Trump Changing Centuries of Precedent

President Donald Trump gave no specific reason for firing Gen. Charles Q. Brown Jr. as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff less than halfway through Brown's four-year term in office.

- SAMUEL C MAHANEY

Nor did he give an explanation for similarly ousting other senior military leaders, including the only women ever to lead the Navy and the Coast Guard, as well as the military's top three lawyers—the judge advocates general of the Army, Navy, and Air Force.

The president is the commander-in-chief of the U.S. armed forces. But since the days of George Washington, the military has been dedicated to serving the nation, not a specific person or political agenda. I know this because I served 36 years in the U.S. Air Force before retiring as a major general. Even now, as a lecturer in history, national security, and constitutional law, I know that nonpartisanship is central to the military's primary mission of defending the country.

Trump's actions could raise concerns about whether he is trying to change those centuries of precedent.

If so, military personnel at all levels would face a crucial question: Would they stand up for the military's independent role in maintaining the integrity and stability of American democracy or follow the president's orders—even if those orders crossed a line that made them illegal or unconstitutional?

Washington and other U.S. founders were very aware that a powerful military could overthrow the government or be subjected to political whims as different parties or factions controlled the presidency or Congress, so they thought long and hard about the role of the militia and the use of military power.

Julius Caesar, who used his army to seize power in ancient Rome, was a cautionary tale. So was Oliver Cromwell's use of his military power in the English Civil War to execute King Charles I and rule England.