"Reports suggest that irrespective of the outcome of the election the good general has been assured an appropriate reward. In other words, a deal has been struck. He has also been used; not the individual but the institution of the Chief. The motive is personal."
The Army has been, and has consciously considered itself, the neutral instrument of state policy. When ordered it does not ask “Why?” or “What for?” If the military is to be used for political ends and their concerns ignored, can it continue to be the innocent automaton?