2. 考研
  3. Friction between America’s military and its civilian overseers is nothing new. America’s 220-year experiment in civilian control

Friction between America’s military and its civilian overseers is nothing new. America’s 220-year experiment in civilian control

admin2010-01-13  61
问题    Friction between America’s military and its civilian overseers is nothing new. America’s 220-year experiment in civilian control of the military is a recipe for friction. The nation’s history has seen a series of shifts in decision-making power among the White House, the civilian secretaries and the uniformed elite (精英). However, what may seem on the outside an unstable and special system of power sharing has, without a doubt, been a key to two centuries of military success.
   In the infighting dates to the revolution, George Washington waged a continual struggle not just for money, but to control the actual battle plan. The framers of the Constitution sought to clarify things by making the president the "commander in chief." Not since Washington wore his uniform and led the troops across the Alleghenies to quell(镇压)the Whiskey Rebellion has a sitting president taken command in the field. Yet the absolute authority of the president ensures his direct command. The president was boss, and everyone in uniform knew it.
   In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln dealt directly with his generals, and Secretary of War Edwin M. Stanton handled administrative details. Lincoln, inexperienced in military matters, initially deferred (顺从)to his generals. But when their caution proved disastrous, he issued his General War Order No.1—explicitly commanding a general advance of all Union forces. Some generals, George B. McClellan in particular, bridled at his hands-on direction. But in constitutional terms, Lincoln was in the right.
   His most important decision was to put Ulysses S. Grant in charge of the Union Army in 1864. Left to its own timetable, the military establishment would never have touched Grant. The relationship between the president and his general provides a textbook lesson in civilian control and power sharing. Grant was a general who would take the fight to the enemy, and not second-guess the president’s political decisions. Unlike McClellan, for example, Grant cooperated wholeheartedly in recruiting black soldiers. For his part, Lincoln did not meddle in operations and did not visit the headquarters in the field unless invited.
   The balance set up by Grant and Lincoln stayed more or less in place through World War Ⅰ Not until World War Ⅱ did the pendulum finally swing back toward the White House. Franklin Roosevelt, who had been assistant Navy secretary during World War I, was as well prepared to be commander in chief as any wartime president since George Washington.
Which of the following statement is NOT true?
选项 A、The issue of power-sharing between the president and the generals is always controversial.
B、George Washington struggled not only for financial power but military power.
C、In the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln was supplanted by his general Grant.
D、In World War Ⅱ, the military power went back to the hands of the White House.
答案C
解析  在第一段第一句就提到“Friction between America’s military and its civilian overseers is nothing new．”军队与总统之间的矛盾是一直存在的，第二句又提到“civilian control of the military is a recipe for friction”总统对军权的控制是矛盾产生的关键所在，所以A正确。在第二段里，作者谈及“George Washington waged a continual struggle not just for money，but to control the actual battle plan．”这里“the actual battle plan”指的就是军政大权，所以B也正确。最后一段里，“Not until World War Ⅱ did the pendulum finally swing back toward the White House．”讲的是直到第二次世界大战，权力钟摆重新偏向白宫，所以D也正确。而C选项中，林肯并不是被他的将军所排挤取代，所以是错误陈述，即为正确答案。
转载请注明原文地址:https://www.kaotiyun.com/show/Sumi777K
0

在职申硕（同等学力）英语

相关试题推荐
随机试题
最新回复(0)