Monday, March 08, 2021

Fighting People Who Can’t Fight Back Makes You A Crappy Fighter

 Thanks to the military coup of Myanmar, the question of civil-military relations has come into the focus. What exactly is the role of the military and how should the military relate to the rest of the governing apparatus?

As a rule of thumb, its very clear in most democracies that the military is always subordinate to the civil structure. Take the American example where the nation’s top soldier, the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s is merely an advisor to the president and has no operational authority over any troops. This is repeated further down the chain of command where the uniformed heads of services report directly to civilian secretaries. This example is not just limited to America. This appears to be the case in other places.

So, when someone who has grown up in a system where the military is merely a tool of the apparatus of state, hears of a military coup or a situation where the military takes over the government, one tends to groan and see disasters for the nation where the coup has happened.

While there have been situations where a military coup can be helpful in situations where civilian politics starts to become dysfunctional as was the case in Thailand in 2014 when the then Prime Minister, Yingluck Shinawatra was removed by the military and the same could be said for Pakistan in 1999 when the then head of the army, General Pervez Musharraf removed Nawaz Sharif. There are leaders of military coups who have done a good job. Jerry Rawlings, former Ghanaian President comes to mind. This former air force office was described as a “Beast” by a Ghanaian friend.

However, with these notable exceptions, things tend to go downhill when the soldiers stay in power after their sell by date. Economies usually tank and so do the social indicators of a country. Nigeria, for example has done better since it returned to civilian rule many years ago.

Interestingly enough, one of the institutions that suffers in a military coup is the military itself. Instead of being a mean and lean fighting force that keeps the nation safe from foreign invaders, it becomes a flabby force used to keep the civilian population down.

These guys look tough

 


Copyright ABC News

When they’re fighting these guys:

 

Copyright Money Control

But How would they do if they had to face these guys?

 


Copyright Bangkok Post

The record of militaries in fighting wars has been pretty dismal when it comes to fighting other nations. As one former Indian National Pointed out – Pakistan’s military dominates Pakistan but in the three wars they have fought against India, they have lost miserably.

A record of the Pakistani Military in wars can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Pakistan

Another country that has seen more than its fair share of military coups is Nigeria. How has the Nigerian Army done in conflicts? If you look at the list of conflicts the Nigerian military has been involved in, you’ll note that its usually against separatist or as part of an international coalition. The one victory its had against Chad back in 1983. A record of the Nigerian military can be found at:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Nigeria

How has years of military rule been for the Myanmar military? Well, the nearly half a million Myanmar military’s main experience has been fighting various internal insurgents, each with a force of not more than 10,000 men. The military has been in conflict with these groups since 1948. Now, you would imagine that a national force would have been able to shut down much smaller insurgent groups if it really was an effective fighting force?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar

Wouldn’t it be better for all parties involved if the military went back to the barracks and focused on brining order against insurgent rebels, which in turn would encourage foreign investment, which would benefit everyone.

No comments

© BeautifullyIncoherent
Maira Gall