Presidents and Their Generals: An American History of Command in War

by Matthew Moten

Since World War II, the United States has been engaged in near-constant military conflict abroad, often with ill-defined objectives, ineffectual strategy, and uncertain benefits. In this era of limited congressional oversight and “wars of choice,” the executive and the armed services have shared the primary responsibility for making war. The negotiations between presidents and their generals thus grow ever more significant, and understanding them becomes essential.

Matthew Moten traces a sweeping history of the evolving roles of civilian and military leaders in conducting war, demonstrating how war strategy and national security policy shifted as political and military institutions developed, and how they were shaped by leaders’ personalities. Early presidents established the principle of military subordination to civil government, and from the Civil War to World War II the president’s role as commander-in-chief solidified, with an increasingly professionalized military offering its counsel. But General Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination to President Harry Truman during the Korean War put political-military tensions on public view. Subsequent presidents selected generals who would ally themselves with administration priorities. Military commanders in Vietnam, Iraq, and Afghanistan did just that―and the results were poorly conceived policy and badly executed strategy.

The most effective historical collaborations between presidents and their generals were built on mutual respect for military expertise and civilian authority, and a willingness to negotiate with candor and competence. Upon these foundations, future soldiers and statesmen can ensure effective decision-making in the event of war and bring us closer to the possibility of peace.

Genres: History, Military Fiction, Nonfiction

456 pages, Hardcover

First published October 6, 2014

Reviews

[Edgar Raines · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is one of the most important books on elite civil-military relations, that is the relations between the president, the secretary of defense, the joint chiefs of staff (and predecessor offices and agencies), and the major combatant commanders, yet written. The author, Col. Matthew Moten, USA Retired, a former chair of the History Department at West Point, labels these relations political-military relations to differentiate them from civil-military relations, which in his view would entail examining relations between the military as an institution and the civilian society it defends and thus many locations where the military are based as well as the national capital. Samuel P. Huntington in _The Soldier and the State_ (1957) argued that the best type of civil-military relations in a democracy involved a rigid division of work between senior political leaders and the military. The president and his civilian advisors established policy while the military devised the appropriate strategy to put the policy into effect. The soldiers, sailors, airmen, and marines remained apolitical and the civilians left military matters to the professionals. While "objective political control," as Huntington called this type of civil-military relation, might represent an ideal and even a standard by which to judge contemporary political-military relations, it has, Moten argues, "never existed in nature." Instead he sees a continuous process of negotiation between the civilian and military leaders about policy, strategy, the operational level of war, and even battlefield tactics. Such negotiation begins during the run up to a conflict, during the conduct of military operations, and into the postwar reconstruction period. He has fashioned fourteen case studies to address these issues in detail. They extend from 1775 to 2006. While I take some exception to Moten's argument, my concerns involve matters of detail rather than the overall thrust of his ideas. This is the kind of book that invites rereading and reflection and should be read by all thoughtful citizens. I consider it among the very best books in the field of U.S. military history.

[Frank Brennan · Rating 5 out of 5]

excellent insight into America's top generals and their c of c. Not the kind of book you have to read from page 1. Interested in Pres Polk? Read that section. Interested in Truman and MacArthur, open to those pages.

But make sure you read the opening chapter on Washington -- and the chapter on Geo. Marshall and FDR. Most excellent.

[Garrett · Rating 4 out of 5]

Mostly adopts (with some reformulation) Cohen's "unequal dialogue." Very useful set of case studies that stretch across US history.

[Stephen Boiko · Rating 5 out of 5]

Every president, politician,military officer, and citizen should read this history.