How Legitimate Institutions Are Used to Launder Reckless Decisions
By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News
Professional Militaries Are Not Policy-Makers
Modern professional militaries exist to execute lawful orders, not to determine whether those orders should exist.
This distinction matters.
When civilian leadership makes reckless or illegal decisions, professional armed forces become the interface between political intent and real-world consequence. Their discipline, competence, and restraint can unintentionally sanitize actions that would otherwise be recognized immediately as unlawful.
This is not a failure of the military.
It is a misuse of it.
How Political Abuse Works
Political abuse of military professionalism follows a familiar pattern:
- Civilian leaders make decisions insulated from legal review.
- Orders are framed as lawful, urgent, or classified.
- Professional forces execute with precision and restraint.
- The competence of execution is cited as evidence of legitimacy.
The result is a dangerous inversion: operational excellence becomes a substitute for legal authority.
The Burden Placed on Uniformed Personnel
When legality is ambiguous or contested, the moral and reputational burden shifts downward.
Service members are:
- expected to trust civilian authority,
- denied full context,
- and later scrutinized for outcomes they did not choose.
This dynamic erodes civil–military trust over time. It also creates a record in which accountability becomes blurred, diffused, and difficult to assign.
Professionalism Can Mask Illegality
Precision strikes, controlled detention, and orderly deployments create the appearance of legality even when the underlying authorization is absent or defective.
This appearance is politically useful.
It allows civilian leaders to argue that because operations were “professional,” they were therefore justified. That logic is false—but it is effective in public discourse.
Law governs whether force may be used, not how well it is used.
Why This Is Unfair to the Military
When armed forces are used to carry out controversial political actions, they inherit consequences that properly belong to civilian leadership.
This includes:
- reputational damage,
- increased legal exposure,
- and long-term erosion of public trust.
Professional militaries rely on legitimacy as much as capability. Using them to launder political recklessness puts that legitimacy at risk.
Civilian Control Requires Civilian Responsibility
Civilian control of the military is a foundational democratic principle—but it is incomplete without civilian accountability.
Leaders who authorize force must:
- defend legality publicly,
- accept scrutiny,
- and bear responsibility when norms are breached.
Shielding decisions behind classification while pointing to military professionalism is not leadership. It is abdication.
The Long-Term Cost of This Pattern
When political abuse of military professionalism becomes routine:
- soldiers become political shields,
- legality becomes optional,
- and restraint is treated as public relations.
Over time, this corrodes both democratic oversight and military ethics.
Institutions designed to protect the state are instead used to protect decision-makers.
Editorial Condemnation
WPS News condemns the use of professional military institutions to legitimize reckless or unlawful political decisions.
The discipline of armed forces should never be used to disguise the absence of lawful authority. When civilian leaders misuse military professionalism, they damage the institution they claim to respect and weaken the democratic principles they are sworn to uphold.
Responsibility must rest where authority resides.
APA Citations
United Nations. (1945). Charter of the United Nations.
Feaver, P. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2016). Professional standards for protection work.
Discover more from WPS News
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
WPS News 