Keogh Chair and Allis Chalmers Professor of Political Science at Marquette University
Chief of Army Symposium 2025, Australian Parliament House, 26 August 2025
Good morning, everyone. Thank you, Brigadier Campbell, for that kind introduction. I would also like to thank Lieutenant General Stuart for inviting me to be here today, and his team, who have welcomed me so graciously. I am delighted to visit your beautiful country.
It is my great honor today to speak to you on the relationship between army and society—an issue about which I am very passionate.
I want to begin with the overarching theme of my remarks today: that the relationship between army and society is foundational to any democracy’s capacity to safeguard its security. By that I mean its ability to protect from external threats to its economy, institutions, values, its population’s welfare and wellbeing.
When societal-military relations are unhealthy, it is more difficult to build and maintain an appropriately resourced, responsive, tactically adept and strategically minded army. Such an army is less capable of deterring foreign aggression and protecting society if deterrence fails.
The societal-military foundation is vital, especially in this era of immense global change, and especially given the growing stakes of strategic competition in the Indo-Pacific.
Now, more than ever, we must attend to fundamentals, including societal-military relations, to assure that our democracies are prepared to navigate these challenges.
Before turning to the substance of my remarks, I want to make two quick points of clarification. First, I speak to you today as a specialist in US and more broadly democratic civil-military relations. My aim is to paint a sweeping picture of the issues across democracies so that we can see the landscape clearly.
I hope, however, that there are elements of my talk that illuminate the particular experience of Australia and prove useful to you in that respect.
I will also use the generic term military, rather than army, throughout my talk because many of my insights do apply broadly. But in most democracies—as, I suspect, here in Australia—the army is the service that is most tied to the citizenry and sees itself as being rooted in it. So the issue of societal-military relations is especially imperative for the army.
My remarks today are organised around two questions. First, what is a healthy relationship between society and the military in liberal democracy? And second, what can be done to support and promote that healthy relationship?
Let me begin with the first question.
I am going to answer it initially in the negative; that is, I will explore what is not a healthy relationship between society and the military, in order to bring the issues into relief.
Here I am going to pick a bit on my own country, the United States, first. Several years ago, the author and journalist James Fallows wrote an article describing what he called the ‘Tragedy of the American Military’, in which he discussed how the public views the military. He described a dynamic that we might characterise as a kind of blind reverence. The public deeply admires the military but, as he saw it, this regard could be superficial and was often combined with a lack of knowledge or substantive engagement. Fallows saw this as a tragedy because what he believed the US military really needed was the public’s attention, not its adulation.
Today in the US there are many signs of this social esteem. Attend a baseball game and one will often see soldiers brought on to the field with a big display of patriotic symbols, or service members and veterans will be vaunted in public venues in other ways. Of course, this regard for military service has many positive aspects.
The concern is that these grand displays, however, may substitute for or even mask the need for deeper engagement. In fact, many Americans know very little about the military. They do not know much about the wars it has fought in, the organisational challenges it faces or even simple facts about military service. Surveys by U.S. Recruiting Command show that many don’t know the variety of jobs one can have in the military or that you can even have a dog if you serve.
Now the causes of this dynamic are complex, including a concentration of military service in families—over 80 per cent who join have had a family member who served; the geographical location of military bases; patterns of recruitment; and the advent of what is called the all-volunteer force, which marks the end of conscription in the United States in 1973.
Regardless of its causes, however, this blind reverence can yield a superficiality that inhibits deep engagement between society and the military.
A related dynamic in democracies occurs when there is a mythology or mystification of the military or its history and accomplishments. This idealisation, too, can inhibit the emergence of a healthy relationship between society and the military. Commemoration and national memory are essential in democratic societies, as is honoring the sacrifice of those who have served.
Yet romanticising the military and its history can obscure and distract from addressing contemporary problems. Society may get stuck in a particular image of the military and its historical role that is detached from its current character and the security challenges it faces. Balance needs to be struck between the past and the present to ensure a healthy societal-military dynamic.
I want to now turn now to a different class of problems in which there is an ambivalence or, even worse, an underlying current of suspicion toward the military in democratic societies. Here it is helpful to note that there are in fact inherent frictions or complexities in relations between liberal democratic societies and their militaries. Military sociologists have long recognised these tensions. Liberal societies privilege the individual and value nonconformity, while militaries emphasise the group, are hierarchical, and are deeply grounded in tradition. Navigating those cross-cultural differences can be difficult.
In addition, the very purpose of a military can foster ambivalence for some citizens. They may equate engaging with the military with an endorsement of war itself. Of course, the point of a military is to prevent war and to protect society if there is no other option. And only by engaging with the military can the public be sure that the armed forces are well prepared for that task and conforming with societal values in the process.
Finally, there is one other unhelpful societal-military dynamic to touch on, which is when society regards the military with indifference or even benign neglect. Members of the public just don’t think much about the military. They have little exposure to what their military is doing, its purpose, and little interest in finding out. They are just fine to delegate these matters to the government and focus on concerns of the day. While it may seem benign, this indifference can actually prove corrosive to healthy societal-military relations and to the country’s security. Without that engagement, the government, defence and the military may not receive the needed support or face the requisite scrutiny to assure that they are up to the task of protecting the state and society.
So what should be the goal? What is a healthy relationship between society and the military?
First, that relationship should be based on mutual trust and respect, in which the military has earned society’s regard. In this relationship, the public should ideally approach the military with what I would describe as a stance of respectful scrutiny. By that I mean understanding that the military performs a needed, if at times uncomfortable, task of threatening and employing violence to protect the security of the country’s citizens.
It means taking it upon oneself to be knowledgeable about the military and asking careful questions while demanding transparency and accountability. That scrutiny should both applaud success and demand action in the face of failure. It requires posing questions in good faith, with the intent to uncover and improve in order to safeguard the institution and its members.
In short, the public must hold the military to a high standard, unrelentingly so, while also appreciating the role it plays in the difficult and turbulent security environment of today.
Relatively simple, right?
Of course, I realise this is a tall order. Rarely if ever is this ideal met, but societies can fall closer and farther from the ideal.
This brings me to my next question, which is what can be done to promote a healthy relationship between the military and society?
I would argue that all of us in this room and beyond have a role to play. Academics, researchers, members of civil society, the media, civilian officials and service members themselves can help expose society to what the military does and familiarise them with it.
To do this, they must meet the public where they are and share insights with its members in ways that are accessible and even fun. This might occur through writing, and reporting, personal conversations and public outreach, and, where appropriate, through social media or engaging with popular culture. There is lots of room for creativity and new ideas here.
There are also some specific things that civilians and the military itself can do to promote a healthy societal-military relationship, and I want to take some time to delve into those.
I will begin with the civilian side.
Elected leaders and public servants have some distinctive roles to play in ensuring healthy societal-military relations. One thing they can do is assure that the military is as capable and effective as possible, so that it may earn the public’s trust and respect. Here it is important to remember that the civilian leadership in a democratic system plays a vital and unique role. It is the translation mechanism from the will of the people into the actions of government and the state, including the military. This requires going beyond a baseline of civilian control, in which elected leaders have the final say over what the military does and how it is resourced. It means that civilians in the government and bureaucracy establish formal processes and informal norms to ensure a robust and critical, but constructive, evaluation of the military and its decisions. The public needs to know that the civilian leadership is itself engaging in respectful scrutiny of the military.
This is easier said than done. Indeed, the history of civilian control in democracies shows that there are important pitfalls to be avoided. One is for civilian leadership to be overly confrontational, failing to engage or marginalising the military when interacting with its leadership. Civilians should regard the military’s expertise, and solicit and carefully consider its leaders’ advice.
There is also the reverse danger—that is, that the civilian leadership is inadequately critical of the military. Civilian leaders must avoid being overly deferential and adapting to military positions without adequate scrutiny.
The lesson here is this: collegiality among civilian and military leaders based on trust and respect is essential; but also civilians and military leaders bring various and distinct equities, responsibilities and expertise to the table. A bit of constructive disagreement across the civil-military divide can be healthy. It is likely needed for the best outcomes to prevail.
In this vein, civilian leaders can also ensure that institutional structures, incentives, and informal practices and routines are functional and that they do not rely too much on individual personalities. Doing so can render civil-military relations precarious, dependent on the idiosyncrasies of individuals. Well-crafted institutions also ensure continuity and robustness of effort within and across governments.
Elected leaders can also help build oversight capacity by investing in fostering more expertise in military affairs outside the armed forces.
Several of my colleagues based in Canada and the US who work on civil-military relations have recently completed a very large comparative study of oversight functions in democracies across the globe. One of the key findings in their research is that there is often too little expertise in defense and military-related matters in civil society, the bureaucracy, and in the committees and staffs of government officials. So there is a lot of work to be done here.
To bring all this back to the theme of the day: why does civilian oversight matter for societal-military relations?
Because when civilian control, understood in these process terms, is robust, the military will be in a better position to carry out its mandate. It is more likely to be appropriately resourced and organizationally healthy. It will better be able to serve the interests of society and earn its trust and respect.
The civilian leadership also plays another key role in the societal-military relationship. That is to speak to the public about any challenges facing the military and be forthright when it is falling short at meeting expectations. Elected officials must also be willing, when appropriate, to support the military leadership engaging directly and honestly with the public, including about difficult issues.
That may appear a bit counterintuitive. Perhaps limiting information about challenges or negative outcomes is essential to avoid alienating the public. But I suspect that it rarely actually works that way. Indeed, one of the superpowers of democracy is the capacity to share problems and concerns and develop resilience in society to navigate them.
I might also add that obscuring information also means that the public lacks the capacity to hold the government and military to account for failures, which likely means the problems that generated the poor outcomes in the first place are more likely to persist.
Finally, political leaders must speak to the people about the security challenges of the day. They must make the case to society as to why having an appropriately resourced and structured military is essential to their security. To do that they need to explain the international strategic environment and expose them to the threats as they see them.
Political leaders also need to explain the mandate and missions they intend to give the military not just internationally but domestically, and define its jurisdictions in relation to the civil community relative to other state institutions and capacities. Elected leaders must decide what are the purposes of the military and communicate that to society.
Last, but not least, let me turn to the military and what it can do to assure healthy societal-military relations.
Essential is that its leaders attend to military profession of arms and ensure its wellbeing. Only when the profession is healthy can the military earn the respect of society and create a foundation of trust.
In particular, I want to focus on one crucial aspect of the military profession: its role in self-regulation and accountability.
A defining feature of a profession is that its members are granted autonomy to practice their craft contingent on maintaining the public’s trust. As such, a key component of a profession is holding itself accountable for how well it serves society.
For the military, its domain of accountability encompasses everything from how it prosecutes war and performs in armed conflict, how its leaders run the military organisation and how well it protects the welfare of the men and women who serve in its ranks.
Indeed, if there is one sure way to undermine the trust essential to a healthy societal-military relationship, it is for the public to see that military leaders are failing to hold themselves and the institutions to account. No military in a democratic society can thrive without robust accountability for its actions.
In this regard, I would encourage military leaders to consider what I call their ‘theory of accountability’. For some military leaders, accountability entails holding individuals to account for failures of judgment, incompetence or poor leadership and applying disciplinary measures as appropriate up and down the chain of command.
To be sure, holding individuals responsible is essential; too often, militaries fall down in how well and thoroughly they assess culpability and mete out punishments, especially at senior levels. That is corrosive to trust not only with society but also within the military itself.
Yet also important is what is missed in this individually oriented theory of accountability. That is the need to address the institutional and cultural causes that shape individual behavior and enable adverse actions and decisions in the first place. If the military is to earn the respect of society, military leaders must tackle these institutional-level causes of poor outcomes and performance, while also holding individuals to account.
I have spoken at length about the role of civilians in ensuring robust oversight. But military leaders, too, have an important obligation at the civil-military nexus. They owe elected leaders and civilian officials forthright advice and must be candid and honest about the costs and risks of different policies and actions. They should avoid what the scholar Carrie Lee calls ‘indirect politicization’ of military advice. This occurs when military leaders anticipate the preferences of political leaders and conform their advice accordingly, sometimes compromising their own views in the process.
At the same time, they must avoid the false conviction that their perspectives should prevail and be mindful of the mistrust that is bred by contorting advice in ways that privilege particular outcomes. The military leadership must commit to transparency with civilian leadership and offer advice candidly and forthrightly.
Again, all of this is to ensure the military remains healthy and effective, which is foundational to trust with society and to maintaining its earned respect.
The military, too, needs to invest in communicating with the public and encouraging ownership and engagement in its affairs. The public need to know that the military belongs to them and serves and protects its interests.
Perhaps most importantly, the military must seek to win the people’s respect through its excellence and performance. Having society’s adoration is not the same as earning its respect.
There are two final points I want to make about the military’s obligations to ensuring healthy societal-military relations before closing my remarks.
The first, I know from some experience, may step on some toes. I hope you will nevertheless find it useful food for thought and know that I mean these comments with all good will.
I have spoken about how the public should relate to the military. But service members also need to think about how they regard the society they serve.
Let me elaborate with reference to an article that journalist and author Tom Ricks wrote in the 1990s about his experiences interacting with U.S. Marines during their boot camp training. Ricks writes that he was dismayed to observe that after returning from their leave post training, many of the Marines said they felt alienated from their old lives. The Marines he met also spoke disparagingly, even contemptuously at times, about civilian society, citing the public’s physical unfitness, undisciplined and uncouth behavior, selfishness and consumerism, as they saw it.
Ricks is citing an especially acute example of the estrangement and sense of superiority with which some service members regard civilian society. Survey research suggests that such attitudes, while not dominant, are also not an especially unusual phenomenon within democratic militaries around the world.
Now, to be clear, having pride in military service is essential. And service members are held to high and different standards than civilian society, for good reason. There are differences between military and civilian life, as I have noted.
But in some cases those differences can morph into something akin to arrogance and contempt. Such attitudes are deeply corrosive to the foundation of the mutual trust essential to healthy societal-military relations. They are also contrary to the principle that the military serves and submits to society—the ‘responsibility ethic’ that underpins the military profession.
Senior leaders in democracies must be vigilant against the emergence of such views and role model healthy attitudes toward society themselves.
Finally, I will close with one last obligation that the military has in a liberal democracy. Without it, there can be no healthy relationship with society.
That is for its members to reflect upon and understand their commitment to uphold democracy. That commitment can have a taken for granted quality in established democracies: it can feel remote and abstract. It may seem like just a non-issue.
Yet, it is vitally important because in countries around the world, we are seeing an erosion and hollowing out of democratic principles of government. In many cases, this erosion includes efforts by political leaders to undermine the military’s commitment to serve all of society and its capacity to stand apart from partisan divisions, in favor of transforming it into an ally of a particular faction or party.
There is also concerted effort today by foreign actors to undermine democratic militaries. Authoritarian governments are trying to level the playing field through active propaganda campaigns aimed at dividing democratic militaries by amplifying societal tensions within them. The global adversaries of democracy know that a military’s commitment to serve the common good is a remarkable strength. It enables initiative, innovation and resilience, and underpins military effectiveness.
For all these reasons, I would encourage leaders in every democracy—both civilian and uniformed—to inoculate their forces against such pressures.
They should invest in education and socialisation of their military members to strengthen and deepen that understanding of the democratic commitment. Do not assume that the military’s core responsibility to uphold the principles of democracy is self-evident to all who serve. Even the most professional militaries may become vulnerable. This is not a time for complacency. The risks are too great.
Thank you.
