The Soldier and the State

by Samuel P Huntington

  21. Ann. Rept. of the Superintendent of the U.S. Military Academy, 1921. p. 245; Inf. Jour., XV (1918), 159–160, XXXI (1927), 304–305, 633, XXXII (1928), 78, 323–324; USNIP, XLVII (1921), 877–882, LII (1926), 1–14, LVII (1931), 1157–1162, LXI (1935), 475, 1074, LXIV (1938), 1601–1606, LXVII (1941), 1437.

  22. See Inf. Jour., XXXIX (1926), 30–34, XLI (1934), 117–119; USNIP, XLVI (1920), 1609–1618, LII (1926), 484–491, LIV (1928), 257–264, LIX (1933), 1747–1758, LXII (1936), 473–486, LXIII (1937), 1724–1731, LXVII (1941), 621–622; Command and General Staff School, Military Intelligence (1937), pp. 7–10.

  23. W. T. R. Fox, “Interwar International Relations Research: The American Experience,” World Politics, II (October 1949), 67–79.

  24. USNIP, LIX (1933), 1747–1758, LX (1934), 774–783, 961–972; Inf. Jour., XVIII (1921), 384, XXXVIII (1930), 186.

  25. For the classic Clausewitz approach of the United States military generally, see USNIP, LX (1934), 1377ff., LXV (1939), 945–948, LXVI (1940), 650; Oliver P. Robinson, The Fundamentals of Military Science (Washington, 1928), passim, but esp. pp. viii-ix. For the military demand for a defense council, see: Inf. Jour., XIV (1918), 861–862, XXXV (1929), 476–479; USNIP, LX (1934), 465–467, 779, LXI (1935), 842–844, LXV (1939), 1395, LXVII (1941), 619ff.; Robinson, Military Strategy, pp. 14, 56–58. For the fate of the various military proposals, see W. R. Schilling, “Civil-Naval Politics in World War I,” World Politics, VII (July 1955), 572–575; E. R. May, “The Development of Political-Military Consultation in the United States,” Political Science Quarterly, LXX (June 1955), 167–172; Lawrence J. Legere, Jr., “Unification of the Armed Forces” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1951), pp. 75–77.

  26. Command and General Staff School, Principles of Strategy, pp. 19–20; USNIP, XLVI (1920), 1615–1616.

  27. See Captain Hoffman Nickerson, “U.S. Military Writing Today,” Inf. Jour., XLIX (November 1941), 34–35.

  28. Inf. Jour., XXXI (1927), 4–6, XLIII (1936), 237–238, XLV World War II (1938), 504ff., XLVII (1940), 12–17, 322, 536–538, XLVI (1939), 22ff., XLVII (1940), 12–17, 172–175, 322, 536–538.

  29. USNIP, LVII (1931), 1158, LXIV (1938), 1602ff.; Inf. Jour., XLV (1938), 504ff., XLVI (1939), 312–313.

  30. Compare Inf. Jour., XVIII (1921), 396–397, XIX (1921), 331–332, XXI (1922), 219, XXII (1923), 378–379 with Inf. Jour., XXXIII (1928), 335, XLVI (1939), 309, 313, XLVII (1940), 536–537 and USNIP, LXI (1935), 1478, 1497.

  31. Major J. H. Burns, Inf. Jour., XLVII (September–October 1940), 419–423.

  Chapter 12 — World War II: The Alchemy of Power

  1. Henry L. Stimson and McGeorge Bundy, On Active Service in Peace and War (New York, 1947), pp. 389, 409; Cordell Hull, Memoirs (New York, 2 vols., 1948), II, 1109; Cong. Record, LXXXIX (June 19, 1943), 6155–6156, quoted in Elias Huzar, The Purse and the Sword (Ithaca, N.Y., 1950), p. 160.

  2. Federal Register, IV (July 7, 1939), 2786; E. O. 8984, Dec. 18, 1941; E. O. 9096, Mar. 12, 1942; E. O. 9028, Feb. 28, 1942. See also Ernest J. King and Walter Whitehill, Fleet Admiral King: A Naval Record (New York, 1952), pp. 349–359.

  3. Hull, Memoirs, II, 1111; William D. Leahy, I Was There (New York, 1950), pp. 3–4, 98–101; Ray S. Cline, Washington Command Post: The Operations Division (Washington, 1951), p. 44; Maurice Matloff and Edwin M. Snell, Strategic Planning for Coalition Warfare, 1941–1942 (Washington, 1953), pp. 51–52; Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins (New York, 1948), pp. 11, 100–101.

  4. Stimson and Bundy, On Active Service, pp. 414–415. On Knox, see Paul Y. Hammond, “The Secretaryships of War and the Navy: A Study of Civilian Control of the Military” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1953), pp. 306–311.

  5. Lucius Clay, Decision in Germany (Garden City, N.Y., 1950), pp. 3–6; Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, pp. 269–270, 661–662, 757; Hull, Memoirs, II, 1109–1110; John J. McCloy, The Challenge to American Foreign Policy (Cambridge, 1953), pp. 36–37; H. Bradford Westerfield, Foreign Policy and Party Politics: Pearl Harbor to Korea (New Haven, 1955), pp. 139–145, 184–186.

  6. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, pp. 446, 615, 948; Leahy, I Was There, p. 213; King and Whitehill, Fleet Admiral King, pp. 525–526.

  7. Colonel H. D. Kehm, “Comparison Between British and American Joint Planning,” quoted in Cline, Washington Command Post, pp. 104–106, 314; Otto L. Nelson, Jr., National Security and the General Staff (Washington, 1946), p. 399.

  8. See Cline’s brilliant analysis of the changing character of the Army planning staffs and the mixed feelings of the military at this development, Washington Command Post, pp. 189, 327–332.

  9. George A. Lincoln, W. S. Stone, and T. H. Harvey, Economics of National Security (New York, 1950), pp. 420–421; Huzar, Purse and the Sword, pp. 55–56, 58, 162.

  10. S. Rept. 10, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., Part 9, p. 1 (1943), quoted in Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power (Chicago, 1951), p. 216; Harry A. Toulmin, Jr., Diary of Democracy: The Senate War Investigating Committee (New York, 1947), passim.

  11. Stimson and Bundy, On Active Service, pp. 414–415, 453; Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, pp. 405, 739, 756–757; Hull, Memoirs, II, 922–923, 1110.

  12. See, for example, Wallace Carroll, Persuade or Perish (Boston, 1948), p. 74; Robert Payne, The Marshall Story (New York, 1951), p. 230; Chester Wilmot, The Struggle for Europe (New York, 1952), pp. 714–716.

  13. Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 446; I Was There, p. 95.

  14. King and Whitehill, Fleet Admiral King, pp. 525–526; Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 615; Matloff and Snell, Strategic Planning, pp. 282–306.

  15. See Dwight D. Eisenhower, Crusade in Europe (New York, 1952), p. 19.

  16. See Mark S. Watson, Chief of Staff: Prewar Plans and Preparations (Washington, 1950), pp. 23–56, 110–119, 388–389, 406–407; Matloff and Snell, Strategic Planning, pp. 12–16, 51–52; William L. Langer and S. Everett Gleason, The Undeclared War, 1940–1941 (New York, 1953), pp. 35, 41–43, 649–651, 844–847, 894–901,

  17. Quoted in Matloff and Snell, Strategic Planning, pp. 28–31, and Watson, Chief of Staff, pp. 370–373.

  18. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, pp. 41 Off.; Langer and Gleason, Undeclared War, pp. 739–740; Watson, Chief of Staff, pp. 352–357.

  19. On Active Service, pp. 472, 565–566; Cline, Washington Command Post, p. 313.

  20. On these decisions, see Hull, Memoirs, II, 1165ff.; Sumner Welles, Seven Decisions That Shaped History (New York, 1950), ch. 5; Matloff and Snell, Strategic Planning, pp. 30, 380; Leahy, I Was There, p. 145; Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, pp. 695–696; Watson, Chief of Staff, pp. 124–125.

  21. Notes on Conference in Office of the Chief of Staff, Cline, Washington Command Post, p. 44.

  22. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 164.

  23. Quoted, ibid., p. 948.

  24. Payne, Marshall Story, p. 230; Cline, Washington Command Post, p. 313.

  25. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins, p. 748; Hull, Memoirs, II, 1470, 1705–1706.

  26. I Was There, pp. 284–285; Welles, Seven Decisions, p. 134.

  27. See, for example, “It Will Take Something More,” Inf. Jour., LII (February 1943), 6–7; Lt. Cdr. E. M. Eller, “How Shall We Win,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (hereafter cited as USNIP), LXVIII (April 1942), 465–472; Cdr. Harley Cope, “When Peace Comes,” USNIP, LXIX (February 1943), 165–168; C. A. Weil, “An American Way of Peace or War,” USNIP, LXIX (May 1943), 674–694; Cdr. H. H. Smith-Hutton, “Post-War Problems and the Navy,” USNIP, LXIX (June 1943), 785–793; Lt. Col. H. N. Kenyon, USMC, “Executing the National Policy,” USNIP, LXIX (August 1943), 1045–1051; 1st Lt. R. Sunderland, “The Soldier’s Relation to Foreign Policy,” USNIP, LXIX (September 1943), 1170–1175; Cdr. Isaiah Olch, “National and Naval Policy,” USNIP, LXIX (July 1943), 925–932.

  28. Great Mistakes of the War (New York, 1949), pp. 44–45.

  29. Memo to the Chief of Staff, July 23, 1940, Cline, Washington Command Post, pp. 4
3–44, 105–106, 314ff.

  30. Hearings before Senate Committee on Military Affairs on S. 84, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 521 (1945); I Was There, p. 239 (italics are the admiral’s).

  31. King and Whitehill, Fleet Admiral King, pp. 631–632; E. O. 9635, Sept. 29, 1945; Naval Organization Act of 1948, 62 Stat. 66 (Mar. 5, 1948).

  32. Hearings before House Select Committee on Postwar Military Policy on a Single Department of the Armed Forces, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 34–38 (1944).

  33. Hearings before Senate Military Affairs Committee on S. 84, pp. 157, 41 Iff.

  34. Ibid., pp. 589ff.; Report by Ferdinand Eberstadt to Secretary of the Navy Forrestal on Unification, Senate Committee on Naval Affairs, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. (1945); Walter Millis (ed.), The Forrestal Diaries (New York, 1951), p. 19.

  35. The Hopkins-Nelson-WPB viewpoint may be found in Donald M. Nelson, Arsenal of Democracy (New York, 1946), Bruce Catton, The War Lords of Washington (New York, 1948), and the Bureau of the Budget history, The United States at War (Washington, n.d.). For the Patterson-Somervell-Army approach, see John D. Millett, The Organization and Role of the Army Service Forces (Washington, 1954), and Stimson and Bundy, Active Service, ch. 19. The Baruch-Eberstadt-Forrestal interpretations are reflected in Eliot Janeway, The Struggle for Survival (New Haven, 1951) and Robert H. Connery, The Navy and Industrial Mobilization in World War II (Princeton, 1951). The picture as it seemed from the angle of James Byrnes and OWMR is given in H. M. Somers, Presidential Agency: OWMR (Cambridge, Mass., 1950). The Somers volume and the official history of the War Production Board, Civilian Production Administration, Industrial Mobilization for War, vol. I, Program and Administration (Washington, 1947) probably achieve the best combination of comprehensiveness and objectivity.

  36. Industrial Mobilization Plan, Revision of 1939. S. Doc. 134, 76th Cong., 2nd Sess. (1939).

  37. See Connery, Navy and Industrial Mobilization, ch. 8; Millett, Army Service Forces, pp. 201–212, 291–293.

  38. Executive Order 9024, Jan. 16, 1942, Federal Register, VII (Jan. 17, 1942), 330.

  39. Civilian Production Administration, Industrial Mobilization for War, I, 971. See also, for a brief summary, Somers, Presidential Agency, pp. 28–31.

  40. See Somers, Presidential Agency, pp. 125–137.

  41. The mismanagement of German War production is convincingly described in the United States Strategic Bombing Survey, The Effects of Strategic Bombing on the German War Economy (Washington, 1945), and Wilmot, Struggle for Europe, chs. 3, 4, 7.

  Chapter 13 — Civil-Military Relations in the Postwar Decade

  1. “Sino-Japanese Crisis: The Garrison State versus the Civilian State,” China Quarterly, II (Fall 1937), 643–649; “The Garrison State and Specialists on Violence,” Amer. Jour of Sociology, XLVI (January 1941), 455–468, reprinted in The Analysis of Political Behavior (New York, 1947); “The Interrelations of World Organization and Society,” Yale Law Journal, LV (August 1946), 889–909; “The Prospects of Cooperation in a Bipolar World,” Univ. of Chicago Law Rev., XV (Summer 1948), 877–901; “‘Inevitable’ War: A Problem in the Control of Long-Range Expectations,” World Politics, II (October 1949), 1–39; “The Threat Inherent in the Garrison-Police State,” in National Security and Individual Freedom (New York), 1950, pp. 23–49; “The Universal Peril: Perpetual Crisis and the Garrison-Prison State,” in Lyman Bryson, Louis Finkelstein, and R. M. MacIver (eds.), Perspectives on a Troubled Decade: Science, Philosophy, and Religion, 1939–1949 (New York, 1950), pp. 323–328; “Does the Garrison State Threaten Civil Rights?” Annals of the American Academy, CCLXXV (May 1951), 111–116; “The Threat to Privacy,” in Robert M. Maclver, (ed.), Conflict of Loyalties (New York, 1952), pp. 121–140; “The World Revolutionary Situation,” in Carl J. Friedrich (ed.), Totalitarianism (Cambridge, Mass., 1954), pp. 360–380.

  2. See, for example, Townsend Hoopes, “Civilian-Military Balance,” Yale Review, XLIII (Winter 1954), 221–222; Report of the Rockefeller Committee on Department of Defense Organization, April 11, 1953, pp. 3–4; H. Struve Hensel, “Changes Inside the Pentagon,” Harvard Business Review, XXXII (January-February 1954), 102–103.

  3. National Security and Individual Freedom, pp. 186–187.

  4. Sword and Swastika (New York, 1952), pp. 368–370. One of the most acute critical analyses by an American of the responsibility of t ;e German generals is G. A. Craig, “Army and National Socialism 1933–1945: The Responsibility of the Generals,” World Politics, II (April 1950), 426–438.

  5. Speech to the Massachusetts legislature, July 25, 1951, New York Times, July 26, 1951, p. 12.

  6. Lawrence J. Legere, Jr., “Unification of the Armed Forces” (Ph.D. Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1951), p. 406. Quoted by permission of the author. See also Crommelin’s statement, New York Times, Nov. 9, 1949, p. 33.

  7. Compare General Ridgway’s comments in Soldier: The Memoirs of Matthew B. Ridgway (New York, 1956), pp. 239–240. On this problem generally, see William Yandell Elliott and associates, United States Foreign Policy: Its Organization and Control (New York, 1952), pp. 168–172, and G. C. Reinhardt and W. R. Kintner, “The Need for a National Staff,” U.S. Naval Inst. Proceedings, LXXVII (July 1952), 721–727.

  8. Richard C. Snyder and H. Hubert Wilson, The Roots of Political Behavior (New York, 1949), p. 557.

  9. For civilian criticism, see Hanson Baldwin, “The Military Move In,” Harper’s, CXCV (December 1947), 481–489; J. F. Dobie, “Samples of the Army Mind,” ibid., CXCIII (December 1946), 529–536; L. B. Wheildon, “Militarization,” Editorial Research Reports (May 12, 1948), pp. 301–310; William R. Tansill, The Concept of Civil Supremacy over the Military in the United States (Library of Congress, Legislative Reference Service, Public Affairs Bulletin No. 94, Washington, 1951), pp. 38–59; Cong. Record (Daily ed.), Cl (May 17, 1955), 5518 (July 14, 1955), 9069–9071 (Aug. 1, 1955), 11024–11026, CII (Mar. 20, 1956), 4595–4597 (Mar. 21, 1956), 4691–4706. For the military defense, see Inf. Jour., LX (April 1947), 71, CXII (January 1948), 76–77; J. W. Stryker, “Are the Military Moving In?”, U.S. Naval Inst. Proceedings, LXXV (March 1949), 295–301; L. B. Blair, “Dogs and Sailors Keep Off,” ibid., LXXVI (October 1950), 1102.

  10. The activities of former officers are reported weekly in the “Retired Service Notes” in the Army Navy Air Force Journal. For lists of some of the more notable business appointments, see “The Military Businessmen,” Fortune, XLVI (September 1952), 128ff.; Cong. Record, Cl (July 14, 1955, daily ed.), 9070–9071; U.S. News and World Report, XL (Apr. 27, 1956), 55–56.

  11. Walter H. McLaughlin, Jr., “Business Attitudes Towards Defense Policy During the Cold War” (Honors Thesis, Harvard Univ., 1955), pp. 36–59; U.S. Dept, of the Army, The Army Almanac (Washington, 1950), pp. 883–908.

  12. “The Macs and the Ikes: America’s Two Military Traditions,” American Mercury, LXXV (October 1952), 32–39.

  13. For aspects of the MacArthur versus Marshall and Eisenhower feud, see Clark Lee and Richard Henschel, Douglas MacArthur (New York, 1952), pp. 98–102, 115–131; Richard H. Rovere and Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., The General and the President (New York, 1951), pp. 70–71; Robert E. Sherwood, Roosevelt and Hopkins (New York, 1948), p. 759, and “The Feud between Ike and Mac,” Look, XVI (July 1, 1952), 17ff.; Marquis Childs, “Soldiers and 1952 Politics,” Washington Post, July 8, 1952, p. 12; Frazier Hunt, The Untold Story of Douglas MacArthur (New York, 1954), passim; Robert Payne, The Marshall Story (New York, 1951), pp. 108–110; James K. Eyre, Jr., The Roosevelt-MacArthur Conflict (Chambersburg, Pa., 1950), passim.

  14. “The Necessity for Military Forces,” Inf. Jour., XXX (March 1927), 330; Speech to the Rainbow Division, July 14, 1935, in Frank C. Waldrop (ed.), MacArthur on War (New York, 1942), pp. 31ff.

  15. Address, Los Angeles, Jan. 26, 1955, U.S. News and World Report, XXXVIII (Feb. 4, 1955), 86–88; Douglas MacArthur, Revitalizing a Nation (Chicago, John M. Pratt, ed., 1952), p. 16.

  16. New York Times, July 26, 1951, p. 12; Hear
ings before the Senate Committee on the Armed Services and the Committee on Foreign Relations on the Military Situation in the Far East, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 39–40, 44–45, 114–115 (1951).

  17. New York Times, May 24, 1953, p. 34, July 2, 1953, p. 1.

  18. Quoted by Stewart Alsop, New York Herald Tribune, Apr. 24, 1955, Sec. 2, p. 1.

  Chapter 14 — The Political Roles of the Joint Chiefs

  1. Walter Millis (ed.), The Forrestal Diaries (New York, 1951), pp.13, 203; New York Times, Dec. 9, 1952, p. 26.

  2. Millis, Forrestal Diaries, p. 341; Edgar A. Mowrer, The Nightmare of American Foreign Policy (New York, 1948), pp. 249–250; State Department Bulletin, XVIII (May 16, 1948), 623–625.

  3. Millis, Forrestal Diaries, p. 529.

  4. See Harry S. Truman, Memoirs: Vol. I, Year of Decision (Garden City, N.Y., 1955), pp. 70–72, 79–82, 411–412, 550–552, 555–560.

  5. See John C. Campbell (ed.), The United States in World Affairs, 1947–1948 (New York, 1948), pp. 8–9, n. 4; Mowrer, Nightmare of American Foreign Policy, pp. 211–212.

  6. See George Kennan, Realities of American Foreign Policy (Princeton, 1954), as well as his earlier American Diplomacy, 1900–1950 (Chicago, 1951); Louis Halle, Civilization and Foreign Policy (New York, 1955); Charles B. Marshall, The Limits of Foreign Policy (New York, 1954).

  7. “A Soldier’s Farewell,” Saturday Evening Post, CCXXVI (Aug. 22, 1953), 63–64.

  8. Millis, Forrestal Diaries, pp. 195, 312, 315–316; Hearings before Senate Armed Services and Foreign Relations Committees on Military Situation in the Far East, 82d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 2572–2576 (1951); A. L. Warner, “How the Korea Decision was Made,” Harper’s, CCII (June 1951), 99–106.

  9. Probably the classic expression on civilian control was by General Vandenberg, Hearings before Senate Committee on Appropriations on Department of Defense Appropriation Bill for 1951, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., p. 226 (1950).

  10. Gabriel A. Almond, The American People and Foreign Policy (New York, 1950), pp. 122–126.