Azamat Kabdrash
More generals were nominated to the President’s cabinet since WWII. Sounds intimidating, doesn’t it? At least three military generals are going to be appointed to Trump’s Cabinet. Retired General James Mattis has been nominated as the Defense secretary; retired Marine General John Kelly has been nominated as the Homeland security secretary; and retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn has been appointed as the National security adviser.
Is this situation going to affect civil-military relations in political decision making? Would it undermine peaceful resolutions of military conflicts? To what extent can US politics turn extreme?
Huntington (1957) claimed that Ministers of military affairs do not have to be former soldiers. He argued for what he called “objective civilian control” over military. He stated that military viewpoint in politics can undermine efficiency of decision-making. Favoring the neutrality of military in state politics keeps military as a state tool, which, in turn, should be controlled by civilian ministers (58).
It seems that Donald Trump has a different opinion. His appointment of General Mattis as the Defense secretary is the most noticeable among others. Constitutionally it is prohibited to take the position of Defense secretary for military officers. At least 7 years should pass since an officer retired from military service. As Mattis retired in 2013, he will need a special waiver approved by Congress (which seems to be almost done) to allow to take that position.
Are these appointments really justified so that Congress should process a special waiver for Mattis? I present two facts that would support that they are justified.
Firstly, military members (especially generals) tend to have very conservative overviews. They are well adapted to live by rules and orders. Liberal values such as individualism and self-determination are very uncommon among them. Building a presidential cabinet, own circle, a team needs reliable people whom you can trust and consult with. In this regard, competent and, what is more important, “obedient” generals is a good choice for Trump to appoint them as secretaries.
Secondly, the whole beauty of the US Government is laid upon the check and balance system. What does it mean? Constitutionally the three branches – legislative, executive and judiciary – function with no prevailing authority over one another. It means that no decision is made, no bill is passed, no law is issued without the approval of all the three branches. Therefore, even if the Cabinet secretaries (representing an executive branch) might have utterly different standpoints on the US politics, it wouldn’t have extreme changes as long as there are two other branches left.
The three mentioned above appointed secretaries are highly expert former military professionals. Time will show us how they will perform their duties in civilian service. I hope that their unique military backgrounds would demonstrate how effective can civil-military relations be.
___________________
Drezner, D. W. 2016. My concern with Trump’s team of generals. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/05/my-concern-with-trumps-team-of-generals/?utm_term=.05bc3932ee33
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Wright, A., & Herb, J. 2017. Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550
More generals were nominated to the President’s cabinet since WWII. Sounds intimidating, doesn’t it? At least three military generals are going to be appointed to Trump’s Cabinet. Retired General James Mattis has been nominated as the Defense secretary; retired Marine General John Kelly has been nominated as the Homeland security secretary; and retired Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn has been appointed as the National security adviser.
Is this situation going to affect civil-military relations in political decision making? Would it undermine peaceful resolutions of military conflicts? To what extent can US politics turn extreme?
Huntington (1957) claimed that Ministers of military affairs do not have to be former soldiers. He argued for what he called “objective civilian control” over military. He stated that military viewpoint in politics can undermine efficiency of decision-making. Favoring the neutrality of military in state politics keeps military as a state tool, which, in turn, should be controlled by civilian ministers (58).
It seems that Donald Trump has a different opinion. His appointment of General Mattis as the Defense secretary is the most noticeable among others. Constitutionally it is prohibited to take the position of Defense secretary for military officers. At least 7 years should pass since an officer retired from military service. As Mattis retired in 2013, he will need a special waiver approved by Congress (which seems to be almost done) to allow to take that position.
Are these appointments really justified so that Congress should process a special waiver for Mattis? I present two facts that would support that they are justified.
Firstly, military members (especially generals) tend to have very conservative overviews. They are well adapted to live by rules and orders. Liberal values such as individualism and self-determination are very uncommon among them. Building a presidential cabinet, own circle, a team needs reliable people whom you can trust and consult with. In this regard, competent and, what is more important, “obedient” generals is a good choice for Trump to appoint them as secretaries.
Secondly, the whole beauty of the US Government is laid upon the check and balance system. What does it mean? Constitutionally the three branches – legislative, executive and judiciary – function with no prevailing authority over one another. It means that no decision is made, no bill is passed, no law is issued without the approval of all the three branches. Therefore, even if the Cabinet secretaries (representing an executive branch) might have utterly different standpoints on the US politics, it wouldn’t have extreme changes as long as there are two other branches left.
The three mentioned above appointed secretaries are highly expert former military professionals. Time will show us how they will perform their duties in civilian service. I hope that their unique military backgrounds would demonstrate how effective can civil-military relations be.
___________________
Drezner, D. W. 2016. My concern with Trump’s team of generals. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/12/05/my-concern-with-trumps-team-of-generals/?utm_term=.05bc3932ee33
Huntington, Samuel P. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge MA.
Wright, A., & Herb, J. 2017. Democrats’ role for Mattis: The anti-Trump. Retrieved January 17, 2017, from http://www.politico.com/story/2017/01/james-mattis-confirmation-hearing-takeaways-233550
No comments:
Post a Comment