Arguably, military is one of the most sensitive organs of a sovereign nation. In most cases, military is independent in undertaking all its mandates, but that is not absolutely true. There are numerous factors that can influence the decision making in the military. This includes politics, religion as well as technological knowhow. In the 21st century, politics and technology play a role in military decision making. Military leaders make every effort to make policy recommendation s and decisions based on purpose criteria. Despite these efforts, politics influence military through president, government, as well as civilians. Despite the rationale, of objectivity in making military decisions politics can sometimes can have negative and politics impacts.
Undeniably, politics influence decisions in military when there is dissatisfaction with national policies and issues on security. The civilians argue that the military is more concerned on foreign issues more than domestic security. Apart from demonstrations, civilians use politicians to amend decisions to fit their interest. Politics is a game played by politicians; therefore, politics will influence military decisions through politicians (Gray, 2009).
Presidency is an organ of the state in which their leaders face political election. Hence, politics influence military decisions through the president. The constitutions of many nations give the president powers to oversee and make decisions in the military. The president in many nations is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces. Meaning he/she commands in the military, as well as influencing decision making.
There is a link between army and various political leaderships. Generally, military do not make decisions on regime, policies, government roles, as well as the laws. As a matter of fact, the military have no powers to decide on its field action, regulations, war, peace, as well as structures (Kegley, 2008). The military is one arm of government, which deals with defense and security. Politics and political strategies internationally and domestically influence military by declaring war, making peace decisions, as well as shaping the military image. The influence of politics in military decision making depends indirectly on the civilians.
Conversably, there are some absolute decisions that military leaders make within their jurisdiction. But to such extend politics influence their decisions. The election or nomination of military leaders is mostly politically influence (Gray, 2009). This implies that the military officers in the decision making department, will make decisions in favor of political leaders. For example, in most countries that have experience conflicts, military personnel have acted in favor of political decisions, which they believe is beneficial to them.
Perhaps, balancing political and military decision making is one of the complex tasks of government. Issues that relate to decision making between politics and military is difficult to establish (Schiff, 2008). Apparently, there are various harmless political issues that materially affect the efficiency of fighting, as well as decisions on war. Research shows that most military actions and decisions either passive or active, in war or in peace, stem from politically oriented objectives.
Government decisions depend on the goals and aims of politicians. Politics influence military decisions in the floor of the parliament; this occurs in making and amending laws. Politics make laws that govern decision making process in the military; hence, the military has no absolute powers to decide on what to do, but to act according to the law. In such scenario, conflicts occur in decision making when objective that politics motivate do not coincide with military decisions (Schiff, 2008).
Politics influence military decisions through allocation of finances. In every organization, either profit or non-profit making, need resources to implement its decisions. Military depend on the allocation of funds from the government, of which politics decide on the percentage. Military technologies and strategies require a lot of money to implement; hence, politics determine the progress of decision implementation within the military. Military considers this political influence as constrain in its activities.
Conversely, politics influence military decisions through signing of treaties, either to help other nations or to be part of the United Nations peace keeping force. Regardless of the willingness of military, to offer services to other nation, orders and commands come from the president, who is the commander-in-chief. For example, in United States the president has powers to call back American troops from Iraq, or ensure its continuity in fighting in Iraq. Civilians, has powers to make decisions only by electing a president, but after that, the president can follow peoples will or decide on his/her own (Gray, 2009).
Additionally, military is a contrivance to accomplish political objectives especially in the hands of politicians. In order for military to make its decisions well, it should be neutral in terms of politics affiliation. But, politics, utilize military in involving the in unjustified wars (Kegley, 2008). In such a scenario, it hinders motivation and dedication of military in undertaking its duties.
Conclusively, politics should not influence military decisions to critically levels. The constitutions should give more powers to military in decision making. As a matter of fact, we cannot dispute the influence of politics in military decisions. This is because the government is the supreme body that controls all other organs. Most influences of politics in military decisions come in terms of leadership, finances, law making, and above all the constitution. Civilians have the powers to elect political leaders with good will in the military issues and decision making.
Gray, C. (2009). National Security Dilemmas: Challenges & Opportunities. California:
Kegley, C. (2008). World Politics: Trend and Transformation: New York: John Wiley & Sons.
Schiff, R. (2008). The Military and Domestic Politics. London: Springer.