When I was an officer in the U.S. military, I abstained from voting in national elections, one small way to keep the armed forces nonpartisan. Now, to uphold that same value and prevent the military from becoming a political tool, I believe that in November, everyone — civilians, service members, veterans, everyone — should vote for whoever has the best chance to keep Donald Trump out of office.
This is not a political statement. This is a strategic judgment based on fitness to lead — both to defend the United States and to protect the civilian-military balance that has enabled our nation to become the greatest in history.
Today’s U.S. military is the world’s most powerful weapon, and in the wrong hands it could become a potent political tool as well. This weapon must not be placed under an unfit commander in chief, as the former president showed himself to be during the previous administration and as he has vowed to be again if he regains power.
I am neither a Democrat nor a Republican, but an American who has fought in the forces that guard our country and our way of life, in the words of our military’s Code of Conduct. I fought in Iraq, earned two Bronze Stars and taught military strategy at West Point. My commitment to military values and nonpartisanship hasn’t changed since I rejoined civilian life. What’s changed is the choice presented in American politics. There really isn’t one, because one of the two major-party presidential candidates is clearly, demonstrably, irredeemably unfit to serve as commander in chief.
Only one candidate has suggested the execution of a former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
Only one candidate has called our war dead — specifically, the Marines who fell at Belleau Wood in France during World War I — “suckers” and “losers.”
Only one candidate has suggested putting NASCAR drivers and college coaches in critical national security positions now held by lifelong military professionals who serve as generals and admirals.
All those are awful enough.
But what settles the question altogether is the certainty that former President Trump would end the military’s bedrock contract with the American people: nonpartisanship. He tried last time and came dangerously close.
Nonpartisanship isn’t simply a nice tradition. It’s the two-factor authentication that’s been at the heart of our nation’s defense for decades. The former president instead wants military leadership that mimics the Nazi high command.
“You f— generals, why can’t you be like the German generals?” Trump complained to his chief of staff, retired Gen. John Kelly, in 2018. Trump clarified that he wanted generals who were “totally loyal” and “yes-men,” like the Nazi commanders under Adolf Hitler.
Since America’s founding, there’s been a tension between the military and the rest of the nation’s leadership. The monopoly on violence is necessary. But monopoly means placing immense lethal power in a small, select group.
James Madison worried that “armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.” But the Revolution persuaded George Washington that a competent standing military was necessary for the country’s survival.
Over time a bargain solidified. America permitted a professional military, not loyal to a party or a president, but to all the people through an oath to uphold the Constitution. The country even granted a certain amount of autonomy in strategic matters. In exchange, the military would remain nonpartisan. It would work to earn the nation’s trust and subordinate itself to civilian leadership. Military leaders engage in an “unequal dialogue” with their civilian superiors, in scholar Eliot Cohen’s phrase. This preserves the best military advice possible while staying deferential to America’s civilian leaders. There is, of course, occasional friction between presidents and generals — well worth it to maintain this pillar of national defense.
Trump wanted to destroy that pillar. Given a second term, he probably would. In its place he would enforce a subservience that would end the ability of America’s military to provide its best (or much of any) advice on peace and war. Trump would deploy the military as a political prop in service of his own brand, as he already tried to do. And he would reshape the military and the national security apparatus so that Trumpists would rise and others would not. His second term would be staffed by those prepared to “rigorously review all general and flag officer promotions” based on pro-Trump partisan qualifications, as described in the Project 2025 playbook.
This very same mistake was an enormous Nazi failure: Hitler broke the German generals, and so his decisions went unchecked and included some of the worst strategic moves in the history of warfare.
The immediate threat of a modern commander in chief who favors the Nazi approach would be the inappropriate use of military force on America’s streets (and perhaps even at polling places). The longer threat for this kind of recklessness is unknowable but foreseeable: eroding remaining trust in the military, eviscerating the civilian-military balance, ending America’s centuries-long success story.
“It is easy to destroy an organization,” wrote retired Adm. William McRaven, former commander of U.S. Special Operations Command, “if you have no appreciation for what makes that organization great.” McRaven penned those words five years ago, during the former president’s first term in office, and ended by suggesting that if nothing were to change, someone else must serve as commander in chief.
Nothing about Trump has changed. There is only one choice on Nov. 5.
ML Cavanaugh recently retired after 25 years in the U.S. Army. He co-founded the Modern War Institute at West Point. @MLCavanaugh