A Restrained Military

A Restrained Military
by Michael R. Allen

I dislike Harry Truman. He continued the expansion the size of government that his predecessor, Franklin Roosevelt, started. He approved the use of two atomic bombs against Japan, when it had not done anything of comparable magnitude to the United States. (The bombing of Pearl Harbor was not of that horror and was limited to a military target.) And Truman unconstitutionally sent U.S. troops to serve in the Korean War. Yet, give him credit, Truman affirmed the people’s constitutional check against their military by firing General Douglas MacArthur.

The whole question of whether President Truman was correct in firing MacArthur is interdependent with two other questions on American foreign policy. Should the military, once engaged in combat, determine war policy? And, are the people to have no way to check a foreign policy that they abhor? The answer to each of these questions is a resounding “no,” and thus Truman was correct to fire MacArthur.

First, a word about the Korean War. The U.S. had no interest in fighting in what was essentially a civil war between two authoritarian factions. That Truman used illegal tactics as bad as MacArthur’s to get the U.S. into the war shows that he really was not concerned with the public’s right to control foreign policy.

Forget all that for a moment: Truman’s decision to fire is to be defended because it powerfully demonstrated that civilians control foreign policy, not the military. MacArthur complained that Truman was a politician meddling into an area in which he had no business -- war. But Truman had every right to carry out foreign policy once the public articulated it. Under the U.S. Constitution, the people select their representatives to Congress and their president to act on their behalf. Through elections, the American people can control their country’s foreign policy.

The unpopularity of Truman’s decision was to be dealt with later; the public had elected him president not to pander to their interests but to act freely in their place. Truman’s firing MacArthur for trying to ride roughshod over civilian policy was necessary to preserve the public’s control over foreign policy. The next, obvious step was to finish the job and impeach the president for his lack of respect for public will. But his weak Republican Congress always avoided such bold actions.

While the tools of election and impeachment could always be used against Truman if he alienated the public and its Congress, MacArthur faced no political restraints. That is why his firing was necessary. MacArthur complained of “prolonged indecision”, but did not understand that he was in no capacity to question such policy. His position was to execute the policy of the public’s representatives, and no more. MacArthur overstepped his restraints by pushing for total victory in Korea. His zealousness may have been popular, but it threatened the foundation his own representative government.

President Truman’s tactical justifications of the dismissal were questionable -- the war was not a success in 1951, and he would later withdraw U.S. troops without any victory -- as much as his action itself was correct. Dismissing General Douglas MacArthur was necessary to preserve a system of government in which the military (as well as the rest of government) serves at the public’s commands, not its own. Though he may have erred in handling many aspects of the Korean War, Truman made his most important decision of the war a correct one.

This is not to excuse Truman’s behavior in other aspects of foreign policy. However, the right decision is sometimes made for the wrong reason, even if its good results are erased by future policy decisions. When history renders its final verdict, firing MacArthur for instituting an unrestrained military will prove to be sound.

www.american-partisan.com