I can't speak to the US, but the concept (at least for Commonwealth forces) is that the military is a tool of the Government of the Day. You could say a rather violent tool wielded by utter tools, but that would be getting political.
Ultimately, the military's role is to commit violence on behalf of a nation state. Either in defence or offence, on home soil or on expeditionary operations. Pansies in ivory towers might have moved away from the "Department of War" concept to a "Department of Defence" but, at the end of the day the job is to make somebody else hurt and deny them access to a particular resource (be it land, space, sea, mineral, terrain, urban, whatever).
The military HAS to remain apolitical, lest it starts down the path of staging a military coup. Just look at how Biden is jumping at his shadow in fear of the military not following orders. Career military officers and troops will serve under a number of governments, from both sides of the aisle, and with varying levels of governmental competence.
To react politically to the changes of government is a distraction from the main military task and benefits any perceived enemy and remaining apolitical is seen as professional military bearing and discipline. Further, splits within units of political thought and reaction would lead to breakdown of intra-unit cohesion and discipline and result in a much weaker military force being able to be deployed, even if the physical numbers remain the same.
Mutinies are rarely a good thing.
A good way to think for military members is that they serve the nation. Its people. The government is just the weenies in charge for a time who get to tell them where to go and, with time, they will be changed. The nation will endure. In theory the government reflects the will of the people (hah!).
I can't speak to the US, but the concept (at least for Commonwealth forces) is that the military is a tool of the Government of the Day. You could say a rather violent tool wielded by utter tools, but that would be getting political.
Ultimately, the military's role is to commit violence on behalf of a nation state. Either in defence or offence, on home soil or on expeditionary operations. Pansies in ivory towers might have moved away from the "Department of War" concept to a "Department of Defence" but, at the end of the day the job is to make somebody else hurt and deny them access to a particular resource (be it land, space, sea, mineral, terrain, urban, whatever).
The military HAS to remain apolitical, lest it starts down the path of staging a military coup. Just look at how Biden is jumping at his shadow in fear of the military not following orders. Career military officers and troops will serve under a number of governments, from both sides of the aisle, and with varying levels of governmental competence.
To react politically to the changes of government is a distraction from the main military task and benefits any perceived enemy and remaining apolitical is seen as professional military bearing and discipline. Further, splits within units of political thought and reaction would lead to breakdown of intra-unit cohesion and discipline and result in a much weaker military force being able to be deployed, even if the physical numbers remain the same.
Mutinies are rarely a good thing.
A good way to think for military members is that they serve the nation. Its people. The government is just the weenies in charge for a time who get to tell them where to go and, with time, they will be changed. The nation will endure. In theory the government reflects the will of the people (hah!).