Suchergebnisse

Historically the character of civil-military relations in the United States has been dominated by the concept of civilian control of the military. This has largely been a response to the fear of praetorianism. As recently as 1949, for example, the first Hoover Commission asserted that one of the major reasons for strengthening the "means of exercising civilian control" over the defense establishment was to "safeguard our democratic traditions against militarism." This same warning was raised in the report of the Rockefeller Committee on defense organization in 1953. While the overriding purpose of the committee's recommendations was to provide "the Nation with maximum security at minimum cost," the report made it clear that this had to be achieved "without danger to our free institutions, based on the fundamental principle of civilian control of the Military Establishment." Finally, during the debate on the reorganization proposals of 1958, senators and congressmen used the theme of a "Prussianized" military staff to attempt to slow down the trend towards centralization in the military establishment.Despite this imposing support, the concept of civilian control of the military has little significance for contemporary problems of national security in the United States. In the first place, military leaders are divided among themselves, although their differences cannot be reduced to a crass contrast between dichomatic doctrines. Air Force leaders who are gravely concerned over the need to maintain a decisive nuclear retaliatory force are by now acknowledging the need to develop a limited war capability.

It is hardly necessary to assert that the armed forces have been important factors in the historical development of the nations of Latin America. By bringing into association men from all parts of the national territory, by posing as the incarnation of the national spirit, and by teaching patriotism and exalting national virtues, they have been a significant influence in overcoming regionalism and localism. By providing an avenue for advancement for members of lower social strata, they have encouraged social mobility. In many countries they have contributed to the transition from traditional to modern societies through their work in constructing communications systems, their emphasis on general and technical education within their ranks, and by their demands for industrialization.

Prepared for discussion entitled, "Challenges to traditional ethics: government, politics and administration," Jewish theological seminary of Am., New York, N.Y., Aug. 29-Sept. 1, 1960.

When the United States stumbled into possession of the Philippine Islands in 1898, Americans had not operated a military government since Reconstruction, and the task of ruling a populous alien colony was an unprecedented one for them. Because of the insurrection waged by Filipino guerrillas after February 1899, martial law could give way to civil control but gradually. The long transition provoked a civil-military conflict which, because the chief antagonists were famous fathers of now famous sons, has recently acquired a new interest. But the rivals of 1900–1901 should be judged for their own deeds. How and why did Major General Arthur MacArthur and Commissioner William Howard Taft fall out?