ps162secondexampowerpt

ps162secondexampowerpt - Puzzle II: Why would the military...

Info iconThis preview shows pages 1–7. Sign up to view the full content.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Puzzle II: Why would the military itself betray the government it is sworn to serve? Return to the Five I’s: Inheritance. Let us look back at the 19th century for clues. Military as political actor - longer than anyone would care to remember Anti-colonial struggles before there were nations and constitutions, there were armies determined to defeat the Spanish and Portuguese Under direction of San Martin from the South, and Simon Bolivar from the north, these armies fought the Spanish and won therefore sense of entitlement-
Background image of page 1

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
But of course, U.S. military fought bravely and won our independence from British. Yet, we established civilian control over them and never lost it. In L.A. took more than a century and a half to do so. What explains difference? U.S. 1. 13 colonies came together immediately at constitutional convention. Wrote constitution and formed central government. No anarchy. 2. Standing army and militias. Framers feared former and created one reluctantly. Most favored the militias, later became national guards. These militias were what comprised the army that fought British --citizen soldiers.
Background image of page 2
3. But framers most worried about military power falling into hands of politicians, not political power in hands of military. Thus efforts to limit civilian control over militias So Congress would have power to raise money for the militias, but governors would appoint the officers serving in and train the militias. Up till 1903, States had full authority over militias in peace, dual authority between states and federal govt during war. State governments did collide with federal over use of militias. Example. States resisted doing using their militias during War of 1812, After 1903, dual control in peace,
Background image of page 3

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
But key is, militias always under political control of either states or states and national government. There was never a power vacuum left for militias to fill on their own. While states and national govt quarreled over use of military force, the union held, and military units never seized political power for themselves.
Background image of page 4
Latin America: Post independence- states that are not nations: anarchy, no central power, no strong central governments. Withdrawal of Spain did not lead to immediate constitutional assemblies as in U.S.; no drawing up of new rules of game; no constitutions until later. Rather, a power vacuum existed which took decades to fill. These were territories, but not nation-states.
Background image of page 5

Info iconThis preview has intentionally blurred sections. Sign up to view the full version.

View Full DocumentRight Arrow Icon
Meaning: No sense of collective identity no agreements between different parties, groups to build something in common. To make matters worse, populations were not racially, ethnically, or economically homogenous: White landowners, brown skinned wage earners, black skinned slaves, Indians, mixed blood, etc. Thus plenty of built in
Background image of page 6
Image of page 7
This is the end of the preview. Sign up to access the rest of the document.

This note was uploaded on 04/15/2008 for the course POS 147 taught by Professor Godrej during the Winter '08 term at UC Riverside.

Page1 / 81

ps162secondexampowerpt - Puzzle II: Why would the military...

This preview shows document pages 1 - 7. Sign up to view the full document.

View Full Document Right Arrow Icon
Ask a homework question - tutors are online