Civil military relations and George Washington

George Washington is rightfully considered the father of our country. He was instrumental in securing success during the American Revolution. However, I believe his contributions go far deeper than his military successes. The United States has been remarkably free of the military coups that have plagued much of the rest of the world. South America is a prime example, with most of their countries going through repeated military coups. What makes the United States different?

Some would pose that it is the subordination of military to civilian rule that is written into the constitution. Others would pose that it is the checks and balances between the various branches of government. Still others would pose that it is the fair and representative government that was created by the founding fathers that prevents the military coups that have plagued much of the rest of the world.

All the previously stated reasons do not prevent a charismatic military commander loved by his subordinates from ordering his forces to march on Washington DC to right some real or perceived wrong against the military by the federal government.

I believe that it was the personal example of George Washington himself that has prevented military coups in this nation. George Washington declined the offer of 'Emperor' following his success against the British. In addition, he resigned his commission and returned it to Congress in 1783 before accepting the presidency. His example set the standard for all future military officers. His spirit in the minds of military officers is what has prevented any military coups in the US.

However, civil military relations are complicated now even though there is no threat of revolution. The military needs to advise the civilian leadership so that the elected representatives of the people (president and members of congress) can make well informed decisions about the application of military force to achieve national interests. When the civilian leadership listen to their military advisors, weighs the alternatives and consequences, and then makes a decision which the military executes is a good and healthy relationship. However, are relations between the military and the civilian leadership good right now because the civilian leadership is listening or because the civilian leadership has filled their advisor roles with 'yes' men?

Much arm chair quarterbacking has been done on the decision to go to Iraq. Hindsight is always 20/20. During the period leading up to the war, there was much discussion between the military and civilian leadership on the wisdom of going to Iraq. Several generals advised President Bush not to go to war in Iraq: GEN Zinni, Shinseki, and Abizaid to name a few. GEN Franks and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld supported the invasion of Iraq. This dissension among the military advisors to the president suggests a healthy military relationship with the civil authority. Our leadership listened to opposing views, weighed the options, and still decided to go to Iraq.

The military is an instrument of public policy wielded by the executive branch of government. We will give advice and tell the civilian leadership that it is a bad idea, but we will execute our orders once the decision has been made. One caution: VOTE - ensure that the military is an instrument of the public will and not the tool of the political elite unresponsive to the public will.