A nation’s strategic security decisions can often be traced back to closed-door discussions and close-knit relationships within a nation's highest echelons of leadership. Traditionally, these processes have been examined through the prism of civilian-military relationships, a study known as "civ-mil." Throughout international relations, the study of this dynamic has evolved significantly from the days of Clausewitz’s "war is an extension of politics" to Eliot Cohen’s concept of "Unequal Dialogue”: the collaborative conversation between civilian and military leaders with civilian leaders maintaining the final authority in decision-making. The latest developments in civ-mil relations have been markedly influenced by the active participation of retired military officers in political discourse. Scholars Risa Brooks, Michael Robinson, and Heidi Urben recently explored the diverse viewpoints among these retired officers regarding when and how it is appropriate to violate traditional norms of military participation in partisan politics. Their research suggests a gradual shift from the traditional interpretation of military involvement in politics, highlighting the profound implications on civ-mil relations as debates around justified violations of norms expand. This nuanced understanding underscores the significant organizational and cultural impact that outspoken retired military leaders possess. From this, a new pivotal relationship—"ret-mil relations"—has emerged between retired and active military leaders in an era marked by rapidly evolving social media and an expanding information environment. This dynamic is reshaping security decisions as retired officers increasingly exert their influence by publicly critiquing current operations and strategies, impacting a military organization’s effectiveness.

The United States Marine Corps’ Force Design, a transformative plan to restructure its forces, exemplifies the negative impacts of an unhealthy ret-mil relationship. The Marine Corps restructuring required a divestment-to-reinvestment strategy to prioritize modernization without increased appropriations. Force Design prescribes a shift away from traditional heavy equipment like armor and artillery to develop a more agile and flexible force tailored to meet contemporary security challenges. This shift was deemed ambitious and necessary as the Marine Corps had increasingly deviated from its maritime assault roots over the past three decades. This need for heavy capabilities was primarily due to the Marine Corps’ expanded role in land operations in the Middle East, transforming it into what some describe as a "second land army." Without a transformation back to the Marine Corps’ amphibious roots, there was a looming concern among military leaders and scholars that the Marine Corps might become redundant, overshadowed by the capabilities of the United States Army.