By Ananta K. WibawaAt last, on Thursday 24th June 2010, the US President, Barack Obama issued an assertive decision to replace the US Forces Commander in Afghanistan, General Stanley McChrystal with General David Petraus.
This decision was an aftermath of McChrystal’s remarks in a dramatic interview with Rolling Stone Magazine (22/6/2010) which was considered as humiliated the President and his top officials who engaged in Afghanistan War Policy.
This decision was an aftermath of McChrystal’s remarks in a dramatic interview with Rolling Stone Magazine (22/6/2010) which was considered as humiliated the President and his top officials who engaged in Afghanistan War Policy.
At least there were 3 quotes delivered by McChrystal himself and considered as scornful in the magazine article. First, to consider Obama clearly didn't know anything about him, who he was and he didn't seem very engaged in this war matters. Second, to consider Karl Eikenberry, US Ambassador of Afghanistan, betrayed him and anytime awaiting to see his failure to run his war strategy. Third, to declare Vice President, Joe Biden, who was skeptic of the commander's war strategy and joked sarcastically to Biden’s name as “Bite Me”. All quotes tightly related to McChrystal’s efforts to struggle his war strategy in Afghanistan.
As it was released in the Associated Press report (24/6/10) that President Obama get upset upon those who remarked by the general who well known as an expert in combat intelligence warfare and told it bluntly as "undermines the tradition of civilian control of the military that is at the core of the US democratic system."
Civilian Control of the Military in US
I see that this problem is not solely based on President Obama’s disappoint to McChrystal’s remarks in the magazine, but further more, it is closely related to the President’s authority as the Commander in Chief to determine some military policies of war handling in Afghanistan.
This action to relieve a commanding general in a war mission was the first time since General Douglas MacArthur was relieved by President Harry S. Truman during Korean War Mission on 1951. Nevertheless, as noted in US history, there had been conducted some relieving actions of commanding generals related to similar matter that is insubordination and or disobedience against the President’s policy.
This action to relieve a commanding general in a war mission was the first time since General Douglas MacArthur was relieved by President Harry S. Truman during Korean War Mission on 1951. Nevertheless, as noted in US history, there had been conducted some relieving actions of commanding generals related to similar matter that is insubordination and or disobedience against the President’s policy.
The US tradition has been conducted in many years to determine military status is merely one of the nation’s functions that must be controlled under the civilian. Basically, it is inherited of the US Founders' genuine fear to see the existence of large military forces as an extraordinary power which shall endanger democracy someday, if it is not fully managed under civilian control.
The Founders' genuine fear largely based on their outlook over some practices done by regular armies of Europe in 17th century under the control of vassals and kings for some interests which may seem contradictory to democracy, such as collecting taxes and keeping the population under control.
The Founders' genuine fear largely based on their outlook over some practices done by regular armies of Europe in 17th century under the control of vassals and kings for some interests which may seem contradictory to democracy, such as collecting taxes and keeping the population under control.
The Founding Fathers in the Constitution Convention
Michael F. Cairo, in his paper “Civilian Control of the Military,” appoints four basic things which result the perspective of civilian control of the military become stronger in the Founders’ minds. First, large military forces were viewed as a threat to liberty. Second, large military forces threatened American democracy. Therefore, the military may not be established as an elite power as well as the British autocratic military class, instead of citizen militia which is enrolled when the nation is threatened of war and demobilized after the war is over. Third, large military forces threatened economic prosperity, because it shall need very large budget to maintain the army and its equipments. Finally, large military forces threatened peace, because the existence of military forces, either from the view of the number or the primary weapons will be depended on the existence of war.
Thus, the tradition of civilian control of the military emerged from the strong US historical situation and then established in democracy life through some traditions, trusts, customs and laws.
President as the Commander in Chief
The stronger establishment of the tradition of civilian control of the military is constituted in the US Constitution. It declares the president as the commander-in-chief over the nation's armed forces, thus maintaining civilian control over the military.
The laws and regulations in the Anglo-Saxon legal system nations, such as the US, generally rule the things specifically, thus, it won’t be need the explanation of law, as usually found in the laws and regulations in the Continental Legal System (Civil Law) nations. Those are also found in the US Constitution. Nevertheless, we may not find any clause in the constitution that rules in detail about the president’s power as a Commander in Chief.
Thus, the tradition of civilian control of the military emerged from the strong US historical situation and then established in democracy life through some traditions, trusts, customs and laws.
President as the Commander in Chief
The stronger establishment of the tradition of civilian control of the military is constituted in the US Constitution. It declares the president as the commander-in-chief over the nation's armed forces, thus maintaining civilian control over the military.
The laws and regulations in the Anglo-Saxon legal system nations, such as the US, generally rule the things specifically, thus, it won’t be need the explanation of law, as usually found in the laws and regulations in the Continental Legal System (Civil Law) nations. Those are also found in the US Constitution. Nevertheless, we may not find any clause in the constitution that rules in detail about the president’s power as a Commander in Chief.
the Official Seal of the Commander in Chief
Although the president is named commander in chief, there is nothing further about his power to command the military, primarily in related to decision making in war, or about his role in the general staff or about his relationships with the uniformed officer corps or other detailing in military matters. It is likely that the US Founders tend to determine an absolute power for the President to command over the armed forces and also control them as a full representative of the civilian supremacy.
Here it is that motivates some President, in its history, to have various experiences in command of the military to face the war. George Washington, as the first President, actually was a general, and also had to command of the US Revolutionary Forces to defend the fledgling nation. Nevertheless, President James K. Polk, a politician, during America-Mexico War in 1840’s, did not only command his generals through general instruction delivering, but also determined some battle strategies and giving tactical direction in detail, similar in what Abraham Lincoln, a lawyer and fully a politician, did during Civil War in 1861-1865. President Kennedy, tactically giving his daily operational direction about what should US military did facing the Soviet Union in Cuba Crisis during October 1962.
In Post-Kennedy era, there is no President who gives day to day strategy to the generals in face of the war, even George Bush Sr., who is also a navy retirement, more over Obama. But there is a value that never changes at all, that is, the president’s policy and order in a military action, at any scale of intensity, must be obeyed by his generals.
The consistency of the Americans in this matter is insusceptible, whether the president or the general is the right. Say the most popular feud in history is happened between General MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman during the first half time of Korean War in 1951. MacArthur who never believed in the Red China’s status quo condition regarding North Korea, intended to extend the invasion down to the mainland of the People Republic of China’s territory to assure a thoroughly security condition in Korea Peninsula. It was objected by President Truman because he considered it would trigger world war, but MacArthur insisted and ever kept his plan among his general staffs. Although, finally, it was as precise as MacArthur’s assumption, that China got intervened the war and successfully forced the United Nations Forces to retreat back out of the North Korea’s territory, but President Truman did not care and considered MacArthur’s insistence as an insubordination action and undermined the tradition of civilian control of the military.
In Post-Kennedy era, there is no President who gives day to day strategy to the generals in face of the war, even George Bush Sr., who is also a navy retirement, more over Obama. But there is a value that never changes at all, that is, the president’s policy and order in a military action, at any scale of intensity, must be obeyed by his generals.
The consistency of the Americans in this matter is insusceptible, whether the president or the general is the right. Say the most popular feud in history is happened between General MacArthur and President Harry S. Truman during the first half time of Korean War in 1951. MacArthur who never believed in the Red China’s status quo condition regarding North Korea, intended to extend the invasion down to the mainland of the People Republic of China’s territory to assure a thoroughly security condition in Korea Peninsula. It was objected by President Truman because he considered it would trigger world war, but MacArthur insisted and ever kept his plan among his general staffs. Although, finally, it was as precise as MacArthur’s assumption, that China got intervened the war and successfully forced the United Nations Forces to retreat back out of the North Korea’s territory, but President Truman did not care and considered MacArthur’s insistence as an insubordination action and undermined the tradition of civilian control of the military.
President Truman and General MacArthur
property of Associated Press
Although, US public later complimented and supported MacArthur, and even the US Congress awarded the Medal of Honor regarded his heroic leadership in Korea, but there was no charge of impeachment against President Truman, more over military resistance to the action taken by the president.
Reflection in Indonesia
Our history also notes that since the declaration of independence, it was happened frequently conflict between the President and the military commanders, either in determining of military strategy to face the war or in the matters of implementing policy in the military management and other political policies.
Noted on 27th June 1955, it was happened some boycott against the inauguration of Colonel Bambang Utojo as the Chief of Staff of the Army. It was resulted by dissatisfaction of some high rank officials within the army who disagreed to the parliament’s decision. Some other time, Major General Soeharto ever refused of the President’s Executive Order dated on 13th March 1966 which meant to repeal the previous Executive Order dated on 11th March 1966. The most clearly seen, however, when TNI (the National Armed Forces) refused of the President’s Decree declared by President Abdurrahman Wahid on 23rd July 2001, thus the refusal became as a power support to the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) to relieve President Abdurrahman Wahid from the office.
Reflection in Indonesia
Our history also notes that since the declaration of independence, it was happened frequently conflict between the President and the military commanders, either in determining of military strategy to face the war or in the matters of implementing policy in the military management and other political policies.
Noted on 27th June 1955, it was happened some boycott against the inauguration of Colonel Bambang Utojo as the Chief of Staff of the Army. It was resulted by dissatisfaction of some high rank officials within the army who disagreed to the parliament’s decision. Some other time, Major General Soeharto ever refused of the President’s Executive Order dated on 13th March 1966 which meant to repeal the previous Executive Order dated on 11th March 1966. The most clearly seen, however, when TNI (the National Armed Forces) refused of the President’s Decree declared by President Abdurrahman Wahid on 23rd July 2001, thus the refusal became as a power support to the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) to relieve President Abdurrahman Wahid from the office.
President Soekarno and General Soeharto in 1966
property of NYTimes
President Abdurrahman Wahid before the parliament in 2000
Nevertheless, a conflict which is most similar in US manner is what was happened between President Soekarno and General Soedirman during Independence War in 1948. It was started from the difference in outlook about how President’s supposed to be in confronting the Dutch aggressor. Previously, it was agreed in the original tactic that President Soekarno would assume command in guerrilla warfare himself confronting the Dutch aggression, but the President eventually getting another kind of way in being caught by the Dutch purposed to raise international empathy in diplomatic area.
President Soekarno inaugurated General Soedirman
as the Commander of Tentara KeamananRakyat in 1945
Property of Kepustakaan Kepresidenan RI
Even Soedirman disagreed to the president’s decision, but he remained stand firm to implement president’s directions and orders, further more willing to submit to the authority and to show the obedience of the Emergency Government of the Republic of Indonesia (PDRI) that was established in Sumatera by order of the Indonesia’s President who had been a prisoner of the Dutch aggressor.
---AKW---
---AKW---
No comments:
Post a Comment