The armedforces are the instruments of foreign policy, not its master. No successful andno peaceful foreign policy is possible without observance of this rule. Nonation can pursue a policy of compromise with the military determining the endsand meanings of foreign policy. The armed forces are instruments of war;foreign policy is an instrument of peace. It is true that the ultimateobjectives of the conduct of war and of the conduct of foreign policy areidentical: both serve the national interests. Both, however, differfundamentally in their immediate objectives, in the means they employ, and inthe models of thought they bring to bear upon their respective tasks.
The objectiveof war is simple and unconditional: to break the will of the enemy. Its methodsare equally simple and unconditional: to bring the greatest amount of violenceto bear upon the most vulnerable spots in the enemy’s armor. The militaryleader lives in the present and in the immediate future. The sole questionbefore him is how to win victories as cheaply and quickly as possible and howto avoid defeat.
Theobjective of foreign policy is relative and conditional: to bend, not to break,the will of the other side as far as necessary in order to safeguard one’s own vitalinterests without hurting those of the other side. The methods of foreignpolicy are relative and conditional: not to advance by destroying the obstaclesin one’s way, to retreat before them, to circumvent them, to maneuver aroundthem, to soften and dissolve them slowly by means of persuasion, negotiations,and pressure.
Tosurrender the conduct of foreign affairs to military is to destroy thepossibility of compromise and thus surrender the cause of peace. The militarymind knows nothing how to operate between the absolutes of victory and defeat.It knows nothing of that patient intricate and subtle maneuvering of diplomacy,whose main purpose is to avoid the absolutes of victories and defeats and meetthe other side on the middle ground of negotiated compromise. A foreign policyconducted by military men according to the rules of the military art can onlyend in war.
Peace mustbe the goal of any foreign policy. Foreign policy must be conducted in such away as to make the preservation of peace possible and not to make the outbreakof war inevitable. In a society of sovereign nations military force is anecessary instrument of foreign policy. Yet this instrument of foreign policyshould not become the master of foreign policy. As war is fought in order tomake peace possible, foreign policy should be conducted in order to make peacepermanent. For the performance of both tasks, the subordination of the militaryunder civilian authorities which are constitutionally responsible for theconduct of foreign affairs is an indispensable prerequisite.
