Subordinate to the Civil Authority
The military can be an extremely odd beast. Historically, the military forces of any country hold the keys to power, because, as Mao Tse Tung realized, "power comes from the barrel of a gun."
As civilization grew, and the means for defending against intruders changed; (and the means for enhancing intrusions also changed), power did in fact come from those that had the best weapons, tactics or intrigue. The various lines of warrior kings came into being because warriors were the only ones with the strength to hold together any kind of government and protect it from an assortment of threats. This all makes perfect sense, from a pragmatic point of view, and it might be expected that this type of system would continue blithely along, defeating all opposition.
In much of the world this does, in fact, happen. A brief scan of the governments throughout the world shows that a great many of them are led by the traditional strongman, and that those leaders came into power by using the military power that was available to them. Muammar Gaddafi and Saddam Hussein are good examples. Other countries are led by people who used force to enter power but are not themselves military, such as Iran, and China. Russia may go this way in the near future. The military in a great many countries plays an important part in politics.
Most Western countries on the other hand, have leaders who achieved their position without the exercise of brute force. Western Europe, North and most of South and Central America, choose leaders by elections of some sort, with varying degrees of military participation, but not military control. Why the difference?
In the United States, it appears to be a matter of distrust that was begun with the republic and has continued down through history. After the Revolution, the Navy was disbanded and the Army was reduced to about 800 men, in order to keep it from exerting improper control over the government. This also prevented it from being an effective force in the event of Indian troubles or invasion; but those problems were initially covered by the local militias, until the Federal troops could arrive.
The country was in the process of recovering from the war, and making a living generally got precedence over military adventures. Commercial ventures were looked on as the real challenge. Socially, military men were respected, but the part-timers, the militia, tended to be respected more than someone who spent his career in the service, because they were seen to be building the country, while career men were seen as a financial burden. Civil luminaries tended to also be militia leaders because the troops voted for their captains and colonels. The same influences that led a man to be a mayor, say, would also propel him into being elected colonel and leading a regiment.
Latest Articles