National security in the United States National security in the United States National security in the United States is a fundamental interest which is designed to be overseen by the executive branch. However, presidential interpretation of defense policy has evolved significantly over time in accordance with fluctuations in the political and social climate of the country. Each president who presides over the U. Thus, the broad margins of national security lie exclusively under this influence of the current President and his administration.
Rajapaksa himself is an ex-military officer. In this context, it is obvious that both, political and military leaders who led the successful counter-insurgent war against the LTTE have organized themselves as a lobby to protect their own interests, as individuals as well as a corporate entity.
Sarath Weerasekera, the ex-Navy Commander, who became an MP at the parliamentary election ofis playing the leading role in this effort.
However, what is new in the Essay on tact from a military perspective Maga campaign, of which Weerasekera is the main spokesperson, is that it has now launched a political campaign of retired military personnel.
This is the main aspect of the issue that invites the interest of the political analyst. Caution A cautionary word is needed at the beginning, though. Other than mere reporting, the media does not seem to go deeply to analyze the important themes that such reporting highlights.
A major reason perhaps is the fear of unwelcome consequences of such analysis, which would be construed by the heads of those institutions as threats to their institutional autonomy.
While one institution, the judiciary, is protected by some archaic practices arising from the belief that it is placed above critical public scrutiny almost as an institutional birthright, the other, the armed forces, operate on the assumption that any public scrutiny of its actions would amount to interfering with its functions of safeguarding national security.
Thus, in this essay, I will be exercising a great deal of caution in my formulations and propositions, despite the fact that I am a political analyst by training and vocation. New in Viyath Maga What is it that the Viyath Maga movement has to command the attention of a political analyst?
In my view, leaders of all civilian political parties, from the UNP, SLFP and SLPP downwards, should draw their attention to this new development too, while fighting their intense and internecine electoral battles. Background Since independence, Sri Lanka has had a remarkable record of maintaining its institutional structure of parliamentary democracy, despite severe setbacks in managing ethnic relations, social conflict, and the welfare state.
The development of a strong multi-party system, with two dominant parties, and the presence of a vibrant civil society, a widespread Left movement, an active trade union movement and a politically alert citizenry with a very high degree of electoral participation have been its key causes as well as features.
In both countries, within ten years of independence, civilian governments were overthrown by politically ambitious groups of military officers, amid the failure of civilian political leadership to consolidate and institutionalize democratic governance.
It is about how to keep the armed forces and the Defence Ministry under strict civilian control.
How they did it so successfully is a theme that requires a separate essay and a fresh research programme. Post Shift Meanwhile, a unique change began to occur in the nature of civil-military relations, not during the civil war, during which the military has expanded enormously in strength, but after the war when the national-security burden of the military became less salient.
Gotabaya Rajapaksa had of course become a civilian by that time, but his military credentials and military mindset made him more a military leader than a civil bureaucrat. Amidst all its dismal political failures, the yahapalanaya government of President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe should be given due credit, at least belatedly, for arresting this tendency with tact and care as part of their overall project of restoring democratic governance in post-war Sri Lanka.
This is also a theme that warrants a research paper of substantive length.
Even when he was leading the war under the political and institutional supervision of the two Rajapaksa brothers, there were signs, particularly in andthat the latter were cautious of the personal ambitions of Fonseka.
There was even a joke among diplomats and journalists in Colombo that the three most powerful men in the country at the time were Sarath Fonseka, Gotabaya Rajapaksa and Mahinda Rajapaksa, in that order.
The Fonseka saga did not end there. It has had two very significant sub plots. In that highly dramatic election campaign, what became highlighted were the personal rivalries and animosities between Fonseka and the Rajapaksa brothers.
He was the joint opposition challenger to the formidable incumbent President, Mahinda Rajapaksa. There were also rumours in Colombo that the Ranil Wickremesinghe camp was feeling uneasy about the key role that Fonseka had assigned to a circle of ex-military officers, personally loyal to him, to organize not only the final phase of the election campaign, but also the task of making plans for the taking over of power after the election victory and even organizing the new government.
The latter task Fonseka seemed to have initiated on his own, without consulting the UNP leadership. These were of course rumours. They nevertheless point to the possibility that there probably was a last minute understanding between Mahinda Rajapaksa and Ranil Wickremesinghe that the winner of the crucial presidential election of should be a longstanding civilian political leader.
This is of course a hypothesis the testing of which requires qualitative interviews with Mahinda Rajapaksa, Ranil Wickremesinghe and Sarath Fonseka. When we look at it from the perspective of civil-military relations, an extremely interesting narrative can be constructed.
Giving Sarath Fonseka the promotion to the rank of Field Marshal and then insignificant Ministerial positions, cannot but be elements of some shrewd political thinking on the part of both President Sirisena and Prime Minister Wickremesinghe.As this essay will later suggest, the theme of civil-military relations also provide a new prism through which to view Sri Lanka’s contemporary politics in a manner substantially different from what we usually read in the media.
Strategy vs. Tactic in Business. The usage of the words strategy and tactic in business is also derived from the original military context. A business strategy is different from a tactic in that different tactics may be deployed as part of a single strategy.
Proper Military and Professional Bearing, Order, Discipline, and Respect IAW AR & FM 1. Military Discipline a. Military discipline is founded upon self-discipline, respect for properly constituted authority, and the embracing of the professional Army ethic with its supporting individual values.
In modern military philosophy, the theoretical traditions established by each of these military theorist has significantly impacted our military thinking and their teaching has become essential in the education of modern military leaders.
The military has been taking gradual steps towards gender equality. In the early s, Congress lifted bans on women flying in combat and serving on combat ships. Some recent articles address these issues from a variety of perspectives: s long as the combat exclusion policies bar women from entering tactical/operational fields and.
Home» Perspectives Papers» Turkey’s Tactical Bear Hug with Russia. Turkey’s Tactical Bear Hug with Russia.
Three Turkish military vessels, the Yavuz, the Sultanhisar, and the Demirhisar, greeted the Missouri and escorted it to the Bosporus, where it anchored.
BESA Center Perspectives Papers are published through the generosity.