Skip to comments.

Posted on 09/13/2001 10:15:51 AM PDT by Israel

The Minuteman, Restoring an Army of the People by Gary Hart (The Free Press, Simon and Shuster, Inc.), purports to address an army of the people. The book is loaded with useful ideas and concepts, but it actually addresses the Army itself, and furnishes provocative insights. The last SGAUS Journal cover article, "One Hundred Years a World Power," also points to the subject of the Total Force Army.

The Journal article and The Minuteman cover the same John McAuley Palmer, and his influence regarding service of citizens in the Army. Palmer had no preference for a National Guard as compared to a total federal reserve army. It bears repeating but the Constitution provides war powers for Congress: On the one side "to raise and support armies;" and on the other "calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrection and repel Invasions." The Spanish American War and the Wars of the 20^th Century involved overseas service. The Militia was restricted to the defensive, "repel invasions," sort of role. Thus, the Militia of the Constitution could not serve in foreign war and was not therefore involved in the 20^th Century wars. And now for the 21^st Century, the Gary Hart Minuteman is also written in a context of an American Army of expeditionary forces. He visualizes a transition from "the current Cold War-type military structure to the lighter, more mobile, technological force of the twenty-first century." The author mentions two armies with the Minuteman as a symbol of one and a Regular Army the other, and a long controversy within the Republic. Actually there is only one Army, under the Army Clause, with various components, who feud among themselves and compete for shares of the $250 billion annual budget. Hart explains how that budget is understated by $50 billion.

First, the basic Hart proposal is to reduce the regular full time Armed Forces from 1.5 million to 500 - 700,000. This includes Navy, Marine, and Air Force as well as the Army now at 482,800. The Army National Guard / Reserves are 595,100. All Armed Force regulars together total about 1.5 million and all Reserves some one million. The proposal would up Reserve Forces, and while the total is not specified in the proposal, we may assume that 1.5 to 2 million would be part time Reservists rather than full time soldiers. The Reserves would have more training than at present and would be fully equipped.

Even though we do not have a formula for what maximum number of soldiers the Nation can afford, a one percent figure was mentioned in the Federalist Papers and by Adam Smith. The Cold War military totals of various nations appear to coincide with the assumption in more recent times. In any event, let us go on with the 1990 census and a U.S. population of 260 million. These part time soldiers are actually part of the standing Army. They are paid and have retirement benefits, and they are equipped and transported. Thus, a probable affordability limit on military numbers including part time professionals is somewhere near its present total. We do not quarrel with allocation toward part time personnel, but rather question the reality of the assumption that the U.S. would be moving to "an army of the people." Further, conscription to add personnel is no longer feasible in peacetime so we may conclude that the Total Force will top out at near its present level.

In the recent Journal article, we repeated the call for dialogue about a largely nonexistent militia, the lack of a home guard, as opposed to a Total Force Army of restricted size and subject to calls for service at any time in foreign places. Gary Hart does not address this home guard issue.

In any suggestion of a dialogue about National Defense, The Minuteman is the place for most people to start. Gary Hart repeats the classic warning about the dangers of a standing Army in peacetime and the importance of the will of the people in warfare. If anything, this is where he falls short.

To refer to the National Guard / Reserves as citizens and the Army as careerists is not realistic, and if so, the numbers involved (being within the classic one percent) are not great enough to command policy and, in a classic sense, there is no militia to protect us from the danger of this Total Force - one Army.

The National Guard was the Army Reserve manpower prior to WW II. Hart mentions the National Guard of 1920 which was 435,000 in size. Today it is 370,000. The Army Reserves (other than National Guard) are going to be some 225,000. Compared to population growth the total of these Reserves is a much smaller force. Further, the character, the mix of the Reservists may have changed. Reservists are already in a career status. They are recruited by pay, retirement, tuition and the like. Their civilian occupations are generally such as are compatible with the demands of part time military service. They tend to be utility employees, policemen, school teachers and others who serve in compatible occupations. The Reserve leadership in terms of the Jeffersonian "natural aristocracy" is somewhat missing because so many of those young people who fit that natural leadership category are in business management and the professions, and are among those who seek prominence in government and education at various levels.

The Minuteman is a symbol and fits as a title largely because the subject matter is about manpower. As the 20^th Century closes, we have only the U.S. Armed Forces and their various components. Other than state defense forces, the only vestige of state military left is the Adjutants General power pockets. They, on behalf of the Governors, have appointment power over National Guard officers when at home. Even that power is restricted. And, full time personnel carry the National Guard, some 12% of the ARNG and 30% of the Air Guard are full time. Hart expresses favor for the National Guard (particularly Air National Guard) but, by contrast, he also favors a national reserve organization.

And further, Hart mentions Reserves as potentially influential upon foreign policy makers. The National Guard exists today because of Congress, but that is a National Guard vs. Army turf fight, an intramural that has gone on since 1915. Part time soldiers do not pass judgment on military orders any more than full timers. Policy has to be made by a dialogue within the government and by public opinion. We are thankful for the one percent of the population who are willing to serve in the military, but the state of confusion about policy, with which the book begins, will hardly be cured by changing the active/reserve mix.

A Standing Army and Danger to Liberty: This is mentioned in The Minuteman just as though the Reservists were separate from the standing Army.

Preservation of liberty might be enhanced by a revival of a classic or constitutional militia. But that militia depends on perceived need for home guard services. Militia tends to contract in numbers when not needed and the 20^th Century is closing without a Militia in being in most places. For other factors not mentioned, the war powers are of Congress and civilian supremacy is firmly embedded in our culture, while the two year Constitutional limit on Army appropriation is not apparently observed. And, an armed public would be hard to subdue. Regardless, the wisdom of our forefathers was to view such an Army as we now have as inherently dangerous to liberty. That danger is the tyranny which could result when the peacetime Army turns inward and operates as a police force. The Army has the power to suppress the citizens.

In any event, Gary Hart puts together a well presented series of thoughts. He describes a muscle bound military in search of a mission. Moreover, the insights about materiel matters is well worth reading. Heavy tanks and crew served weapons hardly fit the light mobile army needs most to be anticipated. Hart mentions ships that may convert from commercial to armed cargo vessels. He recognizes that lift, the lack of transport, is the impediment to moving forces and equipment and supplies to foreign places. He recognizes that people can train and move faster than the industrial complex can convert to warfare. This book is lucid and with enough National Defense insights to be well worth having—and in only 171 pages.

While we disagree about the magic effect of a shift in the full time / part time manpower mix, the presentation of the idea itself reviews and leads on to the manpower of the Army, and to the protection of the Republic. While he does not dwell at length on the subject, he presents the old subject "tiered" levels of engagement, i.e. quick response by Regulars followed by heavy and then heavier tiers of Reserve Forces. There is a hint, but nothing more, about the loss of unit integrity in the Army and the Reserves. With centralization the lack of belonging to a particular unit maybe of significance. Even warriors may need that sense of belonging. In any event, the Army Times reports the Army is already integrating National Guard units into Regular Battalions, and calling Reserve / National Guard officers for Regular Army slots. And, the book does not go into any detail about the manpower burden of maintaining long term forces in Europe, Korea, Bosnia, etc.; nothing about the Reserves on extended active duty.

Gary Hart points out that America is "de facto an island" and that "actual danger" to the U.S. is not defined so clearly as it might otherwise be. Lead-time to respond to the actual danger has necessarily been part of the reliance on the militia system of the past. And, more to the present is the military industrial complex which has a politically powerful combination of military, industry, unions and communities economically dependent on Defense contracts. This dependency is firmly embedded. Hart’s plea is to break a conspiracy of silence and challenge the military status quo.

Gary Hart was a U.S. Senator for 12 years and a member of the Senate Armed Service Committee. Many of us remember his campaign for President in 1988, but not much more. He is obviously a great deal more of a student of military affairs than we would have supposed, and he refers to himself as a "liberal" Senator at that. The Minuteman is a book we commend to our SGAUS members.

NOTE: Not All History Favors the Militia

The Minuteman turns to history of Greece and Rome to support its citizen soldier idea. Cincinnatus, the great soldier consul who went home to farm is described with great favor. Of course, Rome was transformed from a small republic to an empire by its army.

Perhaps Hart should have considered Adam Smith and the classic Wealth of Nations. The work was published in 1776 and most often is thought of as classical economics. Adam Smith believed in a division of labor, and in his chapter on the expense of defense, he concludes that paying a professional army is worthwhile. Adam Smith’s review of history concludes that armies are superior to militia in warfare and that the army wins over militia every time. He noted, however, that militia turns into an army in successive engagements. He observed that the American Militia (of the American Revolution then in progress) by continuing to fight would turn into an army which would equal the British regulars.

Smith also comments about the fall of Rome and the decay of the great legions. To him the Roman legions were armies under strict discipline and severity. During their service in the legions, the Roman men were one hundred percent soldiers. (Compare WW I and WW II. The U.S. citizens were on extended active wartime duty and during that extended service they became one hundred percent full time soldiers.) The legions were eventually manned by mercenaries and then disbanded. Later Roman soldiers were garrison types who became militia in fact. They were conquered.

Smith believed that the reason militia were inferior warriors to army was because of discipline rather than lack of proficiency. In other articles we have described militia as effective in defense roles and in skirmishes. In maneuver combat militia does not do so well.

Smith also notes that the change in occupation from herdsmen to factory workers took away some militia advantage of the herdsmen being conditioned for military life. Query: Will the computer operator of today more easily fit into a future military role?

Also not covered in The Minuteman is the story of the Minutemen in American history at the outset of the Revolution (1775). They were made part of the Massachusetts militia in 1774. They were first responders, the third of the Colonial militia organization designed to make first contact with the enemy. According to the National Guard Bureau historian, LTC Leonid Kondratuit, the Minutemen were as well trained as the British. In the engagement on the road from Lexington to Concord there was "the shot heard round the world." The Minutemen lost the bridge, but the British in going on with their mission to capture Colonial supplies at Concord were so hampered and harassed by skirmishers that all supplies were moved by the time they arrived. On the way back to Boston, the harassment continued—the British had to have help. Troops from Boston joined in the rescue. The aura of the Minuteman endures.

Gary Hart does make an interesting and apparently sound point about the shift in character of war. There have been no more "big" wars between nation states. War is now by divisions or factions within the larger nation. Perhaps an analogy to the Minutemen who lost a round of fighting in direct confrontation, but actually they win by the support of the citizens who fired from the cover of stone fences.

To go on with the story, the Minutemen soon dissolved. The soldiers of the Continental Army became the first line of the fighting force. In the Adam Smith view, they changed from Militia to Army.
 

Review by and for further information contact: COL Paul T. McHenry, Jr., SGAUS Executive Director and Journal Editor, P. O. Box 206, Lothian, MD 20711. Phone and Fax: (301) 261-9099. E-mail: Director@sgaus.org

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.