Politicians and Generals
Would a
more “distributed” system of power, as opposed to all power in one man, mean
more peace or at least more rational choices during wars? As opposed to an ego
driven choice to not stop, or fight to the death?
The biography of Hannibal in the Hourly History series helps test that hypothesis. Carthage formerly
was more an oligarchy (rule by a few rich men) and Rome was still a republic,
and they were at loggerheads.
Hannibal’s
father, Hamilcar, was put in charge of preventing Rome from expanding south of
Sicily:
“Despite
Hamilcar’s victories on the battlefield, the final move in his chess match with
the Romans would not be his to make. Instead, it would be determined by the fat
cat, corrupt politicians in Carthage… It was decided in the backroom dealings
of Carthage’s ruling elite that they would sue for peace, before Hamilcar’s
victory could be declared.”
Decades
later, his son, Hannibal, arrived at the gates of Rome, and history would
repeat itself:
“(Carthage’s)
unenthusiastic councilors could not be swayed to send Hannibal the much-needed
reinforcements”.
The
reasons for such seemingly insane
decisions included:
1) The councilors were corrupt and
could be bought by the other side, even to do what was bad for their side;
2) The councilors genuinely didn’t
want to commit to an all-out war. Why risk everything on a single throw of the
dice? Why not play it safe and keep everyone alive?
3) And the last reason is that a
massive military victory credited to a single general raised the risk that he
would return home a hero, and either grab all power or even encouraged by the
masses to do so.
This
last point, the fear of an overwhelming victory credited to a general and not
the politicians, has continued long after Hannibal. Ironically, Rome itself
would run into this exact same conundrum with Julius Caesar! In that case,
Caesar won and Rome stopped being a
republic from that point onwards.
It’s a
theme that has played out again and again through history: the politicians with
the power to start wars then fearing the winning general. Hitler feared Rommel,
Indira Gandhi feared Sam Maneckshaw, Colin Powell was very popular after the
first Gulf War. So while it may be a good thing that one man can’t start a war
unilaterally, and that generals can’t call for unlimited resources, it also
puts a perverse interest to the politician to not allow his own side to win a crushing victory since the general
comes back a hero.
Is
there a solution at all to this problem?
Is there a solution at all to this problem? That is the finish question. Or, was that just a finish line not really a question? Anyway...
ReplyDeleteThe truth is not exactly as mentioned in the blog's presentation. Rommel was much honored in Germany and Hitler was not against it. Rommel being a national hero did not diminish his power and his glory. In a way it helped Hitler. The revenge against military top brass occurred only because of the failed assassination attempt by a small military group. Hitler actually offered Rommel a choice of full military honors on death if chooses poison himself. He easily could have dragged into court marshal which would also ensure the end of Rommel without military honors.
To the best of my knowledge Indira Gandhi was not fearing Sam Maneckshaw, since her name ran high with Bangladesh emergence, which implied a severe blow to Pakistan. The decision to go to war was momentous and it was her decision pushed by circumstances. History of course can be rewritten to snatch her role and in history anything goes anyway! After the war, Indira honored Maneckshaw by giving the title of Field Marshall, a rank not there in Indian Army. Maneckshaw's folly did him in, much later - his fault was that he thought what he said was humor in an interview. Some people in audience thought so too. But in politics, and in Indian society where sentimentality is so mighty that politicians ride on it, a joke can cost severally. That's what happened to Maneckshaw. About Indira fearing him, I still believe that was not the case. Indira Gandhi desired power and supremacy for sure; some say she actually feared her own vulnerability. Possibly she was more reconciled to not being a glory person herself nor did she confidence with her own power too. Nevertheless, fearing loss of military glory to the generals, hence wanting to snatch it was not her cup of tea.
It appears to me that Modi-ji, who is among the greatest marketing mangers of the world, does swing happenings in his favor usually; snatching military victories from generals for his feather-cap should be child's play for him. Agreed that Modi is a special case - his sway on people's mind is quire widespread while the subduing of swayed individual mind is very intensive. Today he is a god of India. That helps because die-hard Modi fans ensure that all glories belong to him and to none else. And, Modi knows that; he fears not.