Chapter XXIII: Which Is The Most Warlike And Most Revolutionary Class In Democratic Armies? 11-10- 2010

 I call this another French chapter. I cannot see most of what de Tocqueville writes here as applying to America in the 1830s:

...Amongst the soldiers of a democratic army, some acquire a taste for military life, but the majority, being enlisted against their will, and ever ready to go back to their homes, do not consider themselves as seriously engaged in the military profession, and are always thinking of quitting it. Such men do not contract the wants, and only half partake in the passions, which that mode of life engenders. They adapt themselves to their military duties, but their minds are still attached to the interests and the duties which engaged them in civil life. They do not therefore imbibe the spirit of the army—or rather, they infuse the spirit of the community at large into the army, and retain it there. Amongst democratic nations the private soldiers remain most like civilians: upon them the habits of the nation have the firmest hold, and public opinion most influence. It is by the instrumentality of the private soldiers especially that it may be possible to infuse into a democratic army the love of freedom and the respect of rights, if these principles have once been successfully inculcated on the people at large. The reverse happens amongst aristocratic nations, where the soldiery have eventually nothing in common with their fellow-citizens, and where they live amongst them as strangers, and often as enemies. In aristocratic armies the officers are the conservative element, because the officers alone have retained a strict connection with civil society, and never forego their purpose of resuming their place in it sooner or later: in democratic armies the private soldiers stand in this position, and from the same cause. 

The Most Warlike And Most Revolutionary Class In Democratic Armies?

America lacked conscription — the draft — until the Civil War. Anyone watching The Gangs of New York will see the popularity of the draft resulting into riots. France, however, had conscription during the Napoleonic Wars.

The Mexican War loomed almost a decade ahead of de Tocqueville's quote. I remember reading Ulysses S. Grant's Memoirs, and noticing how much the West Pointers disliked the military life, how they wanted to get back to civilian life. It was in The Mexican War that many of our Civil War generals got their first taste of combat. 

Another movie came to mind while reading these military chapters of Democracy in America: Seven Days in May. A military coup lay at the heart of that movie — an Air Force general doubting the wisdom of a peacenik president. Which leads me to thinking about Donald Rumsfeld's plan for Iraq and General Chrystal in Afghanistan when I read this:

It often happens, on the contrary, that in these same democratic armies the officers contract tastes and wants wholly distinct from those of the nation—a fact which may be thus accounted for. Amongst democratic nations, the man who becomes an officer severs all the ties which bound him to civil life; he leaves it forever; he has no interest to resume it. His true country is the army, since he owes all he has to the rank he has attained in it; he therefore follows the fortunes of the army, rises or sinks with it, and henceforward directs all his hopes to that quarter only. As the wants of an officer are distinct from those of the country, he may perhaps ardently desire war, or labor to bring about a revolution at the very moment when the nation is most desirous of stability and peace….

But even if I can see modern analogs, I can also see serious variances — Among Americans. I have not read all the autobiographies of the Civil War generals, let alone the more modern generals, but I cannot think of any who thought the civilian subservient to the military. Yes, Douglas MacArthur had his troops attack the Bonus March veterans. That was on civilian orders. The rise in rank depends on Senate approval; which should give the officer corps reason to obey civilians.

I see de Tocqueville missing out on the ideas of nationalism. Marx also underestimated nationalism. Nietzsche dreaded it. The people saw the military as the nation; when the nation was threatened the military stepped in as savior [I think that covers both Napoleon and Francisco Franco. sch 11/12/23.] 

I think this passage may be a prophecy:

...But the remarks I have just made on officers and soldiers are not applicable to a numerous class which in all armies fills the intermediate space between them—I mean the class of non-commissioned officers. This class of non-commissioned officers which have never acted a part in history until the present century, is henceforward destined, I think, to play one of some importance. Like the officers, non-commissioned officers have broken, in their minds, all the ties which bound them to civil life; like the former, they devote themselves permanently to the service, and perhaps make it even more exclusively the object of all their desires: but non-commissioned officers are men who have not yet reached a firm and lofty post at which they may pause and breathe more freely, ere they can attain further promotion. By the very nature of his duties, which is invariable, a non-commissioned officer is doomed to lead an obscure, confined, comfortless, and precarious existence; as yet he sees nothing of military life but its dangers; he knows nothing but its privations and its discipline—more difficult to support than dangers: he suffers the more from his present miseries, from knowing that the constitution of society and of the army allow him to rise above….

The prophecy has nothing to do with America; Hitler was a corporal in the German Army.

As for America, this sounds nothing like the non-commissioned officers I have known. Moreover, it goes against my reading, too. Does anyone now read James Jones' From Here to Eternity? Reading that novel will give a much different view of sergeants. But I must wonder if the same jaundiced view of officers, of the military, still exists in the American military. We should worry when the military prefers its own kind of life to civilian life.

I ponder whether Eisenhower's military-industrial complex immunizes the officer class against revolution. It corrupts in many ways by giving retired officers employment, it may also encourage stability over revolution.

sch 

[Typing this up, some more current thoughts came to mind. Regarding Seven Days in May, Mark A. Milley came to mind. Top general was so fearful Trump might spark war that he made secret calls to his Chinese counterpart, new book says

In a pair of secret phone calls, Gen. Mark A. Milley, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, assured his Chinese counterpart, Gen. Li Zuocheng of the People’s Liberation Army, that the United States would not strike, according to a new book by Washington Post associate editor Bob Woodward and national political reporter Robert Costa.

One call took place on Oct. 30, 2020, four days before the election that unseated President Donald Trump, and the other on Jan. 8, 2021, two days after the Capitol siege carried out by his supporters in a quest to cancel the vote.

The first call was prompted by Milley’s review of intelligence suggesting the Chinese believed the United States was preparing to attack. That belief, the authors write, was based on tensions over military exercises in the South China Sea, and deepened by Trump’s belligerent rhetoric toward China.

“General Li, I want to assure you that the American government is stable and everything is going to be okay,” Milley told him. “We are not going to attack or conduct any kinetic operations against you.”

In the book’s account, Milley went so far as to pledge he would alert his counterpart in the event of a U.S. attack, stressing the rapport they’d established through a backchannel. “General Li, you and I have known each other for now five years. If we’re going to attack, I’m going to call you ahead of time. It’s not going to be a surprise.”

I know a fellow, former Air Force airman, who thinks this constitutes treason. To me, it is a military respect for the Constitution, which, at bottom, is respect for civilian authority. It is also a role reversal from the movie's plot.

Tommy Tuberville also came to mind when I typed up the comment about the Senate.  Senator Tommy Tuberville Blocks Votes on Military Promotions, and Marine Times, Senate may change rule to break Tuberville hold on military promotions I do not understand why the Democrats do not make the point that they are the party for a strong defense. Turberville seems bent on impairing the military and its respect of civilian authority. Then, on the other hand, there is: Mattis says vets at Jan. 6 Capitol riot ‘don’t define the military’:

“It’s a concern, certainly,” Mattis said.

But Mattis pointed out that, much like the U.S. military, the rioters were primarily men. Some of them had been out of the military for decades.

“When someone gets out of the military — and many get out at age 22, after a full tour and an honorable discharge — if at age 45 they were part of a group that marched on Washington, D.C., maybe a few other things happened between 22 and 45,” Mattis said.

 sch 11/12/2023.]