Comments
I think that officers have a moral and, in some cases, a legal obligation to respectfully disagree with superiors. After the argument is made for the disagreement, an officer must either follow orders or, in some cases, resign in protest. All decisions come with consequences. Therefore, no decision should be made without considering what these consequences would be. The only true way to gauge which option to take is by asking if you can live with the decision i.e. look at oneself in the mirror afterward.
Recommend Samuel E. Finer's book "The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics" for a more detailed appreciation of the subject.
Bottom line. Common assumption appears to be that it is somehow "natural" for the military to obey the civil power (food for thought as we build an effective Afghan security force).
Modes of military intervention in politics are expressed through normal constitutional channels; collusion or competition with civilian authorities; intimidation of civil authorities, threats of non-co-operation with or violence towards civilian authorities; failure to defend the civilian authorities against violence and finally outright violence against the civilian authorities.
We must never forget that the military is a purposive instrument and that its benevolent nature should never be taken for granted.
r/
MAC
How does the Constitution define civilian control of the military?
Section 8 - Powers of Congress
The Congress shall have the power:
To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;
To provide and maintain a Navy;
To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;
To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;
To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;
Section 2 - Civilian Power over Military, Cabinet, Pardon Power, Appointments
The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to Grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.
I mention this because this must be the start point for the discussion of civilian control of the military. Seems clear to me (but I will leave this to the Constiutional Scholars) that the framers intended for the military to be controlled by the civilians in Congerss granted them authority and respsibility for declaring war, raising the Army and maintaining the Navy and making the rules for the governance and regulation the military. Pretty clear that the Congerss declares war and provides the resoruces (funding) for the military and its operations and equipment). The President is the CINC and controls the military. As mentioned above there has been recent insertion of civilians into operations at the tactical level, eg., on PRTs, etc. However,is a civilian in control of a PRT with military personnel on it the "civilian control" envision by or specfically stated by the framers of the Constitution? All these other types of "civilian control" other than wha the Constitution says, must be opned to debate and interpretation.
The issue of civil-military relations has long been viewed through the lens of a very silly academic statement that says, "Civilians control military personnel period."
Both historically and practically this is only relatively true. Yes, at the end of the day an openly insubordinate general officer will be relieved. Anything short of this is where judgement comes in.
Also keep in mind that during the last ten years civilian authorities have been systematically inserted into tactical positions that historically they were not involved in. During WWII lawyers were not consulted about the legality of air strikes. Civilians were not a part of PRT type organizations either.
The closer a civilian gets to the implementation of a military operation the greater pushback those civilian authorities will receive.
None of this has been helped by the often clueless decisions that have been made at DoS and the various intelligence organizations out there.
In the US, at least, little chance currently exists for the open revolt of a military unit wholesale, let alone some kind of coup.
Considering the educational level of your average senior NCO and officer in service right now, I hardly find it surprising that a significant portion of the DoD has issues with some of the decsions being made by civilian leadership. Also keep in mind that a professional, vice conscript military, will always feel much more qualified to make certain decisions as this is their profession. Civilians in this regard are the amateurs.
My first reaction was holy #$@% how can active duty officers think this would be a good thing. My second was what makes these same officers think disobeying orders would be ok "if his civilian leaders are incompetent, writes Milburn" Who judges what is incompetence and what isn't? How would these same officers react if their subordinates decided to disobey orders they beleived to be incompetent. This is pure arrogance and ignorance. The Constitution is clear the civilians are in charge like it or not.
This topic has gotten me so fired up that I have to comment here, too. What LTC Milburn apparently does not understand is the nature of what it means to be a "professional." Members of professions do not have full moral autonomy in the execution of their duties. Lawyers are often required under the professional code of ethics to take actions that are, at best, morally questionable. The code of ethics is in place to protect the legitimacy of the legal system. Without it, the system cannot function -- it would no longer guarantee just outcomes or the predictability in the law that the Rule of Law requires. The code of ethics is required for the profession (and, by extension, the legal system) to fulfill its societal role.
The military is a profession. It requires its members to adhere to a certain code of conduct in order for it to fulfill its societal role. That code of conduct is much more simple than the lawyer's code of ethics: a member of the military need only follow all legal regulations and orders promulgated by the civilian leadership. He is not a public advocate for his service, nor is he an advocate for policy alternatives. Yes, he can advise his civilian leaders, educate them on the capabilities of the military, and even discuss possible consequences of choosing a particular course of action or policy. But he is not a policy maker. His obligation is to ensure that the civilian leadership has all of the information needed to make the decision. And once that decision is made, his job is to salute smartly, say "Roger, sir," and execute.