By George Agese, Retired Army Officer
The most dangerous wolves are those that wear the fleece of impartiality, for they sway minds under the guise of wisdom.
– Adapted from Aesop’s Fables, The Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing
In 2024, Dr. Peter Feaver, a luminary in civil-military theory, published Right or Wrong? The Civil-Military Problematique in Armed Forces & Society.[i]
Timed with President Donald Trump’s reelection, the article drapes itself in scholarly fleece but snarls with partisan bias, targeting American first conservatives with a zeal that betrays the nonpartisan ethos of the American military profession.
Feaver’s claims are a masquerade: he insists that past presidents never publicly criticized senior officers, offers no evidence for alleging that Trump mocked Gold Star parents, crafts “norms” as partisan cudgels, and — most alarmingly — floats the idea of military pushback “short of a coup.”
As a retired Army officer, I see Feaver’s work as a wolf in academic wool, in need of unmasking to safeguard the neutrality of civil-military relations.
This essay dissects Feaver’s partisan lapses, exposes his biased norms, and reaffirms the constitutional principles guiding military officers in a polarized era.
What is a Societal Norm?
Societal norms are the unwritten rules that stitch together the fabric of a group’s behavior, guiding interactions and maintaining order. Consider the simple act of ordering coffee at a café: saying “please” when requesting a coffee and “thank you” reflects a norm of civility that keeps social gears humming.
In civil-military relations, norms like subordination, restraint, and nonpartisanship ensure that the military serves the state without overstepping its constitutional bounds. These norms are the sinews of democratic stability, requiring officers to place duty above personal or political leanings.
Feaver, however, tailors these norms into a deceptive costume, weaving a narrative that seems impartial but frays under scrutiny. His selective targeting of America first conservatives who do not support a neoconservative foreign policy reveals a wolfish agenda, prowling for political prey under the guise of academic rigor.
By bending norms to fit his narrative, Feaver undermines the very principles he claims to champion, inviting a closer look at his scholarly sleight of hand.
Crafting Norms as Partisan Daggers
Feaver’s assertion that presidents never criticize military leaders by name is a norm so flimsy it unravels like moth-eaten wool. History bares its teeth with counterexamples.
In 1862, President Abraham Lincoln publicly chided General George McClellan for his dawdling during the Civil War, famously quipping, “If General McClellan does not want to use the army, I would like to borrow it for a time.”[ii]
In 1951, President Harry Truman openly rebuked General Douglas MacArthur for insubordination over Korean War strategy, leading to MacArthur’s dismissal.[iii]
In the 1990s, President Bill Clinton sparred publicly with military leaders over the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” policy, a clash that dominated headlines.[iv]
These cases—spanning centuries and parties—expose Feaver’s norm as a fiction, a trap sprung only on America first conservatives like Trump. This selective storytelling isn’t scholarly oversight; it’s a pawprint of partisanship, cloaked in the guise of academic objectivity.
Feaver’s accusation that Trump mocked Gold Star parents is another slip of the mask. Such a grave charge, laden with emotional and political weight, demands rigorous evidence; —yet Feaver tosses it out like a bone to a pack, offering no citation or context.
Had he referenced the 2016 controversy over Trump’s remarks about the Khan family,[v] he might have grounded his point. Instead, he races past, leaving readers to question whether this is analysis or agenda. This isn’t scholarship; it’s a sly pounce, draped in the pretense of objectivity.
A norm that Feaver should have upheld is one of academic honesty. On the 2nd of March 2016, Fever wrote an “Open Letter on Donald Trump from GOP Security Leaders” in which he and others asserted that then candidate Trump was unfit for office due to many character flaws, including that he is “fundamentally dishonest”.[vi]
An honest broker would admit previous writings which may demonstrate bias. This admission then informs the reader and allows them to come to their own conclusions by reviewing the evidence and then using their own judgment and discernment.
Sadly, Feaver does not meet this norm. Feaver’s failure to uphold academic standards betrays the nonpartisan rigor expected of civil-military discourse.
What is This Partisan Fight?
Some may argue that Feaver is nonpartisan, as he worked for both the Clinton Administration and the Bush Administration. I make the argument that this partisanship is less about Democratic vs. Republican and more about Neoconservative vs. America First conservative.
Neoconservatives inhabit both the Democratic and Republican parties and advocate a strong national defense and an interventionist foreign policy. America First conservatism or national populism emphasizes prioritizing U.S. national interests, a skepticism toward globalism, restrictive immigration policies, economic nationalism, and a restrained foreign policy.
Viewing Feaver’s partisanship through this lens makes his bias all too clear.
The Tuberville Tangle: A Norm or a Narrative?
Feaver’s selective lens also targets Senator Tommy Tuberville, for his 2023 hold on over 400 military promotions. Tuberville’s action protested the Pentagon’s policy of funding travel for service members seeking abortions,[vii] which, he argued, politicized military operations and violated the Hyde amendment which prohibits the use of federal funds for abortions except in cases of rape, incest or to save the mother’s life.[viii]
Feaver frames this as a violation of a supposed norm against senators using blanket holds to disrupt military readiness, painting Tuberville as a rogue who strained civil-military relations. Yet this oversimplifies a legitimate act of civilian oversight. Tuberville’s hold, while contentious, was within his constitutional authority, reflecting a broader debate about the military’s role in divisive social policies.
Feaver’s failure to equally scrutinize other senators’ actions reveals his one-sided howl. For example, in 2013, Senator Harry Reid, as Majority Leader, invoked the “nuclear option” to lower the vote threshold for military and executive nominations from 60 to a simple majority.[ix]
Critics argued that this politicized military appointments by sidelining bipartisan consensus, a norm of Senate tradition. By singling out Tuberville while ignoring Reid’s norm-bending, Feaver crafts a narrative that hunts only America first pelts, exposing his scholarly fleece as threadbare.
This selective outrage ignores the broader context of civil-military tensions. Reid’s 2013 rule change, while legal, disrupted the norm of requiring broad Senate support for senior military leaders, making confirmations more susceptible to partisan sway.
For instance, the change allowed faster confirmations but reduced minority input, a move later exploited by both parties for judicial nominations. Similarly, other senators have used holds to leverage policy concessions, as seen in 2007 when Senator Carl Levin delayed defense nominations to press for Iraq War policy shifts.[x]
By focusing solely on Tuberville, Feaver’s norm becomes a partisan dagger, sharpened to wound one side while sparing the other. A balanced analysis would scrutinize norm-breaking across the spectrum, but Feaver’s wolfish grin betrays his bias, undermining his claim to impartiality.
Feaver’s Dangerous Dance with Military Pushback
Feaver’s most egregious misstep is his suggestion of military pushback “falling short of a coup,” a phrase that paws at the edge of constitutional sacrilege.
For American military officers, the options when facing a civilian order are few: offer candid advice and obey, disobey an illegal order at career risk, resign to preserve integrity, or speak out publicly and face near-certain dismissal. These choices, rooted in the Constitution’s mandate of civilian oversight of the military, leave no room for “calibrated pushback.”
Feaver’s notion flirts with subverting this bedrock principle, suggesting that officers might resist civilian authority in ways that skirt mutiny. This isn’t academic musing; it’s a wolf in constitutional clothing, threatening the delicate balance of civil-military relations.
Historical precedent underscores the danger. In 1974, James Schlesinger, The Secretary of Defense, reportedly advised military leaders to check with him about any orders coming from the President during the Nixon administration’s final days, a move later criticized as overstepping military bounds.[xi]
Feaver’s pushback rhetoric echoes this perilous precedent, risking the erosion of trust between civilian leaders and the military. Officers are not political actors; they are servants of the state, bound by duty to uphold democratic control.
By whispering of pushback, Feaver sheds his scholarly fleece, revealing a partisan beast that undermines the norms he claims to defend. His suggestion invites officers to stray from their constitutional oath, a path that could destabilize the republic’s foundation.
Conclusion
Peter Feaver’s 2024 article, swathed in the scholarly fleece of civil-military analysis, prowls with partisan claws, singling out America first conservatives like Trump and Tuberville while sparing others.
His fabricated norms, unsubstantiated claims, and reckless talk of military pushback — teetering perilously close to challenging civilian control—betray the principles of impartial scholarship.
The ideal American military officer, by contrast, stands as a sentinel of nonpartisanship, navigating the civil – military divide with unwavering loyalty to the Constitution.
As Samuel Huntington proclaims in The Soldier and the State, “The military profession… exists to serve the state… Its essence is its disciplined, corporate, and obedient character.”[xii]
By rejecting the wolfish temptations of partisanship, officers uphold the norms of restraint and neutrality, ensuring that the military remains a steadfast guardian of democracy.
In a polarized age, this disciplined service isn’t just a norm; —it’s the shield that keeps the republic from being devoured by its own divisions.
This article is published under the pseudonym George Agese. The author completed more than 33 years of military service and continues to follow developments within the Department of Defense.
Notes:
[i] Peter D. Feaver, Right or Wrong? The Civil-Military Problematique and Armed Forces & Society’s 50th, Armed Forces & Society 2025, Vol. 51 2024
[ii] Stories and Anecdotes About Abraham Lincoln, https://www.aboutabrahamlincoln.com/anecdotes/anecdotes_U159.html accessed 05/20/2025)
[iii] MacArthur vs. Truman: When Generals and Presidents Clash, https://www.history.com/articles/macarthur-vs-truman-the-showdown-that-changed-america (accessed 05/20/2025)
[iv] Garance Franke-Ruta, “The Awkward Clinton-Era Debate Over ‘Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell’,” The Atlantic, October 10, 2014, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-awkward-clinton-era-debate-over-dont-ask-dont-tell/381374/.[](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/10/the-awkward-clinton-era-debate-over-dont-ask-dont-tell/381374/)
[v] Eliza Collins, The Trump-Khan Feud: How We Got Here, USA Today, August 1, 2016, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/onpolitics/2016/08/01/trump-khan-feud-timeline/87914108/
[vi] War On The Rocks Staff, “Open Letter On Donald Trump From GOP National Security Leaders”, War On The Rocks, March 2nd, 2016, https://warontherocks.com/2016/03/open-letter-on-donald-trump-from-gop-national-security-leaders/
[vii] Alexander Bolton, “Tuberville Refuses to Budge on Military Promotions Despite Growing GOP Pressure” The Hill, September 13, 2023, 16:04 EDT, https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/4201007-tuberville-military-promotions-despite-growing-gop-pressure/
[viii] Kevin Roberts, “Biden Played Politics with Abortion and National Defense. Tuberville is Right to Fight it.” USA Today June 22nd, 2023, https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2023/06/22/tommy-tuberville-military-promotions-abortion-protest-right/70341726007/
[ix] Susan Davis and Richard Wolf, U.S. Senate Goes ‘Nuclear’, Changes Filibuster Rules November 21, 2013, https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2013/11/21/harry-reid-nuclear-senate/3662445/
[x] Carl Hulse, “Senate Democrats Block Defense Bill over Iraq Provisions,” New York Times, September 20, 2007, https://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/20/washington/20cong.html.
[xi] Michael Sean Winters, If Milley Broke Democratic Norms – Even For The Good – He Must Face The Music, The National Catholic Reporter, September 20, 2021 https://www.ncronline.org/news/opinion/distinctly-catholic/if-milley-broke-democratic-norms-even-greater-good-he-must-face
[xii] Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 73.
First published on Real Clear Defense
Leave a Comment