Doldrum Analysis
Lt Col Santosh Kumar Dhakal, presented in National Defense University
U.S. Civil –Military Relations in Doldrum
The present state of U.S. Civil Military relations reflects sporadic frustration and disharmony. The tantrum mainly could be due to its sapping into prolonged conflict with broad objective yielding very less tangible results. The nature of the war on which U.S. presently is with its grand alliance entail the highest degree of passion .As Churchill was eager to wait prolong ‘to empty the pond with a cup’. The political intent and military requirement is difficult to match and criticizing each other, which has wedged the cleavage into civil-military relations. The sudden deputation of Gen David Paetraus to Afghanistan portrays …show more content…
Stanley McChrystal crossing the professional limit and the civilian authority letting a general to be goaded to reach to the state both portrays the state of confusion between the two entities. The political masters should take responsibility to match the means with the ends and need to ponder beyond the horizon of political objective; as a great British Military Historian Captain Liddell Hart said as a visualization of events at the grand strategic level. The general officers giving their opinion challenging the political turf and the politician’s speedy reaction displays the immature professionalism and deep rooted mistrust between it. The politician’s immediate action is taken as a pyrrhic victory over the military. It is indeed a foolhardy action on both the sides to create a state of confusion down the command echelon and to the public, which subsequently is hearting the sentiment of broader alliance formed against the war on …show more content…
The interpretation of ‘loyalty’ has created a rift. Presidents and secretaries of defense expect their generals to be loyal to them. The generals feel the same and they expect the same from their subordinates. The caveat lies on the oath of office of an American officer is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. It defines disloyalty as loyalty within the constitutional prerogative.
The presidents getting surrounded by his cronies and deciding military affairs before discussing the affairs with the military is like keeping the cart before the horse. It is one of the principal factors creating rift in civil-military relations. The presidents should not hesitate to breach permissible command echelon and paying visit to the field commander to know their sentiments is important but always an overlooking factor of civ-military relations. The lust of popularity and cashing political benefits of any military venture tend to invite media to meddle into civ-military relations is not a good way to maintain each others
U.S. Civil –Military Relations in Doldrum
The present state of U.S. Civil Military relations reflects sporadic frustration and disharmony. The tantrum mainly could be due to its sapping into prolonged conflict with broad objective yielding very less tangible results. The nature of the war on which U.S. presently is with its grand alliance entail the highest degree of passion .As Churchill was eager to wait prolong ‘to empty the pond with a cup’. The political intent and military requirement is difficult to match and criticizing each other, which has wedged the cleavage into civil-military relations. The sudden deputation of Gen David Paetraus to Afghanistan portrays …show more content…
Stanley McChrystal crossing the professional limit and the civilian authority letting a general to be goaded to reach to the state both portrays the state of confusion between the two entities. The political masters should take responsibility to match the means with the ends and need to ponder beyond the horizon of political objective; as a great British Military Historian Captain Liddell Hart said as a visualization of events at the grand strategic level. The general officers giving their opinion challenging the political turf and the politician’s speedy reaction displays the immature professionalism and deep rooted mistrust between it. The politician’s immediate action is taken as a pyrrhic victory over the military. It is indeed a foolhardy action on both the sides to create a state of confusion down the command echelon and to the public, which subsequently is hearting the sentiment of broader alliance formed against the war on …show more content…
The interpretation of ‘loyalty’ has created a rift. Presidents and secretaries of defense expect their generals to be loyal to them. The generals feel the same and they expect the same from their subordinates. The caveat lies on the oath of office of an American officer is to “protect and defend the Constitution of the United States”. It defines disloyalty as loyalty within the constitutional prerogative.
The presidents getting surrounded by his cronies and deciding military affairs before discussing the affairs with the military is like keeping the cart before the horse. It is one of the principal factors creating rift in civil-military relations. The presidents should not hesitate to breach permissible command echelon and paying visit to the field commander to know their sentiments is important but always an overlooking factor of civ-military relations. The lust of popularity and cashing political benefits of any military venture tend to invite media to meddle into civ-military relations is not a good way to maintain each others