I reviewed student criticism of Ambassador Eikenberry’s nomination for the Buffett Institute with great distress. As a twice-deployed combat veteran and JD-MBA student at Northwestern University, I found the students’ denunciation of Ambassador Eikenberry not only disturbingly unwise and ill-informed but also discriminatory.

When lobbying for his withdrawal, Charles Clarke, a graduate student, argued baselessly that Ambassador Eikenberry would somehow exercise belligerence and U.S. bias. Northwestern junior Matt Herndon alluded to the Ambassador as someone who reflects the military’s “ideologies.” The incoherence of the objectors’ attacks on Ambassador Eikenberry’s credentials betrays the real reason these students oppose him: Belief that military personnel are unthoughtful, belligerent or jingoistic.

I am not entirely certain what Mr. Herndon means by “ideologies.” I suppose if you consider honor, courage, commitment and mutual respect ideologies, then, yes, the military has certain predilections. But if Mr. Herndon is suggesting something darker, then he is merely demonstrating his ignorance of the military — not to mention basic civics.

The military acts only on the orders of our democratically elected president. Our president reflects our national interests tallied every four years at the ballot box. Our military, therefore, imposes our political will on the world, not its own. So, for one to disagree with the military’s ideologies is to disagree with our democratic way of life.

The problem with the students’ slanted criticism of Ambassador Eikenberry stems from their limited world experience and insulated surrounding. To prejudge a military officer as belligerent and tainted with bias is itself implicitly prejudice.

My experiences overseas serving under Ambassador Eikenberry demonstrate that, rather than exercise belligerence or bias, our troops and diplomats exercise the highest aspirations of global engagement. They must do so to conduct our current counterinsurgency operations which require restraint and engagement. Only through our work with our NATO and Afghan or Iraqi partners were we able to eventually quell violence and, yes, work on humanitarian missions.

While on campus Ambassador Eikenberry lamented the growing divide between the United States military and our country’s citizens. Mr. Herndon contends that few millennials are enlisting because they don’t agree with the military’s politics and history. He could not possibly be more misinformed.

Whatever reason young people feel disconnected from their military it is not for lack of admiration: A large majority of Americans believe the military contributes mightily to our society. When Americans were asked in a 2009 Pew Research Center survey about the contributions of various groups to society, 84 percent said members of the military contribute a lot.

More than this, the military has no politics, and its history is our history.

I am disappointed that Ambassador Eikenberry will no longer join us at NU. I am even more disappointed at the ignorance and prejudice of my fellow NU classmates. I can only hope that this episode serves as a lesson to how we should think of military service.

—John Adams

John Adams recently graduated from Northwestern University’s Pritzker School of Law and the Kellogg School of Management. He served as an infantry officer in the United States Marine Corps from 2008 until 2012.