Political Control Of The Military Essay, Research Paper

Political Control of the Military

"No new taxes." This is a quote that most all of us remember

from the 1992 presidential election. Along with it we remember that

there were new taxes during that presidents term in office. There are

a myriad of promises made and things done in a presidential election

year that have questionable motives as to whether they are done in the

best interest of the people or in the interests of the presidential

candidate. These hidden interests are one of the biggest problems

with the political aspects of government in modern society. One of

the prime examples of this is the Vietnam War. Although South Vietnam

asked for our help, which we had previously promised, the entire

conflict was managed in order to meet personal political agendas and

to remain politically correct in the world?s eyes rather than to bring

a quick and decisive end to the conflict. This can be seen in the

selective bombing of Hanoi throughout the course of the Vietnam War.

Politically this strategy looked very good. However, militarily it

was ludicrous. War is the one arena in which politicians have no

place. War is the military?s sole purpose. Therefore, the U. S.

Military should be allowed to conduct any war, conflict, or police

action that it has been committed to without political interference or

control because of the problems and hidden interests which are always

present when dealing with politics

United States involvement in the Vietnam War actually began in

1950 when the U. S. began to subsidize the French Army in South

Vietnam. This involvement continued to escalate throughout the 1950?s

and into the early 1960?s. On August 4, 1964 the Gulf of Tonkin

incident occurred in which American Naval Vessels in South Vietnamese

waters were fired upon by North Vietnam. On August 5, 1964 President

Johnson requested a resolution expressing the determination of the

United Sates in supporting freedom and in protecting peace in

Southeast Asia (Johnson). On August 7, 1964, in response to the

presidential request, Congress authorized President Johnson to take

all necessary measures to repel any attack and to prevent aggression

against the U. S. in southeast Asia (United States). The selective

bombing of North Vietnam began immediately in response to this

resolution. In March of the following year U. S. troops began to

arrive.

Although the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution specifically stated

that we had no military, political, or territorial ambitions in

southeast Asia, the interests back home were quite a different story

(Johnson). The political involvement in Vietnam was about much more

than just promised aid to a weak country in order to prevent the

spread of communism. It was about money. After all, wars require

equipment, guns, tools and machinery. Most of which was produced in

the United States. It was about proving America?s commitment to stop

Communism. Or rather to confine communism in its present boundaries

But most of all it was about politics. The presidential political

involvement in Vietnam had little to do with Vietnam at all. It was

about China for Eisenhower, about Russia for Kennedy, about Washington

D.C. for Johnson, and about himself for Nixon (Post). The last two

of which were the major players in America?s involvement in regards to

U. S. Troops being used (Wittman).

The military involvement in Vietnam is directly related to the

political management of the military throughout the war. The

military controlled by the politicians. The micro management of the

military by the White House for political gain is the primary reason

for both the length and cost, both monetary and human, of the Vietnam

War (Pelland). One of the largest problems was the lack of a clear

objective in the war and the support to accomplish it. The

predominant military opinion of the military?s role in Vietnam in

respect to the political involvement is seen in the following quote by

General Colin Powell, "If you?re going to put into something then you

owe the armed forces, you owe the American People, you owe just you?re

own desire to succeed, a clear statement of what political objective

you?re trying to achieve and then you put the sufficient force to that

objective so that you know when you?ve accomplished it." The

politicians dictated the war in Vietnam, it was a limited war, the

military was never allowed to fight the war in the manner that they

thought that they needed to in order to win it (Baker).

To conclude on the Vietnam War, the political management of

the war made it unwinnable. The military was at the mercy of

politicians who knew very little about what needed to be done

militarily in order to win the war. There is an enormous difference

between political judgment and military judgment. This difference is

the primary reason for the outcome of the Vietnam War (Schwarzkopf).

The Gulf War in the Middle East was almost the exact opposite

in respect to the political influence on the war. In respect to the

military objective of the war the two are relatively similar. The

objective was to liberate a weaker country from their aggressor. The

United Nation?s resolution was explicit in its wording regarding

military force in the Persian Gulf. The resolution specifically

stated "by all means necessary."(Schwarzkopf).

The President was very aware of the problems with political

management of warfare throughout the war. He was very determined to

let the military call the shots about how the war was conducted. He

made a specific effort to prevent the suggestion that civilians were

going to try to run the war (Baker). Painful lessons had been

learned in the Vietnam War, which was still fresh on the minds of many

of those involved in this war (Baker).

The military was given full control to use force as they saw

fit. Many of the top military leaders had also been involved in the

Vietnam War. These men exhibited a very strong never again attitude

throughout the planning stages of this war. General Schwarzkopf made

the following statement about the proposed bombing of Iraq in regards

to the limited bombing in Vietnam, "I had no doubt we would bomb Iraq

if I was going to be the Military Commander." He went on to say that

it would be absolutely stupid to go into a military campaign against

his, Iraq?s, forces who had a tremendous advantage on us on the

ground, numbers wise. It would be ludicrous not to fight the war in

the air as much, if not more, than on the ground ( Schwarzkopf ).

The result of the Gulf War in which the military was given

control, as we know, was a quick, decisive victory. There were many

other factors involved in this than just the military being given

control, particularly in contrast to Vietnam, but the military having

control played a major part in this victory.

In conclusion, although there are some major differences

between the two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is

the fact that the military is best suited for conducting wars.

Politicians are not. It is not the place of a politicians to be

involved in the decision making process in regards to war or military

strategy. The White House has significant control in military

matters. That control should be used to help the military in

achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said

specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to

this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in

Vietnam. If we do not learn from these lessons that are so obvious in

the differences between these two conflicts then we are condemned to

repeat the same mistakes. Lets just pray that it does not take the

death of another 58,000 of America?s men to learn that the politicians

place is not in war but in peace (Roush).

—

"Interview with General Norman Schwarzkopf, Commander-in-Chief,

Central Command." Front-line WGBH Educational

Foundation. PBS, College Station. 9-10 Jan. 1996.

"Interview with Secretary of State, James Baker." Front-line WGBH

Educational Foundation. PBS, College Station. 9-10 Jan. 1996.

Johnson, Lyndon B. "The Tonkin Gulf Incident." Message to Congress.

Aug. 5, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1964: n.p.

Leyden, Andrew P. "The Operation Desert Storm Debriefing Book"

Internet Page. University of Notre Dame Law School. 15 Feb.

1995.

Pelland, Paul. E-mail to the author. 25 June 1996.

Post, James N. E-mail to the author. 26 June 1996

Roush, Gary. Statistics about the Vietnam War Internet Page. Nov.

1993.

United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145. Aug. 7,

1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965.

Wittman, Sandra M. "Chronology of the Vietnam War." Vietnam:

Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois. 16

May 1996: n.p.