New York Times history lesson on civilian control of the military: Why now?

[Hannah Bell]

On Monday the New York Times ran a column on the historical origins of civilian control of the military...

Why did the Times run a column on the subject now? For whom was this history lesson intended?

For most of US history, the principle of military subordination to elected government has been accepted without comment — except in the two instances where its assertion was the most controversial: Abraham Lincoln’s sacking of General George McClellan in the Civil War, and Harry Truman’s dismissal of General Douglas MacArthur during the Korean War.

Especially noteworthy are the column’s opening and closing passages, which clearly refer to the present. “Civilian control of the military is a cherished principle in American government,” Miller writes..."The military advises, but the civilian leadership decides.”

Having told the story of Washington at Newburgh, Miller begins his last paragraph with a stark warning: “But powerful armies often make their own rules, and many nations have succumbed to military control despite strong constitutions.”

The Times’ decision to run this comment must be seen in light of the growing power of the military-intelligence apparatus and its increasingly open role in US political life. This power has grown immeasurably since 1961, when President Dwight Eisenhower warned of the threat to democracy posed by the “military-industrial complex” whose “total influence,” even then, was “felt in every city, every Statehouse, every office of the Federal government...”

In fact, Monday’s column is the newspaper’s second reference in recent weeks to fears of the dangers posed to civilian rule by the military and intelligence agencies.

The first was more oblique. A January 23 article, “Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan,” covered a recent trip to Pakistan by Defense Secretary Robert Gates and concluded with the following line: “His final message delivered, he relaxed on the 14-hour trip home by watching ‘Seven Days in May,’ the Cold War-era film about an attempted military coup in the United States.”

Given the growing assertiveness and impunity of the security apparatus, it seems unlikely that the decision to disclose this piece of information was gratuitous.

http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/feb2010/civi-f17.shtml

[ixion]

1. It should have been run in 2001

It's too little, too late, now. Much like the bureaucratic labyrinth that is DHS, once the Military apparatus has infested civilian government, it's difficult, at best, to extract.

[BeFree]

2. It's in the bottle

...the question is: when will they pop the cork?


You know there are a bunch of idiots in the pentagon who would like nothing better than to take power and rule the world with our military. PNAC comes to mind.

[SpiralHawk]

3. xCommander AWOL (R) & Chickenhawk Cronies purged the Pentagon as soon as he stole office

soon after they stole office. Remember?
http://www.defense-aerospace.com/article-view/feature/83163/op_ed:-learning-the-lessons-from-the-pentagon-purge.html