The Army: A Profession of Arms

[Bill Jakola]

We had Dr Strangelove (released 29 Jan 1964) and the lesser-remembered Fail Safe (released 7 Oct 1964) (on cable a month or so ago), which were of the "Big Boom cuz of Screwup" genre.

We had Slap's Seven Days in May (released 12 Feb 1964), of the "Big Conspiracy" genre - timely as being released a few months after JFK was killed.

We also had the 7 Sep 1964 Daisy Ad, which played on fears that the Dr Strangelove and Fail Safe scenarios would actually play out. That is, if the electorate allowed "conspiratorial nutcases" (i.e., Goldwater et al) to assume the reins of power.

Such was 1964 Hollywood's normative view of the military (scarcely in its eyes a profession of arms at flag officer level). While I hated that view then and now, I admit to some addiction with the films themselves. But, I also appreciate The Battleship Potemkin .

More recently, we find another fan of "Seven Days" in a high place:

Pentagon Memo: Gates Sees Fallout From Troubled Ties With Pakistan



Too bad he didn't write a review for us.

Cheers

Mike

Mike,


Yes, too bad he didn't write a review in light of Bob Woodward's recent book "Obama's Wars" showing similar tension actually happening.

But it is difficult to know the full story having only read one side. Still it is Interesting that SECDEF Gates watched this movie.

[slapout9]

Still it is Interesting that SECDEF Gates watched this movie.

You should really watch both together. "Fail Safe" and "7 Days in May".
In Fail Safe a limited Nuclear exchange takes place because of a glich in a tatally automated Defense system, kinda like what just happened a few weeks ago when the Air Force lost power? to some 50 ICBM's.

7 days in May takes place when the Miltary decides to have a "Secret War Game" where they intend to kidnap/or something else? the President while he is at a Secret Miltary Base.

Both are future scenarios of what could have happened or could still happen.

[slapout9]

Scene from Fail Safe, best part is towards the end.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-Q1rKFsHnQ

[Pete]

In the Summer 2010 issue of Parameters, the War College quarterly, there is an historic overview of the involvement of U.S. military officers in politics. According to the author:

The belief that the American military has been uninvolved in politics is traditional and long-held. In his magisterial work on the subject of civil-military affairs, Samuel P. Huntington stated flatly that “after the Civil War officers unanimously believed that politics and officer-ship did not mix.” This article has attempted to show that such an assessment is simply not true. Rather, senior military officers were continually and deeply involved in political affairs both before and after the Civil War. More importantly, such a relationship was not seen as either un-American or unconstitutional. On the contrary, for most of the nation’s history the close relation between soldiers and politics has been encouraged and accepted.

The article can be read by clicking here.

[Pete]

American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, edited by Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider, Baltimore, Md., Johns Hopkins University Press, is reviewed in the Spring 2010 issue of Parameters, available by clicking here.