The four-star firings, anti-DEI campaign, and flurry of directives and counter-directives from the Pentagon have sown confusion within the ranks—and among their leaders, many of whom are grappling with how, when, and even if they should discuss these actions and their implications with their subordinate units.
Some leaders have chosen to do no more than pass along these sweeping, hastily issued, and, in some cases, poorly explained orders. Their reasons for remaining quiet range from uncertainty over what to say to their people, to being misunderstood if they speak, to fearing retribution for having spoken incorrectly. At a minimum, this approach confuses the force, invites speculation, and potentially leads to discontent.
Now more than ever, leaders at all levels must communicate clearly and routinely with those they lead. This means providing detailed guidance for implementing new policies. But it also means reaffirming timeless messages that transcend presidential administrations and partisan politics.
First, leaders need to communicate ceaselessly about what they know and what they do not know, making it clear in the process that they will protect their people as much as possible from external events and actors. In particular, they should reiterate to those under their leadership that a unit only thrives when everyone does their job, works together, and looks after each other. By taking care of one another, members put their unit well on the way to mission accomplishment.
Second, leaders must remind their troops that they volunteered to serve. Servicemembers consciously joined an organization that puts their unit, their military, and their country ahead of themselves. In return, they have the right to expect reasonable and responsible leadership that uses the military to provide for the nation’s defense. As American citizens, they retain the right to reevaluate why they serve, and whether they wish to continue to do so. Assuming they served honorably, they have a right to decide when and why they take off the uniform. Whether they stay for a career or leave after their initial commitment, they should take pride in their service.
Third, servicemembers should be reminded of the importance of trust in creating and sustaining a healthy unit. After every election, there are some who delight in its outcome and some who despair. Those in each group must remember that the others are their teammates. Without this trust among teammates, the bonds essential to unit cohesion and military effectiveness are strained and, eventually, broken. Leaders at all levels must reassure their soldiers, sailors, Marines, airmen, and guardians that—regardless of how they voted, what they do, or what they look like—they are all on the same team.
Fourth, everyone wearing a uniform must understand that partisanship has no place in America’s military. Partisanship in the ranks produces a toxic mixture of chaos and dissent, when the focus belongs squarely on building cohesion and trust. Anyone in uniform advancing a partisan agenda needs to be redirected to focus on the mission and the unit. Lower-level leaders can address most such issues, but they need to know that those up the chain of command will back their guidance and actions if anyone complains.
Finally, leaders and followers alike should think about the shared implications of their oath to support and defend the U.S. Constitution. Many others take a similar oath, including members of Congress, the president, and senior members of the executive branch. This means that a variety of people and institutions are responsible for the health and performance of the American military. If any branch of government abrogates its responsibilities, the other could feel overly empowered to act unilaterally. Servicemembers have a right to expect anyone who swears to support and defend the Constitution to take their oaths as seriously as those in uniform do, since executive and legislative decisions could come at the expense of their lives.
It’s difficult to say how pervasive the self-imposed silence is among military leaders. People I have served with and taught over the years tell me it is widespread, starting at the highest ranks and cascading down to battalion level and below. Its causes likely vary, among other things, by service, by unit, and by mission. Certainly, some leaders have communicated vigorously with their people, but some significant portion has not.
Everyone in uniform is a volunteer. Whether they serve for three or thirty-three years, they have a right to understand what is happening to them and to their military. Persistent, sincere communication brings clarity, enhances morale, and improves mission effectiveness.
General and flag officers must set the example for their subordinates, reaffirming core values of service while providing guidance about how to respond to the defense secretary’s policy changes. Once these leaders set the tone, field-grade officers can add context and guidance related to the new policies—including how they affect Defense Department civilians assigned to their units. These actions can be accomplished in a straightforward, nonpartisan fashion that keeps the force informed, connected, and focused on the mission.
