The Democratic Army and the Nation-State
Abstract
In our critique of the democratic army and the nation-state, we have examined several fundamental principles that were violated by our actions during the Vietnamese conflict. Summarizing from our analysis, the military adviser to the President shoulders the responsibility to advise the President concerning the capabilities and limitations of our armed forces. The responsibility of the President is to ensure that a healthy balance exists among national consensus, national strategy, strategic plans, and the operations of our democratic Army. The balance is destroyed when consensus does not underwrite national strategy or when strategic plans and operations exceed the threshold of national consensus. In the absence of adequate public support, the President must work to strengthen the consensus, or he must adjust his political objectives. If he fails to take either action in the absence of public support, he will ultimately destroy our democratic Army. The President does not stand alone in bearing the burden of responsibility for past failure. Where were the military advisers who understood the limitations of our conscript Army? Our national defense colleges have taught for years that national purpose is the foundation of national strategy, which in turn sets political objectives, which ultimately shape strategic military plans. Yet we fought a war with a democratic Army, with inadequate popular support, and without clearly defined political objectives. Where were the military advisers to the President? Did they have access to the President? Was their advice offered? Why were the fundamentals cast aside? Why was it necessary to fashion crisis management techniques as a substitute for political objectives in our long war in Asia?
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 1978
- Accession Number
- ADA511492
Entities
People
- Andrew P. O'meara Jr.
Organizations
- United States Army War College