|
Thailand Military Structure
Largely because of the advice and military aid received from
the United States in the decades since World War II, Thailand's
military establishment reflected to some degree the influence of
American defense practices. This was particularly apparent in the
organizational structure of its high command
(see
fig. 15).
Although the 1978 Constitution--like its predecessors--declares that the king is the head of the armed forces, his role is
chiefly ceremonial. Until 1957 functional control was generally
exercised by the prime minister through the minister of defense.
Both positions were important in the national power structure,
but they were usually held by political appointees who had little
actual authority over the troops.
As the military establishment grew in size and proficiency,
control over its operations became vested in the supreme commander of the armed forces. Over the years the influence inherent in
the job marked it as a logical springboard to the prime
minister's office. Even in periods dominated by military regimes,
the various heads of government watched the activities of the
supreme commander warily, realizing that their own positions of
authority were subject in large measure to his concurrence. This
pattern is exemplified by the military coup d'etat of September
1957 in which Sarit Thanarat took over the government. Assuming
control of the military establishment as prime minister, Sarit
further ensured his position of authority in April 1960 by
securing a royal decree that designated him supreme commander as
well. This title was similarly assumed by Field Marshal Thanom
Kittikachorn, who succeeded Sarit as prime minister in 1963.
Despite past successes in using this seemingly traditional
basis of influence, the supreme commander with political
ambitions was still subject to the military retirement system.
According to the Military Service Act of 1954, retirement at age
sixty was mandatory for all military personnel. A year after
General Kriangsak became prime minister in 1977 he had to
relinquish his additional position as supreme commander of the
armed forces because of the military retirement age.
Throughout the history of military governments in Thailand,
the effective authority wielded by the prime minister depended,
in large measure, on support from the real center of military
power--the army commander in chief, who controlled the field
forces--and on the adroitness of the prime minister in garnering
such support for himself. Prime Minister Kriangsak was successful
in this regard in 1978 when he appointed the commander of the
Second Army, General Prem Tinsulanonda--a respected professional
soldier--commander in chief of the army. ln June 1979 Prem was
given the additional position of minister of defense within the
Council of Ministers. Prem went on from these posts to succeed
Kriangsak as prime minister in 1980. General Arthit Kamlangek
served as both army commander in chief and supreme commander of
the armed forces until 1986, when he lost the former title as a
result of his outspoken opposition to Prime Minister Prem. Arthit
retired from active duty in 1986.
On national security matters that required coordinated
cabinet action or presented a serious threat to the country's
sovereignty, the prime minister was advised by the National
Security Council. This body consisted of the prime minister as
chairman; his deputies; the council's secretary general; the
ministers of defense, foreign affairs, interior, communications,
and finance; and the supreme commander of the armed forces.
Traditionally the prime minister dominated the workings of the
council.
The Ministry of Defense supervised the operations and
administration of the military establishment and coordinated
military policies with those of other governmental agencies
concerned with national security. The defense minister received
advice on military matters--particularly those pertaining to
draft laws, budget allocations, mobilization, training, and
deployment of the armed forces in response to national need--from
the ministry's Defense Council. This body comprised the minister
of defense as chairman; his two deputy ministers; the
undersecretary of defense; the supreme commander of the armed
forces; the chief of staff of the Supreme Command; the commanders
in chief of the three services, their deputies, and chiefs of
staff; and not more than three additional general officers
selected for their outstanding ability.
Each of the three armed services was headed by a commander in
chief who was directly responsible to the supreme commander of
the armed forces for the combat readiness and operation of his
units
(see
fig. 16). Although the three components were equal
under the law, the army was in fact the dominant service. Key
positions in both the armed forces high command structure and the
cabinets of military regimes traditionally were held by senior
army officers. In order to ensure support from the other
services, however, senior officers from the navy, air force, and
police occasionally were appointed to a few key ministries. In
general the structural form of service units and the method of
their employment were similar to those of comparable United
States military components, although they differed in size and in
the technological sophistication of their equipment.
Data as of September 1987
|
