Civilian Control Over Military Quotes
MacArthur had been the Commander of our Military Forces in Korea. He had a huge ego, and he wanted to cross the border and attack China since Chinese Troops were aiding the North Vietnamese. He had previously assured the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President that the Chinese would not send troops into Korea, but he was then wrong. And when they had attacked, they had erased the territorial gains that MacArthur had previously gained. The Joint Chief’s of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State had decided upon a strategy which this time did not follow MacArthur’s strategic advice. The President approved the strategy, but MacArthur spoke and acted contrary. The President met with MacArthur and reiterated the strategy that the President approved. But MacArthur did not follow the orders of the Joint Chiefs. At the time, he and Eisenhower were America’s two most famous military leaders, and of the two MacArthur was senior and thought that he should be President. After he was fired, MacArthur addressed a Joint Session of Congress and gave his "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech which was his first active step towards the Presidency. It was a very sentimental speech with little content and nothing about why he had disobeyed orders. He was totally shocked when it was Eisenhower who was selected to run for President and not him.
Generally, the American military is much more optimistic of its ability to accomplish its objectives as that it the way they have been trained. The General warns that the same attitude will make them more optimistic and willing to tackle a very difficult if not impossible problem than most would be. So civilians in America have to question what they are doing. At the same time, there have been a number of highly sophisticated military officers who have both a military and civilian perspective and education. They tend to be more realistic and at times argue against military deployments and missions that are being considered. However, once deployed and committed, it is culturally difficult or impossible for a member of the military to be pessimistic about the eventual
There is frequently a disagreement between the military and civilian leaders just as there are disagreements among most political personnel. Hawks, and people who have had experience in the military tend to think that military advice on military matters should be determinative with the President and Congress. Others tend to believe that military advice should be considered, but if it were always adhered to, there would be no point in having civilian control over the military. See {639667} for an example of when military leadership advice prevailed and it was a mistake.
Miles, a hero of the Indian Campaigns (although he led the atrocities at the massacre at Wounded Knee) and then the leading military figure in America was an opponent of the policies of the new young President and had political aspirations of his own for the Presidency. Miles’ opinions were printed in the press. He maintained that he was not speaking as the Commanding General of the Army but personally as a citizen. The President surprised almost all by publicly scolding and reprimanding Miles when he next came to the White House. Five days later Roosevelt made the reprimand official, effectively ending Miles career. The issue of when senior military officers can criticize the administration has been debated ever since. Roosevelt was also a war hero himself, and although the military was shocked by such “savage” treatment of a senior officer, the President had public opinion on his side. Every decade or so there is a military official who does not care for the administration’s policies and expresses himself publicly. President Truman’s firing to General Douglas Macarthur was the most dramatic case, but Truman was well aware of the Miles and TR precedent.
In principle few disagree. However, in practice the norm of American polity is that the civilian leaders must consult the military and or intelligence leaders and take their advice seriously. If they President and his civilian leadership to not take the advice, they pay a heavy political price as there is a sometimes contradictory norm that says that you must allow the military experts to run the battles. In the given case, the Iraq War, the President and Vice President made the decision to invade Iraq. However, if we believe them literally, they were heavily influenced by the intelligence agencies who assured them that Iraq had a nuclear weapon about to be completed. It was a “slam dunk” in the words of the CIA director— {633093}. JFK as a young president did not feel that he could override the CIA and DOD people who had assured him that the Bay of Pigs lading would trigger a massive uprising in Cuba. He was misled but had to take the responsibility for the fiasco where not a single person in Cuba rebelled. The President can and should override the best military advice when it is wrong, but how does he know? If he does, he always pays a short term price—even if he is right, for that is not clear for some time. Politics in a democracy is not easy in a democracy.
MacArthur had been the Commander of our Military Forces in Korea. He had a huge ego, and he wanted to cross the border and attack China since Chinese Troops were aiding the North Vietnamese. He had previously assured the Joint Chiefs of Staff and the President that the Chinese would not send troops into Korea, but he was then wrong. And when they had attacked, they had erased the territorial gains that MacArthur had previously gained. The Joint Chief’s of Staff, the Secretary of Defense and the Secretary of State had decided upon a strategy which this time did not follow MacArthur’s strategic advice. The President approved the strategy, but MacArthur spoke and acted contrary. The President met with MacArthur and reiterated the strategy that the President approved. But MacArthur did not follow the orders of the Joint Chiefs. At the time, he and Eisenhower were America’s two most famous military leaders, and of the two MacArthur was senior and thought that he should be President. After he was fired, MacArthur addressed a Joint Session of Congress and gave his "Old Soldiers Never Die" speech which was his first active step towards the Presidency. It was a very sentimental speech with little content and nothing about why he had disobeyed orders. He was totally shocked when it was Eisenhower who was selected to run for President and not him.
In Japan at that time there was no civilian control of the military and the military resented any attempt at the civilian government to influence military affairs in any way whatsoever. At the same time the military often tried to influence the politics of civilian government. The Emperor made this feeble effort to inhibit that, but as World War II proved, he had not tried very hard to prevent the military from dominating the country.
even though in this case the objective The State Department, the Defense Department and most important President Kennedy had decided to get rid of Diem. Most of the Central Intelligence Agency thought that this was a very unwise policy, because Diem was a known risk, and the people who would replace him and their talents and policies were unknown. The negatives of Diem—the facts that he, a Christian, was persecuting the majority Buddhists, was totally corrupt, and not a very good leader was less distressful to the CIA than to the President and the other agencies as the intelligence agency frequently not only tolerated “offensive” allies, but actually employed them including war criminals. Another importance of this quotation is that it shows that it was by no means certain that the CIA would always follow the orders of the President and the government policy makers. Colby, who was not the agency director at that time but was the head of the South East Bureau, was one high level official who argued that the policies should always be followed even if they were unwise or foolish. Another importance of this quotation is that it illustrate a common error that administrations are frequently forced to make: making a policy decision to eliminate a problem while not having much of an idea of what the alternative or consequence would be when the policy is implemented. The Syrian Civil War in 2013 was a good example. The Government side appeared to have used Chemical Warfare on Civilians and public opinion demanded that we do something. However, having a no-fly zone or any of the alternatives to prevent (punish) the government for the Chemical Warfare would strengthen the rebel side which was made up of numerous factions—some of which were known Islamic fundamentalist terrorists and jihadists. If the balance of power were tipped toward the rebels, the consequence for the American national interests were unknown—just as the consequence of ousting Diem was unknown and turned out to also be bad and was probably worse.
The Vietnam War did not appear to be going well for the United States. Congressman Murtha and a few other members of Congress asked the Commanding General what Congress should do in its oversight role. One problem is that most members of Congress took Westmoreland’s advice. It turned out that the military was fabricating statistics to show a more favorable outcome, and although the military could and did win any particular battle, the South Vietnamese Regime we were supporting was inept and corrupt, and we were making little strategic progress in the war. Congressional patience was later blamed by many for allowing the war effort to bog down and deteriorate with little or no oversight. At the time the statement was made, this was not a significant quotation. It became more important in the light of what happened. It was then heavily quoted in the Iraq war where the administration counseled Congressional and public patience although significant progress was not being made.
SCAF: Supreme Council of the Armed Forces. This quotation illustrates how difficult it is to establish a real democracy in Egypt in particular and most Middle Eastern countries in general. Essentially, the General wants to be sure that there is no check or control on the military in the new dupposedly democratic system. In a democracy, there are only two elements that the people have selected and who represent them—the President and the Parliament. If neither of these can command and control the military, then the people have no control over the military which then becomes a de facto aristocracy that has a veto on everything in the country. Making the situation more difficult is the fact that in Egypt (as in many non democratic nations) the military owns and controls a very large segment of businesses throughout the economy—more than any corporation or wealthy family. The civilian control of the military—one of the most fundamental aspects of the United States and every other true democracy—will not likely be possible in Egypt in the next decade or so.
The irony is that it is just for the lack of this fundamental principle that Napoleon eventually became the Government and the Military in France.
The issue of whether the military has any rights per se in a democracy or is an institution established and controlled by the people is one that separates many countries today. In one philosophy—held by America and most industrial democracies—the military is completely subservient to and under the control of the people and their government. The other view held by many societies controlled by the military is that the military is a subset of the people with specific rights granted to it. In some countries the military can name representatives, can veto legislation and are considered a faction just like political parties. See China, Turkey, Argentina, and Indonesia for examples of the latter view.
He fought in Algeria and other counterinsurgencies and then studied them. He wrote the classic book on counterinsurgency warfare. After all the mistakes the U. S. made after the successful invasion of Iraq, his book and doctrine were very influential in the change in strategy and tactics that turned the Iraq War in our favor.
