EgonSpengler
Deity
- Joined
- Jun 26, 2014
- Messages
- 12,260
Yes, that's probably a useful aspect of that rule, removing potential conflicts of interest.
Generally speaking, the principle (in the US) of civilian control of the military comes out of the fact that the military was how European kings and queens maintained control of the population, and the Founding Fathers wanted to prevent that. Some of them even thought we shouldn't have a standing army at all, and that the militia was a suitable military force for most purposes, and could be forged into a formal uniformed army if the fit really hit the shan. I think that's partly where the American veneration of the "militia" today comes from: Whereas the European leaders of the 18th Century viewed the militia as undisciplined rabble, American philosophers of the day envisioned the militia as the invested citizenry. The fear was that career military men would view themselves as apart from, or even above, the citizenry. iirc, George Washington was reluctant to be President, and stepped down voluntarily because he didn't want anyone to get the idea that electing a military man should be considered normal (he also didn't want anyone thinking that Presidents should be in office for life). I guess I don't know how people in the military view their relationship to civilians, today. There's been a lot said and written in the last decade or two about how few Americans serve in the military, or even have a friend or a relative who does, which risks leaving civilians disconnected from the military; I don't think I've seen anything about the reverse.
I think there also is or has been a concern that military men might be more inclined to see military force as appropriate or applicable. "Give a man hammer..." But it's been our civilian leadership that keeps throwing our military into stupid war after stupid war. Who knows, if military men had a real say in it, maybe the US would get into fewer wars than we do. After all, it was Eisenhower, a military man, who resisted sending our troops overseas unless it was really necessary, and who tried to warn us about the creeping influence of military weapons manufacturers, and it doesn't seem like many people listened to him. Not that Eisenhower was some kind of benevolent oracle. He was the one who approved of overthrowing Mossadeq. I'm just sayin' the concern that a military man might be quicker on the draw than a civilian doesn't seem to bear up to scrutiny.
