Civilian supremacy. Who makes the call?

I mentioned in a previous post the doctrine of "civilian supremacy." Let me expand a bit on this essential of the American way.

Although not mentioned specifically in our constitution, it is accepted that certain principles are the foundation of the success of our democracy. Separation of powers, checks and balances, separation of church and state , and civilian supremacy are some of these bed rocks.

Probably the least known, but maybe the most important, is the doctrine of civilian supremacy. In effect this idea says that all military forces and commanders are, in the final analysis, under the control and direction of non-military (civilian) authority. This is extremely important because only armed (military) forces have the ability to take over control of our government, becaused they ARE armed. South America is a good example of NOT having civilian supremacy--a junta a week.

The closest we have come in my lifetime to abrogating civilian supremacy was the MacArthur-Truman fight over the Korean war. MacArthur desired to invade China after having a great success in driving communist chinese troops out of Korean. Truman favored driving the Chinese out of Korea, but not invading China. MacArthur lobbied American political figures to get the right to invade China. This was a clear violation of civilian supremacy. President Truman was the commander-in-chief and MacArthur had no right to lobby against a president, his commander.

I was there and the outcry against Truman was unbelievable. A clear majority of Americans favored his impeachment; MacArthur, on his return to the U.S. was greeted as no other war hero we had had. MacArthur was asked to address congress to great acclaim. The argument was made that MacArthur knew the situation on the ground in Korean, he was a career military man and thus knew best what to do. In the end, civilian supremacy prevailed, but just by a nose.

In 1964, Barry Goldwater again came close to crossing the line. He argued, with some success, that the use of neclear weapons was a decision to be made by military commanders, not the president.

Now today, McCain flirts with the doctrine of military supremacy. His insistence that the key factor in the debate over when to leave Iraq should be controlled primarily by the commanders in the field, is very close to abandoning civilian supremacy. In fairness, he has not gone completely over the line, but he is close.

The doctrine of military supremacy in war has some surface obvious appeal---after all a general is a military 'expert.' But the danger of final decision being made by those with an army or armed men should be clear.

So McCain be careful. America be careful.