From McClellan to Fallon

There is a general perception by virtually all sides of the political spectrum that generals and admirals are Conservatives. That's not true. Many people who achieve high rank in the military do so because they are good politicians. In fact many believe that they would do a better job of running the country than the politicians.

Evidence of that is not only the number of military coups in other countries, but in our country. during the Civil War, General McClellan wished to replace Lincoln, become president and come to a negotiated settlement with the South.

That tendency did not end with McClellan and Admiral Fallon is now exhibit A of a military leader who is not inclined to follow the direction of his civilian superiors.

From Powerline

Mackubin Owens teaches at the Naval War College in areas including civil-military relations, of which he is a genuine scholar. He is also a fellow of the Claremont Institute, which has collected his columns and articles here. In a column for the Standard, he places the resignation of Admiral Fallon in the history of American civil-military relations, highlighting the case of Abraham Lincoln and General McClellan:

McClellan and many of his favored subordinates disagreed with many of Lincoln's policies, and indeed may have attempted to sabotage them. McClellan pursued the war he wanted to fight--one that would end in a negotiated peace--rather than the one his commander in chief wanted him to fight. The behavior of McClellan and his subordinates led Lincoln to worry that his decision to issue the Emancipation Proclamation might trigger a military coup.

McClellan openly expressed his disdain for the president and the secretary of War. Lincoln and his cabinet were aware of the rumors that McClellan intended to put "his sword across the government's policy." McClellan's quartermaster-general, Montgomery Meigs expressed concern about "officers of rank" in the Army of the Potomac who spoke openly of "a march on Washington to 'clear out those fellows.'"