~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Far from uniform
A POINT OF VIEW
In both the US and UK, civilian leaders have the upper hand over the military - but the two countries have very different attitudes to veterans reaching the top, says David Cannadine in his Point of View column.
The recent decision by President Barack Obama to accept the resignation of General Stanley McChrystal and to replace him with General David Petraeus caused a predictable media storm on both sides of the Atlantic.
But taking the long view of American history, there's nothing particularly unusual about the president, as commander in chief of the US military, asserting his authority over the armed forces in this way.
In the aftermath of the departure of Gen McChrystal, several commentators rightly noted that in April 1951, Harry S Truman had sacked Gen Douglas MacArthur after he had publicly criticised the president's limited war strategy in Korea.
Gen McChrystal's dismissal was controversial, but constitutional
As with Truman's earlier decision to authorise the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan, it was highly controversial, though no one contested his constitutional right to make it.
And long before that, in November 1862, President Abraham Lincoln dismissed the equally popular George McClellan from his command of the Northern Army during the American Civil War, because he'd failed to deliver victory over the south. Two years later, McClellan stood against Lincoln for the presidency, but he went down to defeat.
These three examples are a vivid reminder that in the United States, the military is subordinate to the civilian authority; but as so often in America, things are never quite as straightforward as they seem.
After all, the first President of the United States was none other than George Washington, whose fitness for that post depended almost entirely on his achievements in having beaten the British on the battlefield during the War of Independence.
Two of America's most famous 19th Century presidents had also been generals earlier in their careers: Andrew Jackson, who defeated the British at the Battle of New Orleans in 1815, and Ulysses S Grant, who was a much more successful leader of the northern armies during the Civil War than George McClellan, and who never lost the support of Abraham Lincoln.
FIND OUT MORE
- A Point of View, with David Cannadine, is on Fridays on Radio 4 at 2050 BST and repeated Sundays, 0850 BST
- Or listen to it on the iPlayer
And Harry Truman's successor as American president was another general, Dwight D Eisenhower, who had been supreme allied commander in Europe during the closing stages of World War II.
In modern times, former military leaders have occupied the White House much more frequently than they have resided at 10 Downing Street, where the last such figure to do so was the Duke of Wellington, as far back as 1828.
And sometimes, although not always, a good war record has helped propel other aspiring a candidates to the American presidency.
This was certainly true for John F Kennedy in 1960, and it may have assisted George Bush senior in 1988.
But this isn't invariably the case. Four years later, the same George Bush was defeated by Bill Clinton, who had successfully evaded military service at the time of the Vietnam War; while in 2004, George Bush junior, who had also avoided combat, decisively vanquished John Kerry, who had fought with great distinction in Vietnam.
Nor, in 2008, did the brave resume of John McCain help him in his unsuccessful bid against Barack Obama. So while a military background may sometimes help American presidential candidates, it's no guarantee of electoral victory.
President Obama must now forge a new relationship with Gen Petraeus
Although more American presidents have held high command than British prime ministers, there were some 20th Century occupants of 10 Downing Street who had first-hand experience of fighting.
Four future prime ministers served in the trenches during World War I: Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Anthony Eden and Harold Macmillan.
As a descendant of the first Duke of Marlborough, and as someone who had fought in India and Africa, Churchill had a high - perhaps excessive? - opinion of his skills as a military strategist; and like Lincoln, he didn't hesitate to sack his generals if they failed to deliver him the victories he craved - as Auchinleck and Wavell both found to their cost.
And Harold Macmillan, who was another former army officer, could never conceal his contempt for those politicians who hadn't been in combat, such as Rab Butler and Hugh Gaitskell.
Churchill's military pedigree gave him the assurance to sack his generals
Among later prime ministers, Edward Heath was commissioned in the Royal Artillery and ended World War II as a major, while James Callaghan joined the Royal Naval Volunteer Reserve as an ordinary seaman.
Callaghan would later claim that much of the cross-party camaraderie which he believed existed among members of Parliament during his time was derived from their shared experiences of being in the armed forces.
But since the 1980s, the generation of Heath and Callaghan has mostly died off, and scarcely any of today's MPs have seen active duty in the army, the navy or the RAF.
Indeed, I'm willing to hazard the view that at no time during its modern history have there been so few members of the House of Commons, or even of the House of Lords, with military experience as they are today.
And this in turn may help explain why, during both the second Iraq War, and also with the continuing conflict in Afghanistan, relations between political leaders and service chiefs have been neither as close nor as cordial as in earlier times. The common experiences and the shared point of view are just no longer there.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that in Britain, as in the United States, the armed services are firmly subservient to civilian authority, and that ever since the time of Oliver Cromwell, the British have been deeply suspicious of military adventurers.
John McCain's Vietnam record could not propel him to the White House
But this healthy scepticism isn't something that Britain has always been able to hand on to her former imperial realms when they became independent. In 1947, the Indian sub-continent was partitioned, and so was the Indian army, between India itself and Pakistan.
Since then, the Indian military has been kept successfully under civilian control; but in Pakistan, by contrast, some form of army rule has often been the norm, and to this day, democracy there remains a fragile flower.
And in some former British African colonies, military dictatorship has also reared its ugly and brutal head: in Uganda under Idi Amin during the 1970s and in Nigeria during the 1980s and 1990s.
For much of the 20th Century, and in many parts of the world, military rule, or rule by military men, has been a widespread phenomenon.
Several Latin American countries have suffered in this way, among them Argentina under General Peron and again at the time of the Falklands War, and Chile under General Pinochet.
Even here in Europe, such figures have been in power more often than you might think. From 1920 to 1944, the dictator of Hungary was Admiral Horthy: a strange title, indeed, for Hungary was a completely landlocked nation, with no navy whatsoever.
Spain was ruled by General Franco from the time he emerged victorious in the civil war until his death; Greece was in the hands of a military junta from 1967, when the monarchy was overthrown, until 1974, when a democratic republic was established; and in France, Marshal Petain and General Charles de Gaulle represented two very different styles of quasi-military leadership.
Lord Mountbatten believed the armed forces should keep out of politics
There's been nothing in Britain to compare with any of this. But in 1968, which was a low point in the Labour government of Harold Wilson, an unsuccessful attempt was made by Cecil King, the eccentric and wayward newspaper tycoon, to plan for some sort of military coup.
King feared that law and order would soon disintegrate, and that the army would have to intervene. In that event, he hoped to persuade Admiral of the Fleet Lord Mountbatten to take over as head of a government of national unity.
As the last Viceroy of India, Mountbatten had presided over the partition of the Indian army, and he much regretted Pakistan's subsequent lapse into dictatorship. A decade later, when he was First Sea Lord at the time of Suez, he did everything he could to make known his opposition to British intervention, but his sense of duty prevented him from resigning. By 1968, Mountbatten was retired, but he continued to believe that in Britain the armed forces should stay out of politics.
In the United States, by contrast, retirement frees up military men to make a legitimate bid for the White House.
I wonder if such thoughts, and such ambitions, are already forming themselves in the mind of Gen McChrystal? Or might he fear that, if he did run for the presidency, he would merely suffer the same fate as that which earlier befell Gen McClellan?
From reading a number of biographies of politicians from the sixties who shared the wartime service experience. I have found myself thinking that the common link with many of them is that they learnt just how much things happen because people make them happen.
Way to maintain the BBC's reputation for leftist bias: "in 2004, George Bush junior, who had also avoided combat, decisively vanquished John Kerry, who had fought with great distinction in Vietnam." The Telegraph is such a superior source.
I don't know why Admiral Horthy comes in for a sideways snipe? The Austro-Hungarian empire was one of the largest that the world had ever seen... And obviously included a huge and powerful Navy. "Even here in Europe, such figures have been in power more often than you might think. From 1920 to 1944, the dictator of Hungary was Admiral Horthy: a strange title, indeed, for Hungary was a completely landlocked nation, with no navy whatsoever". When referencing historical "facts" in a contemporary article it might help to have some kind of grasp of the history!
There are two types of four star general (and this itself is a genralisation) - the operator (such as McChrystal) and the politician (such as Colin Powell or Petraeus). The former tend to take a low key retirement whereas the latter tend towards a more public role long term. It could be suggested that it is no reflection on skills but rather the operator four-star will retreat into his 'community' and not seek a wider platform in retirement than the 'showman' who plays on the White House and international stage - the latter is an addictive narcotic.
An interesting article, especially about the possible coup d'etat in the late 60s. A hungarian admiral should not be strange however, likewise the Austrian captain in the sound of music. Until the end of the great war the Austro-Hungarian empire included the balkan states whereby austria and hungary had access to the coast . Simples.
Given the relative success of countries with civilian control over the military, compared with the other way around, it's hard to argue with that principle. One thing I think needs to be pointed out, though, is that the relative merits of the military service of George W Bush and John Kerry is extremely debatable - and should only be mentioned to my American friends if you WANT to start a long acrimonious argument.
Sorry, I don't get it. Relations between political leaders during the period of the Gulf War were not cordial because they had not seen active service in a previous part of their lives? Relations were not cordial because, unlike the period before the 1980s, politics since has been dominated by profound ideological difference and posturing. What, in any case, is Cannadine's index of 'cordiality'? Where, moreover, is the evidence? May I suggest a more critical historical interpretation of the evidence in place of wild assertion may help advance the debate - if there is a debate to be had?
I strongly believe any world leader should have some military EXPERIENCE before sending military personal into harms way.
It's all an illusion of democracy and civil rights. US and UK may technically have civilian leaders fully in control of the military, but can you say the end result has been any better? Both countries have had far more invasions of foreign lands than the rest of the world - military led or not - put together.
The qualities which make McCrystal a fine and notable individual and soldier are not those required of a the Executive. He is austere, self controlled, driven to meet his goals, and an expert in the use of authority and force. The executive needs a well developed ability to form consensus, an ability to listen to others genuinely, and to work with average people. A Knight Templar makes a good combat leader, but the Chief Executive of a large diverse democracy requires other characteristics.
Which countries work the longest hours? 
Does the Queen do fashion?
Could a human body hide a bomb?
Suspect held in Etan Patz death
Godfather of pain
Compare yourself
'Brothels on wheels'
Chaos seekers
Recipe for success
Fast Track
Add your comments to the story using the form below