Air University Review, July-August 1968

Civic Action—A Weapon for Peace

Major Laun C. Smith, Jr.

The term “military civic action” is relatively new in the history of military strategy and tactics, but the military has been used as a tool of government during peacetime and wartime since biblical times at least. The term has been given an official definition with broad application by the U.S. Joint Chiefs of Staff in JCS Publication 1, Dictionary of United States Military Terms for Joint Usage, but civic action still faces staunch opposition by many hard-line hardware-type military commanders today.

Since the Korean conflict or even earlier, U.S. military leadership has been aware of the value of a good military civic action program as applied during wartime. More recently military civic action has been recognized as an excellent way to counter insurgency in underdeveloped or developing nations. One of our key civic action directives is the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, mainly because President John F. Kennedy cited civic action as one method of countering subversion.

But military civic action has a multitude of peacetime applications also. In fact, there are those who say that the most important phase of military civic action must occur during peacetime so that insurgency or all-out war can be averted.

Two books have been published on this subject recently. Dr. Edward Bernard Glick has written Peaceful Conflict, the Non-Military Use of the Military,* and Mr. Hugh Hanning has authored The Peaceful Use of Military Forces. ** Dr. Glick is a professor of political science at Temple University, and Mr. Hanning is an Englishman with a background in both military and foreign affairs.  Both books are recommended reading for young career officers in the Department of Defense as well as the Department of State.

Both books are well written. To the professional they provide interesting reading and needed a valuable insight to the history, the uses, and the promises of military civic action in a world of either rudimentary or highly sophisticated military establishments involved in regional, national, or international socioeconomic development. And they stress the political and diplomatic overtones as well as effects.

Most U.S. military men are aware of the tremendous impact the services have on nearly all aspects of civilian life today—from space technology, to civil engineering, to transportation, to medicine, to marine research, to name a few. One is impressed with the significance of such an impact after reading either Hanning or Glick. They both point to the military as having the most natural and widely applicable systems of training, education, and career development to provide for the needs of developing as well as developed nations. But they caution that nations should try to assure that training provided while a man is in the military be used by him when he returns to civilian life.

Glick treats the United States experience more directly, comprehensively, and critically  than does Hanning. His objective in writing  his book was to “present a concept [civic advise or support in what are essentially host action], to philosophize about it, to describe its historical and present workings, to evaluate and criticize it.” He accomplished his objective, using mainly the military civic action experiences of the United States, Latin America, Israel, Vietnam, and the Philippines. His strongest chapters are the first, in which he defines terms and discusses conflict, counter-insurgency, and civic action, and his last chapter, in which he classifies civic action and discusses its problems and promise.

Hanning, on the other hand, treats more extensively the civic action programs and resettlement programs of a greater number of countries, most of them in more detail than Glick, who devoted more space to a much-needed historical account on the subject. Hanning coined an acronym, PUMF (peaceful use of military forces), which is somewhat distracting to the reader.

The strength of Hanning’s book lies in the thoroughness of his research, the impressive appendixes containing documents from seven countries to supplement his text, and his central theme of using the military as a training ground for future productive citizens through proper prerelease and resettlement programs after military obligations are met. To prove his points he relied heavily on the experiences of Israel, Peru, Colombia, Iran, and the United Kingdom.

The two authors are in agreement on most points. They make a strong point in favor of military civic action, or peaceful use of the military, properly applied. And both dwell on the dangers of military civic action. Glick, in particular, warns that it could become a tool for power in the wrong hands. But to both men there are more favorable aspects for civic action than there are unfavorable ones against it. At least it is worth a try.

Glick says the civic action doctrine of the United States” assumes that we should merely advise or support in what are essentially host country programs.” The activity flow is from the U.S. military to its foreign counterpart, then from the latter to its people. Armies, he says, should work with the civilians on projects the civilians want and need. Armies should never work for civilians. He points out that nearly all experts agree that civic action endeavors of the armed forces should never be permitted to degrade their military usefulness.

Hanning expresses much the same philosophy. Both writers agree that military support of a civic action project should end when a civilian agency becomes capable of carrying it through. In other words, peaceful uses of the military should help establish an economy but should never take from civilian industry, business, or labor the livelihood that is justly theirs.

To both men, training is the key. Hanning points out that training incorporates the vital principle of self-help which is really the core of the military civic action or PUMF philosophy. Training while in the military by the military “is the greatest economic boon which any defense establishment can confer on the community; and it is one which embodies few of the overtones of the more controversial functions of PUMF.”

The intangible results of military civic action can be even more important than the concrete ones. Both authors stress this in one way or another. The attitudes and manners of those performing the civic action can do more harm or good than completion of the actual project-a road, bridge, schoolhouse, etc. As Hanning puts it, “ . . . one of the villager’s fundamental needs is to be treated with respect.” 

This point has too often been overlooked by commanders in the field during wartime. It has also been overlooked until recently by commanders in peacetime. To stress this point, both Glick and Hanning use the recent experiences of the United States and Israel. What they say is that the best person to perform civic action is the man trained or educated for the job. The United States now does this, they assert, by sending specially trained men out as Mobile Training Teams to perform civic action functions. Israel is doing the same thing, probably with greater effectiveness, through her two most important civic action institutions, Gadna and Nahal. Other nations are following suit.

A strong feature of Glick’s book is the nine pages of text he devoted to the civic action memorandum of Lieutenant Colonel John T. Little, former chief of the White Star Mobile Training Team in Laos. Little’s memorandum contains a basic formula for the conduct of a civic action program, and it is recommended for study by those who are planning such a program for the first time.

Another point that the authors agree upon and stress is the need to select the in-service training that will most benefit the man and his society when he leaves the service. Too many developing nations stress industrial skills and omit agricultural training entirely, with the result that too often the trainee wanders back to his farm highly skilled as a mechanic but with little if any added skill as a farmer.

Finally, both Glick and Hanning point out that military civic action, or the peaceful use of military forces, is not the answer to all the ills of a nation, especially in a counter-insurgent situation. Glick says that “counterinsurgency cannot succeed through civic action alone, neither can it be lastingly successful without it.” Hanning writes that the “correct counter-insurgent posture is two-handed-the closed fist of military force and the open hand of friendship.”

Many mistakes have to be avoided to assure successful use of military forces in peaceful pursuits. Both Hanning and Glick have made a good case for civic action, but they have also been quite objective in stating the problems to be encountered. In a few instances they have posed solutions to some problems that many in the armed forces will find difficult to agree with. But they deserve consideration, study, and alternate solutions at least, because they are problems that are more demanding of solution today than they have been in the past.

Quarry Heights, C.Z.

*Edward Bernard Glick, Peaceful Conflict, the Non-Military Use of the Military (Harrisburg: Stackpole Books, 1967), 223 pp.

**Hugh Hanning, The Peaceful Uses of Military Forces (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1967) xxvi and 325pp.

Contributor

Major Laun C. Smith, Jr. (M.A., University of Pennsylvania) is Regional Desk Officer for Central America, Public Affairs Office, U.S. Southern Command. He served during World War II as an enlisted man and returned to active duty as an officer in 1952. His principal assignments have been as Information Officer in Morocco, 1954-56, and at Richards Gebaur AFB, 1956-58; Assistant Professor of History, U.S. Air Force Academy, 1958-62; Deputy Assistant for Policy and Programs, SAF-OII, from 1962 until his present assignment in 1966. He has written extensively on military subjects and has served in several editorial positions, most recently as editor of the Supplement to the Air Force Policy Letter for Commanders.

Disclaimer

The conclusions and opinions expressed in this document are those of the author cultivated in the freedom of expression, academic environment of Air University. They do not reflect the official position of the U.S. Government, Department of Defense, the United States Air Force or the Air University.

Home Page | Feedback? Email the Editor