BACKGROUND

Most people are familiar with the United States and their successful armed struggle for independence. However in 1782, just after the Revolutionary War (which lasted six years, from 1775-1781), some officers who felt that they had received inadequate compensation for their wartime services in the victorious Continental Army contemplated a military revolt against the civilian government. These malcontents, hoping to secure the support of their commander, gathered in New York to hear the views of General George Washington. Before he offered his formal remarks, Washington donned a pair of eyeglasses and said: "Gentlemen, you will permit me to put on my spectacles, for I have not only grown grey, but also blind, in the service of my country." Then he flatly refused to support a military mutiny, calling instead for the disbandment of the army and continued loyalty to the civilian government. Washington’s firm stance forestalled the mutiny.

Ever since, US military leadership has accepted civilian control. Military coups and arbitrary military control of government are entirely absent from the experience of the US. Even during periods of warfare, the nation has conducted regularly scheduled political events, including presidential elections during the years of the Civil War, World War II, and the Korean and Vietnam conflicts. This is an enviable record that results from the unshakeable conviction of the American people that civilian control of the armed services is an essential aspect of government of, by and for the people. Civilian control of the military helps to ensure that decisions concerning defence policy do not compromise fundamental democratic values.

The men and women who first came from Europe to America remembered revolutionary struggles in England, and independence struggles in Scotland, Wales, Ireland, and elsewhere. Central Europeans had experienced constant warfare and its hardships. So, despite the military dangers the American colonists faced themselves, with the French, the Spanish, and displaced Indian tribes, early Americans expressed anti-military sentiments. They relied on a system of militia composed of male citizens who provided their own equipment and, later on, volunteer forces supported by the legislature. The successful defence of the American settlements during this colonial era strengthened local confidence that a militia of volunteers sufficed and that a standing army was not necessary to ensure security.

By 1775, the Americans found themselves in open revolt against English authority which was backed up by tremendous military might. It was reminiscent of the military tyranny they thought they had escaped in coming to the New World. These were deep feelings. The experience of the colonial era and the Revolutionary War confirmed the American conviction that civilian control of the military was an indispensable attribute of liberty and democracy. Citizen-soldiers, called to arms in emergencies, could provide needed military personnel without threatening the well-being of the state or civilian values.

In 1787, the Constitutional Court met in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to draft a constitution for the newly independent United States. George Washington was chosen to preside over this gathering. This was an attempt to strengthen the central government without compromising the liberties for which the nation had fought during the Revolutionary War. The Constitutional Court devoted a great deal of attention to the question of national defence. The participants attempted to balance the need to provide central government with the power necessary to ensure national security, against the desire to uphold civil and political liberties. And ultimately, a variety of structural devices were chosen to guard against an unduly powerful central government, many of which affected the way US defence philosophy evolved. Federalism, separation of powers, checks and balances, are all familiar concepts for those involved in the formulation of a constitution. But by far the most important military clause in the Constitution of the US, says that "[t]he President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States." Given his dual roles of chief executive and commander-in-chief, the president heads both the civil government and the military services. This arrangement ensures that the civilian chief executive stands at the head of the military chain of command, he ensures civilian control over the making of military policy. Although the executive branch plays the predominant role in maintaining civilian control, the legislative branch of government also has a strong influence in military affairs, especially through control of the budget.

Throughout the 1800s, the Army and Navy remained small and on the periphery of American life. Their size and degree of isolation guaranteed a small role in national political life and strengthened the principle of civilian control. The military wished to have considerable freedom of action in making local tactical judgements which they were uniquely qualified to decide, and the civilian leadership agreed. But the determination of national political objectives and strategic designs always remained in civilian hands.

Perhaps the most important factor in the continuing commitment to civilian control, was the absence of significant and sustained threats to US national security until the 20th century. A stable Europe allowed Americans to concentrate on internal affairs, requiring only very small armed forces that emphasised peacetime missions while geographic barriers ensured security. The one important exception to this peace, however, was the US Civil War from 1861-1865. Both sides put large, full-time armies into the field and the principle of civilian control was certainly put to the test. The Civil War affected many aspects of life, but it did not have a marked effect on either public attitudes towards the Army or Navy, or the institutional arrangements for them. The war was viewed in the American experience as a one-time catastrophe. The public did not discern a need to make permanent changes in military policies in reaction to a threat that would never recur. Soon after hostilities ended, the powerful wartime forces were demobilised, and the armed services reverted to the pre-war status quo.

US DEFENCE IN THE 20TH CENTURY

At the beginning of the 20th century, many called for military reform, enlarged military forces and improvements in warfighting capabilities. But the most striking feature during this period was the continuity in traditional defence policy. Despite reform efforts, neither the Army nor the Navy could have challenged forces maintained by the great powers of Europe. By the end of the 19th century, the US were recognised as one of the great powers when using such measures of strength as industrial production, national wealth and population, but its armed forces lagged far behind those of its rivals.

In the 20th century, however, new dangers forced a revolution in America’s approach to its national security, and the tensions between military values and civil values were highlighted. After all, it is easy to establish and maintain civilian control over the military when you are at peace. The extensive warfare of the post-1914 period increased the priority and prestige accorded to the armed services.

WORLD WAR I AND II

The US intervention in World War I signalled a departure in the nation’s security policy. America abandoned the policy of isolation and turned to a policy of extensive engagement in the affairs of Eurasia. Participation in the war stimulated extensive institutional innovations designed to improve civil-military communication and strengthen the efficiency of the armed forces. Military leaders were allowed considerable freedom of action in conducting field operations when tactical measures did not compromise the larger political objectives of the nation. On the other hand, civilian leaders largely controlled the mobilisation. Despite the remarkable expansion in size and prestige of the armed forces, civilian control was never relaxed during World War I. President Wilson retained firm direction of the armed forces, acting through the civilian heads of the military departments. After the war, the nation again retreated from international politics and reduced its armed forces.

This, of course, changed again with the hostilities leading to World War II. But developments during this war paralleled those of World War I in many respects. Again, the war, despite its length and its intensity, did not breed significant challenges to civilian control. The wartime crisis enhanced military participation in national planning and decision-making, but military leaders did not attempt to supplant appropriate civilian influence. The much enlarged defence establishment included many civilians and citizen-soldiers, who identified with established traditions of civilian control.

What accounts for this preservation and even strengthening of civilian control in the US during the great wars of the 20th century? First and perhaps foremost, Americans viewed the expansion of the military establishment as an unavoidable measure to ensure the preservation of their freedom. These wars were about the defence of democracy, and civilian control of the military was part of that concept of democracy. Secondly, during the last years of the 19th century and into the 20th century, the US military services became thoroughly professionalised. More and more, armed service was seen as a profession requiring commitment to professional excellence, but this professional excellence generally excluded concern with political, economic or civil matters. Hence, by definition, in the US military, professionalism embraces the commitment to civilian control of the military. This does not exclude participation in political debate.

THE COLD WAR

The most important dynamic of recent times was the Cold War. The US accepted the burdens of the Cold War because the majority of American citizens were convinced that nothing less would preserve their democratic life. The public continued to oppose developments that they thought might lead to expanded military influence. The military profession in America also retained its strong commitment to civilian leadership. Americans believe in civilian control even when a general become president. Perhaps the most famous was Dwight D. Eisenhower. His unsuccessful attempts to resist nomination for the presidency, included citing his own military professionalism. "The necessary and wise subordination of the military to civil power will be best sustained, and our people will have greater confidence that it is so sustained, when lifelong professional soldiers, in the absence of some obvious and overriding reasons, abstain from seeking high political office." As president, Eisenhower warned against the rise of a ‘military-industrial complex’ that might gain undue political influence and subvert traditional democratic values. This is an example of military professionalism at its best in respect for civilian control. The Cold War was really a time in which the principle of civilian control remained firmly imbedded in the consciousness of the American people, both in the civilian and military sectors.

THE KOREAN AND VIETNAM WARS

Important tests of civilian control came in the course of the Korean War (1950-53) and the Vietnam War (1965-73). Attempts to keep these wars limited led to adjustments in US civil-military relationships. Some of these adjustments deprived uniformed professionals of traditional authority and caused stress in civil military relationships. The most obvious was greater direction from Washington of military operations and tactics in the field - the most cherished prerogative of the officer corps. Korea is famous for one of the most visible civil-military flare-ups. General Douglas MacArthur publicly criticised President Truman’s policies in Korea. This posed a direct challenge to the civilian control of the military. Truman removed MacArthur from command, supported by the Secretary of Defence and senior military advisors - this was a real and public affirmation of the principle of civilian authority. The Vietnam War, like the Korean War, was broadly unpopular with the American people. The political decision to limit the conflict led to curbs on the kind of military activities allowed in the field. Restrictive rules of engagement were enforced to avoid undue provocation. Certain operations were ruled out, including an invasion of North Vietnam. And yet, despite these tensions, the pressures of wartime, and the disillusionment of the military over its defeat in Vietnam, the traditional military acceptance of civilian control was not eroded.

In short, the historical experience of the American people shows that they have remained committed to civilian control - whether the nation was weak or strong, whether times were good or bad, and whether there was peace or war. Americans have never wavered in their belief that civilian control of the military is an essential component of government of, by, and for the people, and that it strengthens national security in troubled times. Every nation has a unique historical experience. Nevertheless, the thirst for freedom, so marked in the American experience, is universal. There are many roads to democracy, but certain principles are essential. One of them is civilian control of the military establishment. The complete absence of military coups and arbitrary rule throughout the history of the US is the measure of its utility.

THE ROLE OF A MILITARY IN A DEMOCRACY

The core question underlying discussions of the role of a military in a democracy is: "How does a country achieve the delicate balance between liberty and security. How does a country create and maintain an effective professional military organisation that does not threaten, but rather supports, public demands for liberty, while providing security?" Achieving this balance is an extremely complex and difficult process, and countries world-wide - not just in Africa or the developing world, but including the US - must constantly grapple with it. There is no universal answer or final wisdom on this issue: countries’ different historical experiences, cultural systems, and economic systems preclude a single solution.

The meaning of the term democracy, a concept widely used these days, needs to be clarified. There are many styles and types of democracy: parliamentary, presidential, unitary, federal, socialist, liberal, etc. But all democracies have one thing in common. Democracy is government by the people and for the people. Supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly or indirectly through a system of representation and delegated authority in which the people choose their representatives in free and fair elections conducted on a regular basis. The key here is that supreme power is vested in the people. People create government to protect their existing rights - the government does not give people their rights. Government is instituted to protect rights which already exist. The key fundamental responsibility of a democratic government is to protect the human rights of its citizens. The legitimacy of the government comes from the consent of those governed.

There are other traits: tolerance for minorities (be they ethnic, religious, regional, or political); freedom of expression; respect for the dignity and worth of the individual, and individual human rights; and opportunity for all citizens to develop to their full capacity. How does a military fit into this type of society? An old military officer was fond of saying that the purpose of a military is to break things and kill people. Clausewitz was a bit more delicate when he said: "The end for which a soldier is recruited, clothed, armed, and trained, the whole object of his sleeping, eating, drinking and marching, is simply that he should fight at the right place and the right time." In a democracy, the military must look to the government - really to the people whom the government represents - for their purpose, definition, and mission. In a democracy, the people, through their representatives, determine the organisation and mission of the defence forces, whether and when the military will engage in a war, and if war aims have been achieved in a satisfactory way. In short, the military derives its legitimacy from the elected government. Thus, any disobedience by the military of direction from the elected government, is an illegitimate action.

The military must be accountable to the people in a democracy. They have to be responsible for using the military tool as the government, that is the people, wishes it to. All parts of the government should be accountable, but this is especially true for the military, because only the armed forces possess such a wealth of capability and expertise in using lethal violence which could, ultimately, threaten democracy itself. Such power is extraordinary. The US has recently deployed naval carrier groups to the waters near China. Each US nuclear carrier costs $4 billion dollars. There are 6 000 men on a single aircraft carrier that is longer than three soccer fields. A B-2 bomber costs almost $1 billion dollars. The US have a standing force of 1,4 million men and women and a budget of $250 billion a year, after severe cuts. The military clearly has a tremendous responsibility.

The liberty-security balance is an exceptionally delicate one in a democracy. Military professionals wield violence on society’s behalf, as directed by the government - but only on that society’s behalf, never in pursuit of a personal or institutional interest. This places the military in a manifestly subordinate relationship to the society. The principal lesson here is that ties between the military and democracy’s wider political purposes should be created, strengthened, and maintained. Militaries - for better or worse - reflect the values of their societies. Particularly in democracies, militaries and the societies which the militaries serve, must adhere to the same basic value system.

Questions are sometimes asked about the ethnic composition of US armed forces and racial problems. Though there are some problems, the military continues to reflect the values of society. If there are racial tensions in American society, there will be racial tensions in the military. But the important point is that some of these problems are transcended because of notions of professionalism. If a white racist soldier receives an order from a black sergeant, he must obey that order based on his military professionalism, and not on his own personal values.

Great care must be taken to separate internal and external security functions and structures. There may be times when the military must respond to an internal crisis. Again, civilian control is essential, particularly for something like the use of the American military during recent riots in Los Angeles. This was at the request of the local civilian governor and the forces remained under civilian control. The explicit objective of such an intervention must be the restoration of civil authority and the protection of lives and property. The military has its own function; it cannot be called upon to react to social and economic problems. Whether a military is used for internal or external purposes, it is absolutely essential that it has the trust of the society which gives it its direction and purpose.

Analysts and academics claim that the military should be apolitical. That is not only wrong, but impossible. Democracy is the competition of ideas. As a military professional a person will have certain expertise and experience which can and should contribute to the debate on military participation in policy formulation. How could the civilian leadership make informed, calculated decisions about security issues without consulting their experts? In the US military, officers are called into discussions at all levels of policy debate. They advise the president, are called upon to provide information to Congress, and are members of the Vice President’s immediate foreign policy staff. They are intimate players in the debate, as they should be, and are necessarily part of the political process. But the military in a democracy must remain non-partisan. And when the civilian leadership makes a decision, they salute smartly and implement that decision. In a democracy, the military should swear its oath of loyalty to the Constitution or the state, not to a political party, or to an individual, or to a faction of government. The military should remain aloof from involvement in politics. This is not to say that individuals may not hold their own views on politics, but these views should not interfere with their role as soldiers.

Civilian control of the military is essential to ensure that the military is responsive to the will of the people and is effectively managed to achieve overall national objectives. Effective civilian control, though, places certain responsibilities on both civilian and military leadership. The armed forces must not dominate the government or impose their will upon civilian institutions and organisations. The armed forces must see themselves as servants of all the people, not for themselves or a particular segment of society alone. The armed forces must change in size, composition and mission as directed by civilian leaders. The military must provide accurate and timely information and recommendations to the public and to civilian leaders regarding decisions that affect the military. The armed forces must understand which decisions should be made by political leaders and which can be properly delegated to military leaders.

As mentioned, the civilian leadership must also assume responsibilities. They must be well-informed on military issues. How can civilian leadership allocate a military budget or approve weapons systems programmes or decide on the size and composition of the force without knowledge of the military? Civilian leaders should leave the planning and execution of operational matters to military professionals. They should understand which decisions can be left to the military professionals. And they should heed the valuable advice provided by their military colleagues. Maintaining the balance of liberty and security, and the dominance of civilian control is a complex task and all sides have certain responsibilities.

Democracy is a great unfinished experiment. The military has a key role to play in protecting and promoting democracy. In democracies there will always be challenges to the delicate balance between liberty and security. One way to manage these tensions is to develop a solid, legitimate, constitutional framework that will accommodate them. But civilian and military leaders must also live up to their responsibilities. There is an ongoing debate on the role of the military in the future of countries and the world itself. Decision-makers face hard choices in a new and complex environment. In the US, the civilian and military leadership is dealing with many of the issues faced by other countries: what is the mission of the military (and a corollary: how large should the military be? how should it be composed?); should the military be involved in civic action programmes?; is the use of the military in humanitarian emergencies appropriate?; should troops and materiel be committed to international peacekeeping efforts? On the one hand, there is tremendous pressure, both political and economic, to cut military budgets and streamline forces, with resources becoming scarce. Yet, despite the end of the Cold War, the world is still a dangerous place. Some, in fact, would argue that the world is more dangerous than ever.

There will be continued pressure, both internal and external, to downsize military forces throughout the world. This will mean that militaries will have to be more competent, efficient, and professional than ever before. These smaller forces will have to be more highly trained and educated than the forces of the past. With regard to demobilisation, it is imperative that efforts should be undertaken in a rational, holistic way. Civilian leaders must see demobilisation as a long term process which must include the reintegration of soldiers into society. Civilian leaders must listen to the advice of their military experts as they make these hard decisions. Similarly, military leaders must provide wise and honest policy guidance as they evaluate the security threat and attempt to rationalise the size and missions of their forces.

Militaries around the world will still be called upon to help with humanitarian crises, both natural and man-made. The purpose of a recent US exercise was to help in planning a response to the next humanitarian crisis in Africa. There are two important points here. Firstly, the assumption had already been made that there would be another humanitarian crisis, and secondly, that militaries would be called upon to assist. All militaries do have certain specific qualities which make them valuable in crisis situations. They can move quickly, and have highly trained competent forces, and useful materiel. But civilian leaders who call on militaries for help, must recognise that the skills of a soldier are not the same as those of a humanitarian. Civilian leaders must recognise that the use of the military in humanitarian projects can have an impact on military preparation. American military participation in humanitarian efforts in Rwanda, Somalia, and Haiti were funded directly out of operational budgets. Flying C-5 and C-130 aircraft in support of humanitarian efforts places the same wear and tear on airframes as airlifting troops and equipment for combat. Once more, military leaders must provide realistic and honest assessments to civilian decision-makers of the potential impact.

CONCLUSION

In the US, the issue of peace operations has led to an energetic and sometimes acrimonious debate about American participation in such operations. The US continues to support peace operations at all levels: through its UN assessments; through support to the OAU and to subregional groups; bilaterally, through support to individual nations; and through diplomatic conflict resolution efforts. Unfortunately, co-operative peace operations are here to stay, as there is no shortage of opportunities in the world to undertake these operations. But, the US are struggling with their approach to this problem. There is certainly not yet a crystal clear strategy in the US. The respective civilian and military leaderships must work together to devise effective plans to pursue conflict resolution. Military leaders must provide assessments and advice to civilian leadership and those civilians must recognise the impact of committing military forces to international peacekeeping efforts.

The future is an uncertain mix of challenges and opportunities. The world is complicated and dangerous. It is essential that the civilian and military leadership of nations, of Africa, and indeed of the rest of the world, devote time, energy, and intellect to these challenges of the future. It is serious business, as these issues will continue to apply pressures and tensions on civil-military relationships.

1 Edited version of a paper read at the Angolan National Defence Symposium, Ministry of National Defence, Luanda, Angola, 27 March 1996.