Joseph Stalin is said to have asked Winston Churchill, “How many divisions (of soldiers) does the Pope have?” The question has subsequently been used in discussions of civil-military relations with the implication that control over the guns is the basis for power in society.

Although President Trump has not yet asked the Stalin question in these terms, as commander-in-chief, he clearly relishes his control over the coercive forces of the state (i.e., military, law enforcement at various levels) and the power it brings. Legitimate exercise of power in the U.S., of course, has not been through the coercive control of the population. Rather, it has been in our norms and institutions — fair elections, free speech, freedom of assembly, independent courts and the autonomy of civil society organizations, such as law firms, universities, a free press, etc. We are now seeing this tradition giving way to the expanded use of instruments of coercion — and threats that we will see more. What does this all mean for civil-military relations and the culture and procedures of the military?

Efforts are being made to change a military culture of partisan neutrality and independence from politics. Signs of change also include the attempts to recast the coercive powers of the Justice Department, the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security as servants, not of the law, but of an individual. Together, the decisions to expand the use of the military in domestic settings and the politicization of other institutions of coercion make it difficult to avoid very disturbing questions. Might the use of guns on American citizens be ordered from the White House and how confident can we be that the orders will or will not be followed?

Several cases where militaries fired on their own citizens come to mind. The suppression of demonstrators in and around China’s Tiananmen in 1989 presented the world with images of the brutality of a government against its own people. The slaughter of Korean citizens by Korean troops in the city of Gwangju in May 1980 is another reminder that governments will shoot their citizens. Americans might assume that this could never happen here. But many will remember the tragedy at Kent State University in May 1970 when the Ohio National Guard opened fire on students protesting the Vietnam War. For those too young to remember, check out the graphic images online of dead and wounded students scattered around the campus.

In the likelihood that demonstrations against the Trump administration’s policies will continue, and possibly grow, the question of the behavior of soldiers and police officers warrants our attention. They have all taken an oath to “defend the Constitution” and, in the case of the military, obey the orders of their commander-in-chief. But one can readily appreciate the cognitive dissonance and ethical challenges our “public servants with guns” may soon face. How should the Constitution be interpreted? What if orders from the president and senior administration officials violate the Constitution or are constitutionally questionable? Will the formal training in rules of engagement hold? How will personnel at all levels of military and law enforcement organizations feel about their sense of American values and responsibilities as American citizens?

——

Richard P. Suttmeier is a resident of Keene Valley.