The Military-Civil Divide Is a National Security Risk

Only a fraction of Americans serve in the military, and fewer still know someone who does. Most service members are drawn from a small number of states and often follow in the footsteps of family. According to TIME's analysis of military recruiting data, roughly 80 percent of military recruits have a family member who has served, with the Navy at 82%, Army at 79%, and Marines at 77%. The all-volunteer force is becoming an all-family force.

At the same time, interest in military service is waning. Only 32 percent of active duty families now say they would recommend military service to their children, according to Blue Star Families' 2023 Military Family Lifestyle Survey, a dramatic drop from 55 percent in 2016. This combination of cultural insularity and declining public confidence is more than a recruitment challenge. It is a threat to the health of our democracy and the legitimacy of our national security policy.

The United States depends on civilian control of the military. That principle only works if the public understands the institution it controls. Today, that understanding is fading. Most military bases are located in rural or southern regions. Most Americans live far from any post or installation. This physical distance breeds cultural distance. As military communities grow more isolated and self-reinforcing, civilian policymakers and the public grow more removed from the realities of service.

This separation has consequences. With fewer veterans in Congress, there is less firsthand knowledge of military culture and limits. Some policymakers defer to military leaders uncritically, assuming expertise without scrutiny. Others treat the military as a partisan or political actor, ignoring its apolitical role in a constitutional system. Neither approach serves the republic.

The divide also skews strategic decision-making. An electorate unfamiliar with military life may misunderstand the risks of conflict. They may fail to grasp the true cost of war or the complexities of modern deployments. Meanwhile, a force drawn from narrow demographics may lack the diversity of perspective that makes for sound, ethical operations.

Admiration without understanding can be just as dangerous as skepticism without reason. Thanking someone for their service is not a substitute for civic engagement. The more we elevate the military as a separate class of citizens, the less connected it becomes to the public it serves, and the less accountable it risks becoming.

To close the gap, we must broaden the base of engagement and stop treating the military like a family business. Expanding ROTC programs at universities, especially those with few military ties, can bring service-minded students into contact with peers from other backgrounds. Civil-military exchange programs, national service initiatives, and structured congressional engagement with active-duty units can foster mutual familiarity. And schools and media must work to provide more accurate, nuanced portrayals of military life.

Democracy requires more than votes. It requires shared burdens, mutual understanding, and institutions that reflect the people they serve. A military trusted but misunderstood cannot endure. To strengthen our national defense, we must rebuild the bridge between the barracks and the ballot box.