[TheOtherHobbes]

Civil leadership defines policy, the military execute policy. This isn't just about explicit goals, but about rhetoric and tone.

Leadership normalises moral expectations. If those are perverse, the entire machinery of government will be perverse. Including the military.

Occasionally you get dissidents like Smedley Butler who call out moral shortcomings. But generally those kinds of ruminations are above the Pentagon's pay grade. The Bush admin painted military action and torture as legitimate responses to real external threats, and that's the narrative the footsoldiers bought into.

So it's very unlikely the military in the US will ever directly challenge the elected civilian leadership. There may be thoughts and even discussions, but direct action would split the military down the middle - even after today's West Point fiasco.