The Military as a Political Actor

1. The Military as a Political Actor Thought exercise: What is the appropriate political role of the military in a democratic society? Are there situations where you would support military intervention into the domestic politics of this country?

2. Augusto Pinochet, 1975 nicely captures the typical Latin American military answer to these questions: “Since liberty derives from man’s inherent spirituality and is therefore justified it put to use for his moral and intellectual development, it is unacceptable if employed for the weakening and destruction of those very same values” (245). Thus, when politics becomes so corrupt or chaotic that a country’s core values are threatened, military intervention is morally required. (How different than the US Declaration of Independence?) “The fatherland with, its traditions and historical-cultural identity, cannot be the patrimony of any given generation, for it also belong to those who built it in the past, and those who have a right to its future inheritance. Nor can any generation so consider itself the sole possessor of its nationality as to feel authorized to destroy it” (245). In short, if the present generation betrays past and future generations, military intervention is justified.”

6. For comparison:United States (2017): 3.5% of GDP (623B)Global average: 2.1%

13. What are the key characteristics of Latin America’s military establishment? • Why is the military so central to the foundational myth of most Latin American countries, or at least the beginning of modern politics? Who do we look at in the US? • Why is the military seen as a valuable political actor by society? What does Brian Loveman mean when he writes about “the politics of antipolitics”? • How are the constitutional roles are different in Latin American than in the US (2nd amend, Const. role)? • What role does the military have in economic development? Is that a legitimate part of the mission of the military? • How well is today’s Latin American military resourced? Pretty well funded (independently) and armed for the external threats they actually face (3% GDP); Generally speaking, quite well trained • In Lat Am, the military often voices political and economic preferences, seeing them as core security issues. Does our military do that? Should it? • How do the US military branches get along? In LA, there is considerable inter-branch rivalry bc of what it at stake

14. Why is the military more involved in politics in Latin America? • How does the size of the middle-class & the structure of the economy affect militaries? What role has the US military played in racial integration? • How does the structure of advancement within the military affect political ambition? Why does it matter if politics is part of the equation? • How does the content of military education affect political ambition? Who teaches military officers, and how have they been trained (what is the School of the Americas)? • How do societies vary in their expectations for military intervention? • How does political stability (and political system design, populism) impact intervention? If you think our system doesn’t work… • How does the structure of the economy impact the military (state-led development)? • How have politics in the US impacted the role of the military in LA politics? To what extent have we encouraged practices abroad that we would never accept here? Is this still the case?

15. How successful has the military been as a political actor in Lat Am? • How brutal? (Guatemala, Argentina, Chile) • How successful economically? (Chile, Brazil, Argentina) • What kind of economic strategy? Always conservative (Chile->Brazil->Peru->Venezuela) • When/how do they leave power? (Argentina, Brazil, Chile) • Have things changed as the region has trended democratic since the late 1980s? How are military actors being held accountable and what long-term effects may that have?