Why a civillian should not be in charge of the military

Prapor

Prapor

Active member
Russian paratroopers: "Such a ruling party - we do not need!"

2010-11-20 13:29
Novy Region,
Arina Morokova, Mikhail Dzhenev

Airborne Forces veterans threaten the Kremlin to establish a opposition Popular Front. "We wanted to be out of politics, but we are forced to get involved in it" - say veteran Paratroopers in their open letter to Putin and Gryzlov (the text of which has come into possession of RIA "NR").

As the correspondent of "New Region" reports, recently a meeting of the Central Council of the Union of Russian Paratroopers was held. Outraged veterans of Airborne Forces declared that the "dam has broken" after the events in "Selcy", where the defense minister allowed himself to "yell obscenities" at officers; and pretending that everything is stabilized, will not work.

As you may recall, on September 30, Defense Minister Anatoly Serdyukov visited the Main Center "Selcy" of the Ryazan Higher Airborne Command Academy. According to eyewitnesses, as he came out of the helicopter, the minister immediately becan swearing at the Chief of the Academy - Guard Col. Andrei Krasov. Serdyukov has repeatedly called the Hero of Russia "Dolboyeb" ("****head") and used other deviant words. The Defense Minister explained that the reason for his anger - the wooden church of Ilya the Prophet, built on the Academy premises.

Later, Serdyukov's aids explained to the press that the minister was angered by the unfinished dining room and other training facilities, "while the church was fully completed." Representatives of the Ministry claimed that Serdyukov sharply chastised the commanders, but never used foul language.
Click to expand...
http://kprf.ru/army/84819.html

I won't translate the whole letter, too long. The point is, the Paratroopers are pissed off. They never liked Serdyukov from the beginning: first ever civillian in charge of the Defense Ministry, and a furniture salesman at that, 'Taburetochnik', as they mockingly call him, 'Stool maker'. And now the he ran into conflict with officers, they are demanding his resignation, there were public protests, this letter.

His whole appointment was Putin's big mistake to begin with. Total bad call. Won't try to comment who was right here. But the officers supposedly taking offense at 'dolboyeb' is ridiculous bs, I can say that. Certainly all ones I've ever served under used far, far stronger words than that lol
 
Last edited:
It may be new for Russia, but the concept is hardly new. In most countries Secretary/Minister of Defense is run by a civilian because its a civilian job.

And yes, sometimes the military dislikes being given orders by a civilian but its simply too dangerous to let military personnel get too involved in politics. Otherwise you risk getting "the gun rule" (he who has the guns makes the rules), which has toppled more than one democracy in the past century.
 
mmarsh said:
It may be new for Russia, but the concept is hardly new. In most countries Secretary/Minister of Defense is run by a civilian because its a civilian job.

And yes, sometimes the military dislikes being given orders by a civilian but its simply too dangerous to let military personnel get too involved in politics. Otherwise you risk getting "the gun rule" (he who has the guns makes the rules), which has toppled more than one democracy in the past century.
Click to expand...

Well, as a paratrooper, an officer, and a man, I can attest that I would not like to be disrespected by some corrupted ******* chair seller. When our general Vladimir Shamanov, a man who distinguished himself in Afghan in the 80s, Chechnya in the 90s and early 2000s, and played a significant role in Georgia in 2008, Hero of Russia recipient, huge experience, commander of Airborne Troops, was passed over in favor of the stool maker, that was a slap in the face not only to the 35,000 serving and many more tens of thousands veteran paratroopers; but to the whole military, all two million of us. The government trying to subjugate us again, push us down, like Khrushchev did to Zhukov once.

Putin better think what he is doing. If there is a color revolution Ukraine/Georgia/Kyrgyzstan type uprising against his government in the future, who will defend him? Mr. Prime Minister and President Medvedev need to remember that a day will come, when the loyalty of their security forces will determine if those forces will go and have to maybe shoot their own people to preserve their reign. So, maybe, treating us this way is not such a good idea.
 
Ummm, I believe that no one is good enough for such a post. Defense ministers should be called offense ministers... Or "pillage ministers"...

And you call that general a hero? Afghanistan was a massacre and bloody failure. Chechnya was a massacre too etc...

There is only corruption in this world. In particular when military/economic power is involved...

But as a rule, I say that only a man with a serious and deep knowledge about warfare should be in charge of military forces.
 
As a crazy person with weapons and live ammo, you have a better access to explosives. So we should let be in charge of this very important task.
 
Civilians running , yet being stupid about the military is nothing new.


For reference search the post of the Derp directly above this post.
 
Well PRAPOR, That's life. Here in the west we're kind of accustomed to that. Seeing civilians in charges of the military and with no experiences or knowledge of that world, but that is the way politics works. You have to remember that in the old days you had political komissar and they we not any better at their job. hey can't do much about it, just stay proud, remember you,re Airborne!
 
Well, the problem is that civilians are in charge of economic issues... Money money money... Just that.

And it's automatic, where these is money, there is corruption. Corruption can be subtle, the simple fact of caring about money where moral values & human lives are involved is a form of corruption.

I honestly believe that the civilian part of government should ONLY intervene in budget. They give a budget to their military forces. And let them provide security to the nation. End of story.

It's the separation of powers. Because we DONT want the military forces to be political tools. Their job is to defeat criminal forces threatening our societies. And they are very good at that.

In fact, we should send our soldiers to kick some political forces in our own countries for corruption...

And when you see these generals wait until they are retired to speak against the civilians giving them orders... It's just crazy...

And by the way, I say that if these generals had two bits of honor, they would resign rather than follow silly orders from corrupt people.
 
Really Le Mask? You say that generals should resign rather than follow "silly orders"?

Sometimes you just have to bite the bullet. A general does lead to serve the country, rather he or she serves to lead their soldiers! In cases like this it may be wise to stay in place, in order to mitigate some of the worst decisions and still provide support to the boots on the ground.

I know that this sounds altruistic, but, speaking as an ex officer, you do tend to put the welfare of those under your command ahead of your own, because that is not only the job, but the respect that you have for them. it is your job to look after the men and women under your command, to the best of your ability, sometimes this involves making unpalatable decisions that lose lives, sometimes it involves standing up for them against your superiors, but always it involves doing your best for them - however you can.

Can't say that I was the best officer, or the most inspirational, but I was there 24/7 and that can, occaisionally, be just as important as being the dynamic, lantern jawed hero, that people sometimes expect from officers.

Soldiers can be your greatest and truest friends, they only expect that you will do your best for them, as they will do for you!! So when you have the privilege to lead such people, treat them with respect and they will do their damndest for you.
 
What about the next generation? what about the future?

By sustaining a corrupt system to save a few, you waste the lives of the people in the future who will suffer from it. You allow a corrupt system to grow by doing that.

And an officer and especially a general should be able to understand that and to make the hard choice.

And I see things a little differently... I would rather lose all my men by sending to fight against a real enemy, than lose a few of them fighting people who dont deserve any hostility.
If you lose your men in a fair fight... They died as heroes, they lived like men, like soldiers at least... But if they die on the wrong battlefield... Their death was just stupid... They are just the victims of a big joke...

And let's take real examples. What do you think of these US generals who wait until they are retired to speak against the strategy in the war in Iraq?

What do you think of these generals who allowed contractors to take charge over military personnel at ridiculous prices...

How many US soldiers will die because of such bad decisions?

And I saw the french president Sarkozy in Saudi Arabia telling that it's a modern country and bla bla... That they are nice people and bla bla... I saw him travel to China to sell technology, and he left the human rights minister in its office in Paris...

And this joke, this excuse of a president, this worthless human being gives order to France's finest?

And I'm thinking really hard... I dont see one president who might do the trick... Maybe some guy like Chavez or Lula...

But not these jokers we have as presidents...
 
Imo the military can't do without the civilian administrations, because they are the ones controlling the budget. A sound military solution might be unaffordable in some cases. Then you need someone from outside the military to fit it into a payable solution. If you let a military man search for the solution, well.... it might not work out properly.

But I do think that you need military men to make a military plan. The Dutch had Srebrenica as a political-military plan and that worked out lousy. If the military had had carte blanche, those people would have been alive today.
 
Well, I still think that we should give the military a budget. Following the needs of the moment.

And link them with the intelligence community, ask them to provide security. Put the justice department in power to keep their actions in check, and basta... Nothing more.

No civilian leadership... All we need is finances + justice. All the rest should be avoided.

Mix the military with money and politics and you get a bunch of criminals in no time... And the honest people will have a hard time stopping them as they are the ones trained and equiped for warfare.
 
The military does have a budget.

The military is linked with the intelligence community

The military do provide security.

Put the justice department in power…? F***ing great idea. The next time I run into the Taliban I won’t kill him I’ll just give him a fine for possession of an illegal firearm.

No civilian leadership...? It's the damn way a democracy is built.

Mix the military with money and politics and you get a bunch of criminals in no time..? Hello hippie; stop smoking the wacky tobacco. We don´t all live in a f***ing banana republic.
 
A Can of Man said:
Never seems to be a problem with military dictatorships :lol:
Click to expand...

That is true :)

Look, people, I am not saying that the military should rule the country, like in Burma. I am saying that the military should control the military. "Politicians keep their dirty hands off officers epaulettes", as goes the song by our, Russian Airborne Troops official band 'Blue Berets'. I don't know about in Europe or America, but in Russia, officers have not only ten times the knowledge and experience of war and military matters; but ten times the honor, and ten times the respect of the nation, then the politicians. Most people here would trust someone in camoflage long before they would someone in a suit. Fact. Appointing this furniture salesman was an insult to us all. I hope Putin gets rid of him. If he knows what is good for him. We are the ones who have guns here. And the people are on our side. Picking fights with us is not smart.
 
Russia is still a very young nation in the democratic sense. Due to fundamental changes in the international system, society, technology and new types of military operations, it is inevitable that military and political considerations would be mixed together, making democratic control required, namely the elected politicians' right to manage the military in a democracy.

The key word is "objective control" where the military maintain a high degree of autonomy from the political system. That freedom must not be misused and instead the military must be advised toward "pure" military missions. Political neutrality is maintained by the officers as they are professional soldiers and therefore instinctively must refrain from making political decisions. A bit like a doctor operating patients irrespective of whether he knows them or not. The alternative to "objective control" is "subjective control", where the military is subject to political interests. For example, politically controlled by a particular political party or are only loyal to one particular ethnic group.

Therefore it is necessary to foster a democratic spirit in the military and make sure to have a democratically-oriented military. Germany today can be seen as an example of it. Certainly, the German Federal Republic (eg as a result of the Nazi past) placed great emphasis on creating a democratic consciousness in the individual German soldier (called Innere Führung). The military must be part of the democratic process, but they must not control it.
 
Partisan;589186 Can't say that I was the best officer said:
This is the nicest I've read today. I feel the same and appreciate your service.
Sometimes you just need to give credit where it's due. Thank You :)( that's for my son)
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top