Armed Forces and the State
| Date | 01 December 1957 |
| Published date | 01 December 1957 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9299.1957.tb01320.x |
Armed Forces
and
the
State
By PROFESSOR W. H. MORRIS
JONES
This review-article of
The
Soldier and the State,
by
S.
P.
Huntington
(Haward
University
Press
and Oxford University Press, 1957,
pp.
517,
~OS.),
is
by
the Professor
of
Political Science at the University of Durham
VERYONE
knows that American isolationism was sunk at Pearl Harbour.
E
After World War
11,
there could be
no
withdrawal,
no
return to as-you-
were
“
normalcy.” Many people knew further that under the leadership of
Morgenthau and Kennan there has been an attempt to re-think the funda-
mentals of foreign policy and international relations in realist terms of
interests and power, an effort to get rid of utopianism and ideology in
America’s view of her place in the world. Less
known,
but equally deserving
of recognition, is the allied examination which has been taking place in the
States of the problem of civil-military relations.
A
bibliography of the
post-war contribution to this subject already made a tidy volume
in
1952
;
by
now
the literature is enormous and the participants in the discussion
include journalists, academics, politicians, and service leaders. Mr.
Huntington writes
:
‘‘
The basic issue raised was
:
How can a liberal society
provide for its military security when this requires the maintenance of
professional military forces and institutions fundamentally at odds with
liberalism
?
”
His book is the latest but by
no
means the least contribution
to
this
debate.
It
merits widespread attention for its subject matter and
treatment alike.
It
is a work of considerable scholarship, at once thorough
and provocative. Even
so,
it
is less than wholly convincing.
‘‘
Nothing,” said de Tocqueville (whose chapter
‘‘
Warfare among
democratic peoples
”
is one of the classic discussions of this subject),
‘‘
is
so
dangerous as
an
army amid an unwarlike nation.” He thought that America
was simply fortunate in that her geographical security enabled her to be
content with an army of a few thousand soldiers, but, in general, he envisaged
all
kinds
of troubles for democracies obliged to have armies, and some of his
fears have stuck. In aristocracies, armies reflect and harmonise with the
society
:
the military spirit is esteemed throughout-“ the nobleman enters
the army to find
an
honorable employment for the idle years of his
youth ”-and accepted inequality is the rule-“ the officer is noble, the
soldier is a serf.”
As
soon
as egalitarian and democratic ideas take hold,
complications set in. While war remains
‘‘
an occurrence to which all nations
are subject,” the pursuit of wealth and welfare now causes“ the spirit of
military glory to be weakened.” One consequence is that
‘‘
the profession
of
arms ceases to be held in honour, and military men fall to the lowest rank
of public servants
:
they are little esteemed, and
no
longer understood.
.
.
.
The best part of the nation shuns the military professions.
,
.
.
Military
ambition is
only
indulged in when
no
other
is
possible.” Moreover, whereas
in aristocracies rank in the army is
no
more than
‘‘
an appendage
”
to rank
in
society, in democracies an army officer often “has
no
property but
his
pay and
no
distinction but that of military honours
”
;
‘‘
his rank in society
almost always depends
on
his rank in the army
”
;
in
fact, he is a social nobody
41
1
To continue reading
Request your trial