The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait PDF
Preview The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait
To My Parents on the occasion of their golden anniversary Preface To BEL IE v E that the military profession in the United States anticipates no future alternative but an inevitable major atomic war is to commit a crude error. To believe that the military have become integrated with other leadership groups into a monolithic national political establishment is to commit a sophisticated error. But to believe that the military are not an effective pressure group on the organs of government is to commit a political error. This study is an attempt to describe the professional life, organ izational setting, and leadership of the American military as they have evolved during the £rst half of this century. Treating the military profession as an object of social inquiry enables a fuller and more accurate assessment of its power position in American society and of its behavior in international relations. The military face a crisis as a profession: How can it organize itself to meet its multiple functions of strategic deterrence, limited warfare, and enlarged politico-military responsibility? First, there is the complex task of adapting the military establishment to con tinuous technological change. Second, there is the necessity of re defining strategy, doctrine, and professional self-conceptions. Main taining an effective organization while participating in emerging schemes, such as nuclear test controls or regional security arrange ments, will require new conceptions and produce new tasks for the military profession. Education, career lines, and the realities of military authority all influence the logic and decision-making processes of military leaders. Despite its concern with managerial issues, the profession has been able to maintain its heroic posture, in varying degree, and [ vii] [viii] PREFACE its public service·tradition. Above all, it must operate in response to political controls which are so distinctively American. The military profession is not a monolithic power group. A deep split pervades its ranks in respect to its doctrine and viewpoints on foreign affairs, a split which mirrors civilian disagreements. Instead, the military profession and the military establishment conform more to the pattern of an administrative pressure group, but one with a strong internal conflict of interest. It is a very special pressure group because of its immense resources, and because of its grave problems of national security. The military have accumulated con siderable power, and that power protrudes into the political fabric of contemporary society. It could not be otherwise. However, while they have no reluctance to press for larger budgets, they exercise their influence on political matters with considerable restraint and unease. Civilian control of military affairs remains intact and funda mentally acceptable to the military; any imbalance in military con tributions to politico-military affairs-domestic or international is therefore often the result of default by civilian political leader ship. Recent striking technological developments in the military over shadow the important growth of a new intellectualism among mili tary professionals: The military profession has become more and more dedicated to the development of a critical capacity and a critical outlook toward its tasks. The officer is taught that he must be realistic, that he must review the shortcomings of the past and the contemporary records of military affairs. Will this emphasis on critical capacities produce negativism, or will it lead to a concern with new solutions? The military profession, like any profession, runs the risks of confusing its technical and intellectual background with political expertness. One response already discernible is the search for a comprehensive ideology, at the expense of creative problem-solving. Another outcome would be an increased sense of frustration, which could become politically disruptive. It adds very little to assert that few nations have succeeded in both adequately solving the political problems of civil-military re lations and maintaining their political freedom. Great Britain is cited all too often as the special case; in that country political forms of civilian democratic control have remained intact over a long historical period which included extensive military operations. But PREFACE [ix] since old-fashioned military dictatorships are unfeasible in modem industrialized societies, it is equally outmoded to think in terms of maintaining traditional forms of political control. The moderniza tion of the agencies of civilian government is a continuous task, but it is not the direct subject of this study. Rather, the focus is on the military profession and its potentiality for development into a con stabulary force which would enable it to perform its national secu rity duties, and provide it with a new rationale for civilian political control. In the United States the task of civilian leadership includes not only the political direction of the military, but the prevention of the growth of frustration in the profession, of felt injustice, and inflexibility under the weight of its responsibilities.
The list of books you might like
