Though I understand the subtlety in Catcher's posts with, its tough to have a convergence of these two vastly differing concepts, i.e the military government and the civilian government. Though there are similarities, I doubt the military in the DR carries the weight it did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.
I believe there are 200 some odd generals in the DR, as compared to 6 or so in the US. What does this statistic reveal? That the military is just a product and a result of fat cat government bureaucracy and that it is not an independent arm, rather a sub servant and dependent entity.
I would argue that the hierarchy is not top heavy, rather very light (dual meaning) and the police here, both by the public and government who should fund it, view it as a joke. The military is just a bunch of guys in fatigues doing drug runs and immigration patrol. Even the guys who run the military are civilian minds in military suits. I would argue the DR is in no way militarized.
So in the end how do I revert back to my original question? In the 1960's military was strong. It had numbers, it had guns, and it had the anti-communist heal to lean on. The region was still influenced by military dictatorships so why didn't this trend continue in the DR? Why weren't there any domestic military coups attempts? Why haven't we seen a stronger voice from military now, as we see in other nations?
Mr. Lu
|