| Summary/Abstract |
New democracies face significant difficulty in understanding the position of the Chief of Defense (CHOD) and its difference from the traditional/historical role of Chief of the General Staff (CGS). Many of those states attempted to transition from CGS to CHOD upon the advice from Western allies. This move usually followed critical failures in the defense systems. These failures often occurred after bad political decisions regarding the armed forces because the political leadership was in the dark about their true condition. The role of the CHOD, as envisaged and implemented in most long-standing democracies, is designed both to solve this deficiency and to ensure that the armed forces are fit for the future. This article outlines how and why this is the case and identifies precisely what it is that a CHOD should do.
|