Why has the Mititary of the USA never taken over the government reins, like Central or South America?

Question

Why has the military machine in the USA always been under civilian control? Why the disjunct between the joint chiefs of staff
and the civilian secretary of Defense?
I know the constitution is the easy explanation, but I believe
the South American and Central American countries have
checks and balances written into their constitutions as well,
so why have we never had a military junta in the USA?
To what extent is the us military REALLY under control of the
US civilian gov't? Don't we have a lot of revolving door action between defence contractors and the military establishment
and the us gov't itself? How about all the presidents that were
military men, which includes just about all of them?

To put it simply, who is running the show?

Dave, I already mentioned the checks and balances in the constitution..the real world
is what I'm talking about.......there are checks and balances in Argentina, and look
what Juan Peron did for a few years there.
Things aren't always what they seem, especially things on paper....written over 200 years ago.....

kwing, good point..i forgot about the famous commander-in-chief salute,
and the saluting receiving line whenever
the pres visits the troops....almost like they are genuflecting before the civilian power
that keeps them at bay, so to speak..again, very good observation

Saulg21, glad you watched "Constitution Rock" as a kid(Just teasing!).
I can here that catchy little ditty already...
has a great beat but you can't dance to it!

Stan, do you work for the DOD? LOL.
Pretty heavy answer....very very good points! Thanks for contributing such a well thought out answer!

May I add one point to Stan's answer(maybe the finest anwer I've ever seen posted here on any subject...stna should be writing books, if he isn't already).......
would we possibly have an antiquated idea
of "control"? Is it really the tv stations(the stereotypical taking over of the airwaves
by the junta leader and the announcements?) Is it really the co-opting
of public offices? What I'm leading up to is that control can be much more subtle and nuanced. Remember Ike's "Military-Industrial" complex speach?

http://www.eisenhower.utexas.edu/farewell.htm

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence-economic, political, even spiritual-is felt in every city, every state house, every office of the Federal government.

My inference is that control is more subtle,
so subtle that we would not immediately
recognice it as such, which gives the import to what Ike was saying.
Perhaps, with the revolving industrial-military-corporate door at the present,
that control is already there, just not readily noticable....

good point, Chris, per the fact that a small
fraction of military are lifers, and an even smaller fraction are brass.....I'm leaning
towards a more nuanced control, as in
a military-industrial complex control however. Few brass are needed to make
that happen, for sure!

Answer 1

the 2nd amendment...... the people have the ultimate say.

the 1st amendment.....

and the rest of the bill of rights keep the military and politicians pretty much in line.

Answer 2

It just wouldn't work here. You could go down the list and take over these headquarters, that headquarters, the White House, the Defense Department, the television, the radio, and so on. You could arrest all the leaders, detain or kill off their families. And you would have accomplished nothing.

What are you going to seize that, having seized it, gives you control of the country?

You would sit in the office of the Secretary of Defense, and the first place where you wouldn't be obeyed would be inside your office. If they did follow orders inside the office, then people in the rest of the Pentagon wouldn't. If everybody in the Pentagon followed orders, people out in the military bases wouldn't. If they did, as well, American citizens would still not accept your legitimacy.

It's a problem of public opinion. All of the organs of opinion in this country would rise up with one voice: the courts, the media, business leaders, education leaders, the clergy.

You could shut down the media, but even if you did shut down the media, you still wouldn't be able to rule. Because, remember, in order to actually rule, you have to have acceptance. Think of Saddam Hussein: he was not a very, you know, popular leader, but he did have to be obeyed at the very minimum by his security forces, his Republican Guards. So there is a minimum group that one needs in order to control any country. But in this country, you could never control such a minimum group.

Do you really think you can control New York City without the cooperation of 40,000 New York police officers? And what about Idaho, with all those militia groups? Do you think you can control Idaho? I'm not even going to talk about Texas.

And this comes back to the federal system. Even if you seized Washington, Americans are willing to acknowledge that Washington is the seat of political authority only to a limited extent. The coup plotters could sit in the Capitol, but up in Boston we're going to ask, “What's this got to do with us?”

It's also impossible given the culture of the military. The notion of a cabal of U.S. military officers colluding to overthrow the government is almost unthinkable. Civilian control of the military is too deeply ingrained in the armed forces.

The professional ethic within the military is firmly committed to the principle that they don't rule.

About the only possible way that a military "coup" would ever be accepted would be if the US were attacked with WMDs and then the military might be invited to take control.

Answer 3

When our nation was founded,the Founding Fathers didn't want us to be just another example of good intentions gone bad like the republics of Ancient Rome and democracies of Ancient Greece. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. We have a system of Checks and Balances where each federal agency can look at the others including the military branches to see what everybody is up to. This way,no one person,federal agency or branch of the military can seize power to create a dictatorship.
That is why each of the three branches of our government have to work together to make it work.
The President signs bills into law and has the Veto,but no money. The Congress has money,but needs the Presidents signature to make laws. The Supreme Court sets the limits on how far each of them can go. If a law goes against the Constitution,then that law becomes null and void. Thru this system of Checks and Balances, no one gets everything they want. But thru compromise,they all get something.

Answer 4

One major difference is that most of the folks in the military aren't life long military, yes there are several long time military folks but the majority go for 4 years or so and than leave. Down south of the border and actually in several other countries members of the military go in to it as a life long thing. As a result military members actually form attachments to the big commander that arise from the ranks. In the US the military command is in constant shift as well as the president. There is never one central figure a bunch of malcontents would be able to attach their loyalty to even form junta like the south.

Answer 5

It is my opinion only that if you actually saw the hostile takeover of the government by the military, the people would be so quick to go after the military ( remember, we have guns to ) that they would be overwhelmed in a matter of hours. Besides, most of the military are your neighbors and friends, and they would disobey an order to attack the President and D.C. Nixon, Ford, Carter, Clinton and W ( he pretended he was in the military ) were not in the military. To answer your question about who is running the show, it is Cheney and Rumsfeld ( they never wore a uniform either ).

Answer 6

because if both north and south u . s . a . of america were component of the U.S., they'd fall lower than the federal guidelines and protections which may mean a minimum salary a lot more beneficial than what maximum of those human beings receives a fee. this will be large for all off those new voters, yet would stress up expenses of all our products we get from those international places. in short, our regularly happening of residing would flow down seriously.

Answer 7

The president is commander and chief he is the Military that's why our troops have to salute him!

Answer 8

I think the answer is because there are many institutions in the US, which somehow control each other: The army, FBI, CIA, etc.