Military Influence on politics
Military involvement in the country’s politics has become a common feature of modern states. This history of military-government relationship traces its roots back to hundreds of years during the wars of freedom and independence. In some countries, the military is heavily involved in political affairs while others keep politics out of the military. The differences in this relationship among states arise from underlying historical factors of the modern states. This paper considers two states, Germany and Nigeria where military is heavily involved in politics owing to a long history of political warfare fuelled by ethnic pressures and economic challenges. These states are used as a reference point for military involvement in politics and the conditions under which this happens. These examples show that historical and recent conditions make the relationship between government and military very different in African and European context. In the former, weak governments are unable to control military power, while on the later, even in countries with strong military, the political leadership put limits on military power.
1. Justification
I selected these particular two countries for research based on their history of military involvement in state affairs. Germany’s history of military involvement in political affairs dates back to the early periods when she entered into a set of warfare with the Roman Empire. Before the formation of German state, in the period from 1618 to1648, the smaller states in the area that would become Germany fought with France, with the Catholics and faced an attack from the Lutheran king of Sweden (Finer and Jay, 2004:9). Conflict also led to unity in the German state...
... middle of paper ...
...ionship between leaders and the military. In European countries like Germany, military forces developed with the motives of political expansion and security of the nation, but unlike in Nigeria, the government controls the military and limits its power.
Reference list
Finer, Samuel E, and Jay, Stanley. 2004. The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics. NewBrunswick: Transaction Pub.
Huntington, Samuel P. 1964. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
Inamete, Ufot B. 2001. Foreign Policy Decision Making in Nigeria. Selinsgrove: Susquehanna Univ. Press.
Macgregor, Douglas A. 1989. The Soviet-East German Military Alliance. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
Peters, Jimi. 1997. The Nigerian Military and the State. London: Tauris Academic Studies.
Stewart R. W. (2005). American Military History (Vol. 1). The United States Army and the
5. “A War to be Won,” Williamson Murray and Allan R. Millet, Harvard University Press, 2000.
During the Vietnam Conflict, many Americans held a poor view of the military and its political and military leadership. Protestors met returning soldiers at airports, train and bus stations, and in hometowns with open hostility. Following the conflict, and perhaps the maturing of the ‘60s generation, the view towards the military began to change somewhat. The hostility declined, but an appreciation for the military never really re-emerged during the ...
The Union Army was able to match the intensity of the Confederacy, with the similar practice of dedication until death and patriotism, but for different reasons. The Union soldiers’s lifestyles and families did not surround the war to the extent of the Confederates; yet, their heritage and prosperity relied heavily on it. Union soldiers had to save what their ancestors fought for, democracy. “Our (Union soldiers) Fathers made this country, we, their children are to save it” (McPherson, 29). These soldiers understood that a depleted group of countries rather than one unified one could not flourish; “it is essential that but one Government shall exercise authority from the Gulf of Mexico to Canada, and from the Atlantic to the Pacific” (Ledger, 1861).
...Ernest R. and Gregory F. Treverton. ‘Defence Relationships: American Perspectives’. The Special Relationship. Ed. William Rogers Louis and Hedley Bull. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. 161-184.
Williams, Charles F. "War Powers: A New Chapter in a Continuing Debate." Social Education. April 2003: 128-133. SIRS Issues Researcher. Web. 07 May. 2014.
Paul, Ron M.D. “The Military Draft and Slavery.” Weekend Edition. March 23-25, 2002. counterpunch.org. n. pag. Web. 5 April 2014.
Introduction “Leaders have always been generalists”. Tomorrow’s leaders will, very likely, have begun life as specialists, but to mature as leaders they must sooner or later climb out of the trenches of specialization and rise above the boundaries that separate the various segments of society.” (Gardner, 1990, pg. 159). The. In a recent verbal bout with my History of the Military Art professor, I contended that the true might of a nation may be inversely proportional to the size of its military during peacetime.
The Army has been in existence since 1775 when Congress authorized the creation of 10 rifle companies (Army Birthdays 2011). The standing federal Army was created in 1803 followed by a series of reforms to the Army professional education system (Dempsy 2014). I will argue that the Army is a Profession of Arms by showing a system of continued learning, training, and growth; the code of ethics held by the Army; and the level of autonomy afforded Army leaders and their Soldiers.
Snider, D. M. (2008). Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
- - -, ed. "The Anti-War Movement in the United States." English.Illnois.edu. Ed. Oxford Companion to American Military History. 1st ed. Vers. 1. Rev. 1. Oxford Companion to American Military History, 1999. Web. 24 Feb. 2014. .
The purpose of this essay is to inform on the similarities and differences between systemic and domestic causes of war. According to World Politics by Jeffry Frieden, David Lake, and Kenneth Schultz, systemic causes deal with states that are unitary actors and their interactions with one another. It can deal with a state’s position within international organizations and also their relationships with other states. In contract, domestic causes of war pertain specifically to what goes on internally and factors within a state that may lead to war. Wars that occur between two or more states due to systemic and domestic causes are referred to as interstate wars.
Millett, Allan Reed., Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. For the Common Defense: A Military History of the United States from 1607 to 2012. New York: Free, 2012. Print.
Britain came into Nigeria and combined over 300 ethnic and religious groups. They were allowed to govern themselves, but the issue was that when they left, the groups fought for political power because it was unequally given to the Hausa-Fulani. In a letter to President Nixon written by American diplomat Henry Kissinger, who was stationed in Nigeria during the war stated, “The civil war is rooted in the failure of the first generation of British- tutored politicians to make something of independence and unity.” The goal of the British was to leave Nigeria with a fair and just government, but by leaving it in the hands of the Hausa-Fulani when there are over 300 other ethnic groups doesn’t show equitable rule! With the disregardance of religion, ethnic differences, race, etc., war was bound to happen if one group was prioritized over the
Several presidents came to power through a coup d’état. They know that without the loyalty of the military, their powers are ephemeral. Therefore, they spend a lot on presidential security brigades, and other elite troops, whose command is given to people close to the president. These units are composed of individuals from the same clan, the same ethnic group, or the same party. The army becomes not only a tool of conquest but also for keeping power, protecting regimes and not states, and generating corruption permeating all levels of command. Thus, more than half a century after independence, and with the exception of a handful of countries with actual military capabilities, almost no African army is able t...