti-democratic Huntingtonian version of the profession that is the problem. 5/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
He is dealing with the *tension* between authoritarian military culture and the rights-based liberal society, not mixing the two! This misunderstanding poisons his whole argument: eg Brooks in fact argues that it is the anti-democratic Huntingtonian version of the profession that is the problem. 5/
I think Huntington would be especially surprised to find himself being characterized as a defender of liberalism, when he literally ends SatS wishing that American society were less liberal and more like the authoritarian military. 4/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
I think Huntington would be especially surprised to find himself being characterized as a defender of liberalism, when he literally ends SatS wishing that American society were less liberal and more like the authoritarian military. 4/
To start, the author should apologize to @risabrooks12.bsky.social, the graves of Sam Huntington and Morris Janowitz, (the very alive) Peter Feaver, and every other serious scholar whose work and intellectual contributions he mischaracterized. 3/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
To start, the author should apologize to @risabrooks12.bsky.social, the graves of Sam Huntington and Morris Janowitz, (the very alive) Peter Feaver, and every other serious scholar whose work and intellectual contributions he mischaracterized. 3/
First, let’s dispense with the article, which is full of mischaracterizations, false equivalencies, and a fundamental misunderstanding of *both* American CMR theory and the military profession (actually sort of an impressive feat). 2/
October 31, 2025 at 3:04 AM
First, let’s dispense with the article, which is full of mischaracterizations, false equivalencies, and a fundamental misunderstanding of *both* American CMR theory and the military profession (actually sort of an impressive feat). 2/