In general, military personnel give orders only to those directly below them in the chain of command and receive orders only from those directly above them. A service member who has difficulty executing a duty or order and appeals for relief directly to an officer above his immediate commander in the chain of command is likely to be disciplined for not respecting the chain of command. Similarly, an officer is usually expected to give orders only to his direct subordinate(s), even if only to pass an order down to another service member lower in the chain of command than said subordinate.
The concept of chain of command also implies that higher rank alone does not entitle a higher-ranking service member to give commands to anyone of lower rank. For example, an officer of unit “A” does not directly command lower-ranking members of unit “B,” and is generally expected to approach an officer of unit “B” if he requires action by members of that unit.
Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party.
War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men.
War is too important to be left to the generals.
The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force.
The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purpose of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.
Military personnel, because of the nature of their job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialize strictly in warfare. The military is authoritative and hierarchical, rarely allowing discussion and prohibiting dissension.
Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
Under the US constitution, law and order is primarily a matter of state concern. As a practical matter, when military forces are necessary to maintain domestic order and enforce the laws, state militia forces under state control are usually the force of first resort.
Strong democratic control of the military is a prerequisite for membership in NATO. Strong democracy and rule of law, implying democratic control of the military, are prerequisites for membership in the EU.
The establishment of a civilian head of state, head of government, or other government figure as the military’s commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control. However, in many constitutional monarchies, the monarch is both commander-in-chief and a member of the country’s military, thus civil control does not necessitate complete control of only civilians.
The tradition of the citizen-soldier holds that “civilianizing” the military is the best means of preserving the loyalty of the armed forces towards civil authorities, by preventing the development of an independent “caste” of warriors that might see itself as existing fundamentally apart from the rest of the society.
A more invasive method, most famously practiced in the USSR and the PRC, involves active monitoring of the officer corps through the appointment of political commissars, posted parallel to the uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The regular rotation of soldiers through a variety of different postings is another effective tool for reducing military autonomy, by limiting the potential for soldiers’ attachment to any one particular military unit Some governments place responsibility for approving promotions or officer candidates with the civil government, requiring some degree of deference on the part of officers seeking advancement through the ranks.
The remoteness of government from the action allowed professional soldiers to claim military affairs as their own particular sphere of expertise and influence; upon entering a state of war, it was often expected that the generals and field marshals would dictate strategy and tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.
It was a common issue in the Roman Empire that rebellious generals would be able to overthrow the emperor, and emperors commonly clipped the wings of generals who were too successful and too popular.
In contesting these priorities, members of the professional military leadership and their non-uniformed supporters may participate in the bureaucratic bargaining process of the state’s policy-making apparatus, engaging in what might be termed a form of regulatory capture as the attempt to restrict the policy options of elected officials when it comes to military matters.
The qualities of a profession are (1) Expertise, (2) Responsibility, and (3) Corporateness. Specifically, the officer corps display specialized knowledge in the management of violence, maintains a monopoly on education and advancement in their field, and have an overarching responsibility to the society they serve and thus do not “compete” in the open market.
The military expertise, the management of violence, includes the science of war and combat as well as organizational and administrative skills.
Each step up in the hierarchy within the military profession demands more responsibility and skill because they are authorized to make more strategic decisions. In the case of the officer corps, officers are entrusted with evaluating the security of state and providing expert advice to its leaders, and society in turn must afford a measure of deference to their professional expertise and institutions. (Huntington highlights the fact that the President cannot usurp the military hierarchy and appoint a lieutenant to server on the JCS).
In the 19th century the idea of the aristocratic military genius was replaced by the Prussian reliance upon “average men succeeding by superior education, organization and experience.”
He summarizes the ethic as “conservative realism… It exalts obedience as the highest virtue of military men. The military ethic is just pessimistic, collectivist, historically inclined, power-oriented, nationalistic, militaristic, pacifist, and instrumentalist in its view of the military profession.”
Unlike in most countries, the Central Military Commission is not an organizational equivalent of other government ministries. Although China does have a Ministry of National Defense, it exists solely for liaison with foreign militaries and does not have command authority.
Unlike in other countries, the Ministry of National Defense does not have operational command over the Chinese military including the PLA, which is instead commanded by the CMC.
From 2018, command of the PAP is jointly held by the CCP central committee and the CMC, with the PAP no longer subordinate to the State Council.
The reform is reportedly carried out in order to deprive the local CCP authorities of the power to use the PAP units to commit abuses or against the leadership in Beijing. Local authorities now need central approval in order to deploy the PAP.
The PAP concentrates on managing protests otherwise referred to as “mass incidents” and protecting important facilities and events, while the public security officers focus on handling crime and issues related to the maintenance of public order. The PAP assists the regular police in operations where violent opposition is expect, in roadblocks and the protection of crime scene.
A political commissar or political officer is a supervisory officer responsible for the political education and organization of the unit to which they are assigned, with the intention of ensuring political control of the military.
In the PLA, each level of the command has a dual-command structure, with a military organ and a Party organ. This collective leadership is held between the military commander and political commander. The political commissar is always a uniformed military officer with both tactical and political training and CCP cadre. In the past, this position has been used to give civilian party officials some experience with the military.
Usually, the operational command has the military commander as the highest decision maker, while the political commissar serves as the 2nd-in-command. As the deputy, political commissar are largely responsible for administrative tasks such as public relation, unit welfare, mental health, morale, and political education. The party organs are chaired by the political commissar, with the military commanders serving as the deputy secretaries. This framework ensures that both military and political officers can collectively design the goals and tasks of their respective units.
Hồi đó, Sư 304 liên tục được yêu cầu tấn công ra đường 1, lần nào đánh ra là quân lính hi sinh lần đó. Nhưng lệnh tấn công vẫn tiếp tục đưa tới. Ba tôi nói với các cấp chỉ huy: “Quân lệnh như sơn! Nhưng tôi vẫn phải nói hai điều: Là Sư đoàn trưởng chỉ ở cấp chiến dịch, tôi muốn chống lệnh này. Nhưng tôi sẽ đánh, vì ở vị trí của tôi, có thể tôi không có cái nhìn bao quát, nên không thể quyết định được việc có nên đánh hay không”.
The soldier, above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war.