"WAR IS TOO IMPORTANT AND SERIOUS TO BE LEFT TO THE GENERALS." VON CLAUSEWITZ
In two recent events, Mr Trump seems to have delegated duties and authority as Commander in Chief to unknown regional military commanders. There is a danger in that policy. In the case of the bombing of eastern Afghanistan, with our most powerful non-nuclear weapon (MOAB), it appears that Mr. Trump was not even in the decision making loop. Yet he permitted a regional commander to deploy a weapon that was designed to be used as a strategic weapon. That action in Afghanistan may have (unintended?) international consequences. Some of which may be positive. In this case perhaps there was no harm done and perhaps some good. But in terms of general policy at the White House it is a mistake of massive proportions.
"Even when there is a necessity of the military power within the land , a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it." Samuel Adams 1768
There are too many examples of over eager generals taking too much authority on their own and ignoring the will of the responsible elected officials to recount here. But perhaps one. In the early 1950s the example of General Douglas McAurthur the "greates general of his era" and the ultimate strategist and tactician --a military genius--yet his focus only on the "battle before him and the defeat of his enemy" led him to ignore the geopolitics of his actions, and his defeat and forced resignation. His single-minded focus on winning the battle in North Korea led to a dramatic loss of life when tens of thousands of Chinese troops poured over the Yalu River, which McAurhtur considered a near impassable barrier. Mao Tes Tung "McAuthured" him with his surprise attack from an unexpected quarter. President Truman finally fired General McAuurthur and ended his career.
Mr. Trump must be reminded of the Von Clausewitz aphorism, loosely translated above...which warns that the "generals' and the state have different objectives and they must be kept separate. Because we admire our fighting men, particularly in times of war or danger to the state, does not mean that we should defer to their decision making. One must keep in mind that they have a culture and expertise all to their own...separate and distinct from the civilian and the statesman. They are trained to use the crude weapons of war to settle disputes. They are trained to destroy an enemy designated by their civilian authority. They live in a culture that brooks no questioning of authority...from below. Their culture demands that they take and follow orders. It does not to prepare them to make broad, national strategic decisions with long term consequences for the citizens of a democracy. (Oh you will remind me that there are exceptions--who can do it Eisenhower for one. ) Finally they are not elected officials, they do not represent the will of the people. They have no mandate to govern. They are only one ---the last resort---of means by which the decision makers--our representatives and the President--make manifest the policies of the state. They have no authority to make policy.
For Mr Trump--even Mr. Trum who is a novice politician and with no military experience--for him--who has the imprimatur and the power of the election of 2016---to defer to the general's will is to abdicate the power of the executive and the will of the people.
No comments:
Post a Comment