Ad
related to: civil control in the military history of the world
Search results
Results From The WOW.Com Content Network
Advocates of civil control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character. [citation needed] In the words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflects this view.
[3] Studies of civil-military relations often rest on a normative assumption that it is preferable to have the ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making to lie in the hands of the civilian political leadership (i.e. civilian control of the military) rather than a military (a military dictatorship).
The military history of the United States spans over two centuries, the entire history of the United States. During those centuries, the United States evolved from a newly formed nation which fought for its independence from the Kingdom of Great Britain (1775–1783) to world superpower status in the aftermath of World War II to the present. [ 1 ]
In World War I, military government had not been needed until after the armistice, because the war had been fought mainly in France, and the French authorities had handled civil affairs for all the armies. World War II was clearly going to be different; governments had disappeared, gone into exile, or become collaborating puppets.
A dominant principle that guided combatants through much of history was to the victory belong the spoils. [8] Emer de Vattel, in The Law of Nations (1758), presented an early codification of the distinction between annexation of territory and military occupation, the latter being regarded as temporary, due to the natural right of states to their continued existence. [8]
When a new democracy is formed, the government's institutions are fragile and civil government may not have established control over the military. [20] This impending civilian control of the military provides further incentive for military officers to seize power in newly-formed democracies. [21]
Warlordism was a widespread, dominant political framework that ordered many of the world's societies until the modern state became globally ubiquitous. Often warlord governance in pre-modern state history was constructed along tribal or kinship lines and was congruent with early perception of "nation". In colonial empires warlords served in ...
The study of military history in universities remains seriously underdeveloped. Indeed, lack of interest in and disdain for military history probably constitute one of the strangest prejudices of the profession. [4] [5] In recent decades University level courses in military history remain popular; often they use films to humanize the combat ...