The US military's performance in the recent conflict with Iran has come under sharp criticism, with analysts pointing to a weak strategic hand and questionable operational conduct. The situation has reignited debates about civil-military relations, particularly the role of politically appointed officials like Secretary of War Pete Hegseth, a former Major in the Army National Guard, who now oversees senior flag officers.
Civil-Military Dynamics and Clausewitzian Theory
In democratic systems, civilian supremacy over the military is a foundational principle. Elected leaders set political objectives, while generals execute military operations. However, as Prussian theorist Carl von Clausewitz noted, war is the continuation of politics by other means. This requires seamless civil-military coordination, where politicians define the 'why' and 'when' of war, and generals handle the 'how'. Friction arises when politicians interfere in military matters or generals assume strategic decision-making.
Political scientist Charles Tilly observed that war-making and state-making are deeply interlinked, as governments extract resources to pursue conflicts, concentrating power and shaping modern states. In robust democracies, the military remains neutral, subordinate to civilian authority, and loyal to the government while offering unpalatable advice when necessary.
Pete Hegseth's Role and Controversy
Pete Hegseth, a former Major in the US Army National Guard, now serves as Secretary of War, overseeing generals, admirals, and air officers. His appointment has raised concerns, as retired lower-rank officers in higher civilian jobs often interfere in military matters and act abrasively. Reports indicate Hegseth has sidelined capable flag officers based on gender, race, or color, creating significant turmoil within the military hierarchy.
His overall direction of the Iran war has left many questions about his suitability and capability. The US military's track record in prosecuting wars in Asian and Muslim contexts—Vietnam, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Iran—is not bright, and Hegseth's leadership appears to repeat past errors.
Operational Conduct and Ethical Concerns
Professional soldiers believe in the justness of cause when going to war. They prefer to prosecute a 'just war' or conduct war justly. However, errant missile strikes during Operation 'Epic Fury' killed over 150 school children in Iran, with no subsequent apology—an example of unprofessional conduct. Such actions undermine the ethical framework of jus ad bellum (ethics of initiating war) and jus in bello (professional conduct during warfare).
The Israeli military's complicity in the genocide of Palestinian children, women, elderly, and sick amounts to war crimes and a 'holocaust' that will likely haunt the IDF. Escaping consequences is not in the higher scheme, as reflected in rising PTSD, broken families, and veteran suicides.
Military Decision-Making Process in Pakistan
In Pakistan, civil-military synergy has historically been turbulent, shaped by domestic political instability, institutional interplay, and threat perceptions. The 'paradox' of civil-military relations is evident: the military must be strong enough to protect the polity, but that strength can threaten other power nodes, sometimes leading to takeovers. A possible remedy is for the military to accept that civilian authorities have the 'right to be wrong'—without stretching it too far.
The Military Decision-Making Process (MDMP) involves rigorous study of the environment, threat deduction, response planning, and developmental strategy. Critics who lament Pakistan's lack of policy on issues like Afghanistan-based terrorism or Indian designs overlook that policy implementation often suffers from lack of focus and resource constraints, not absence of planning.
