This post was inspired by Dr. Victor Oladokun 's earlier post about the emergence of Gen. James (Mad Dog) Mattis as the 26th Secretary of Defense of the United States.
Without a doubt, Gen. Mattis selection is a brilliant one but it brings up the age long narrative about intentional separation of Generals from controlling military establishments.
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national politics, is called a military dictatorship. A lack of control over the military may result in a state within a state.
That was the grave mistake nations like Nigeria, Congo, Madagascar and some other African countries made; allowing Generals seize control of the military apparatus of state.
According to provisions of the U.S. constitution, an individual may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within seven years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular (i.e., non-reserve) component of an armed force. Based on this provision, Gen. Mattis is disqualified however POTUS can seek for a waiver from Congress to be able to set aside this constraint. Generals Marshall and Patton both got a waiver to be Defense Secretary and both went on to do outstanding jobs.
Till today, the creation of landmark institutions like the IMF and World Bank is as a result of a fabulous veteran Defense Secretary like Gen. Marshall via the now famous #MarshallPlan.
Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People's Republic of China.
Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist–Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism.
And may I add that only a few of the past Secretaries of Defense were veterans, a small percentage, if you ask me.
But the crux of the matter is this:
"War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men (Generals)"
Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that:
The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around.
***
The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.
***
To a larger extent, these threats are not real given the maturity of U.S. democracy. However, it should not be encouraged in order not to mislead nascent democracies especially in third-world nations.
According to USA Today, Trump’s decision to name retired Gen. James Mattis to head the Pentagon is a strong signal that the president-elect wants a wartime leader at the Defense Department and not someone to just manage budgets. If confirmed by the Senate, Mattis would be a departure from previous defense secretaries who have come from the ranks of civilian government or politics. The current defense secretary, Ash Carter, is a physicist who rose through the ranks of the department.
In closing, I still reckon that Gen. Mattis selection is a good one but I hope he gets the needed waiver from the Congress given that he hasn't been in retirement for the stipulated 7 years
I wish him best of luck.
Written: December 4,2016
No comments:
Post a Comment