• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

camouflaged britches and a potential “crisis” Book Reviews in civil-military relations. Compounding the strife was statistical proof that the officer corps American Civil-Military increasingly self-identified as Republicans. In the post-9/11 era, we worried about an overly Relations: The Soldier and the reticent military leadership whose professional State in a New Era expertise was muffled by civilians, who allegedly Edited by Suzanne C. Nielsen and micromanaged military plans and operations. Don M. Snider Much of the recent analysis reads like a politi- Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009 cal version of People magazine with larger than 490 pp. $34.95 life admirals and generals—Anthony Zinni, ISBN: 978–0–8018–9288–2 William Fallon, and David Petraeus, for exam- ple—jousting with cabinet officers and making “power plays.” Retired officers have created their own controversies, endorsing political can- Our Army: Soldiers, didates and even calling for the resignation of Politics, and American cabinet officers. Often absent from these vivid Civil-Military Relations articles are an analysis of the theoretical foun- dations of civil-military relations or accurate By Jason K. Dempsey data on what the military actually thinks and Princeton University Press, 2009 believes. Two new books do a great job in filling 266 pp. $26.95 in some of those blanks. Both books came from ISBN: 978–0–6911–4224–1 officers associated, as I was years ago, with the Department of Social Sciences at West Point. All three of the authors are from the Military REVIEW ESSAY BY JOSEPH J. COLLINS Academy’s “second graduating class,” alumni officers who came back to teach at the Academy and then returned to the Army to reinforce its Civil-Military corps of Soldier-thinkers. Suzanne Nielsen and Don Snider’s book Relations: Theory is an edited volume. Such works are too often uneven and not worth the time or tedium to and Practice read. The best edited volumes, however, com- ivil-military relations are a hardy pound the wisdom of the individual authors perennial in the study of politics, and are worth their weight in gold. To get to C international relations, and inter- this stage, the book has to be organized along agency policymaking. In the Clinton era, a clear theme, be an original work, and be we worried about a military too big for its well designed, and it has to be tightly edited. Colonel Joseph J. Collins, USA (Ret.), is Professor of National Security Strategy at the National War College. PRISM 1, no. 4 BOOK REVIEWS | 177 American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and view of themselves and include stability opera- the State in a New Era is such a volume, and it tions in their concept of military professional is a highly valuable addition to the theoretical competence. Unfortunately, even this large col- literature on civil-military relations. lection was not able to look at the other side The book contains original contributions of that coin. While many today accept that from experts who attended the West Point stability operations are a part of the military’s Senior Conference in 2007, a festschrift on the competence, the importance of the whole-of- 50th anniversary of the publication of Samuel government approach was not covered in this Huntington’s epic, The Soldier and the State. volume, which was focused only on the mili- Huntington’s classic is best remembered for tary. Noted historian Williamson Murray made suggesting that the optimum division of labor important recommendations for future profes- is for civilians to make policy and for the admi- sional military education, and Colonel Chris rals and generals to give military advice, avoid Gibson, USA, and Richard Kohn suggested politics, and, in return, be accorded professional commonsense (but generally conservative) rules space in the conduct of tactical and opera- for active and retired officers to build trust with tional affairs. After a few days of discussion and their civilian superiors, and vice versa. In the months of subsequent editing, the contributors end, the civil-military game and its rules belong to this volume—including Columbia’s Richard to the elected and appointed civilian officials in Betts, the University of North Carolina’s the chain of command. Professor Kohn laid out Richard Kohn, and Duke University’s Peter the conservative interpretation of civil-military Feaver—had thoroughly analyzed the classical interaction that is also pertinent to civil ser- issues, not only critiquing Huntington’s basic vants, intelligence professionals, and Foreign theory but also bringing the analysis forward to Service officers: the present day. New issues are also well covered in this Civilians determine the extent of military edited volume. Colonel Matthew Moten, responsibility and authority and what will USA, of West Point’s History Department, be delegated, and even whether to listen wrote an excellent chapter filled with new or to consult. They are subject only to the material on the Shinseki affair, where General limitations they impose, for various rea- Eric Shinseki, the serving Chief of Staff of the sons, upon themselves; to the legal checks Army, was harshly criticized by senior civil- of other branches of government when ians in the Department of Defense for giving they disagree; and to the military and an honest answer (which turned out to be political conditions at any given moment. presciently correct) to a pointed but fair ques- . Thus, civilian control means that the tion about postinvasion Iraq from Senator Carl elected leadership, and those whom they Levin, now the Chairman of the Senate Armed appoint, have both the right and the author- Services Committee. Nadia Schadlow, of the ity to be wrong. Smith-Richardson Foundation, and Colonel Richard Lacquement, USA, of the Army War In the end, no plan survives contact with College faculty, discussed with skill and passion the enemy, and no classic work from 1957 could how the Armed Forces should broaden their endure for 50 years without serious corrections 178 | BOOK REVIEWS PRISM 1, no. 4 and amendments. Each of the authors builds is one of the first to look analytically at the atti- on and rejects aspects of Huntington’s origi- tudes and behaviors of the enlisted ranks as well nal theory. In their excellent conclusion, Don as the officer ranks. Snider and Suzanne Nielsen summarize nine Dempsey begins by tracing the history of major conclusions on Huntington’s theory. In U.S. civil-military relations and covers George their words, “The most significant shortcoming Washington with special attention. General of Huntington’s construct was its failure to rec- Washington while still in uniform began our tra- ognize that a separation between political and dition of a nonpartisan military and established military affairs is not possible—particularly at the the principle of subordination to civil author- highest levels of policymaking” (p. 291). Politics, ity. Over the years, with some ups and downs, policy, and strategy are strands in the same rope. the nonpartisan, apolitical tradition became so To be immersed in the politics of national life at strong in the 20th century that many senior offi- the highest levels of government, a senior officer cers such as Omar Bradley and George Marshall cannot be a neutral vessel of knowledge who lim- never even voted. The author describes the its his or her input to strictly military concerns. breakdown of this apolitical, nonpartisan ethos Nearly 200 years ago, Carl von Clausewitz recog- in the Cold War era, paying particular atten- nized the same phenomenon. He wrote that the tion to the period from the Carter presidency to most senior military officers required a “thorough the present. Throughout his excellent volume, grasp of national policy” and, without losing sight almost every observation is backed up by detailed of their professional role as generals, they had analyses of survey data, some of which Dempsey to become statesmen. And therein lies the rub, gathered in the 2004 Citizenship and Service as well as the importance of studying civil-mil- Survey that he himself designed. itary relations in general and this new book on Dempsey expertly traces the dominance of Huntington’s theory in particular. Republican Party preference identification in Lieutenant Colonel Jason Dempsey, USA, the Army officer corps. Citing various surveys adds current data and analysis to Nielsen and done under the supervision of Duke’s Ole Holsti Snider’s treatment of the basic theory of civil- and Peter Feaver, Dempsey chronicles the grad- military relations in his excellent book, Our ual “Republicanization” of senior officers from Army: Soldiers, Politics, and American Civil- 46 percent after the Carter presidency, to 61 Military Relations, which focuses on the politi- percent a decade later, to 67 percent in 1998. cal and social attitudes and behaviors of officers (New, less scientific surveys by the Military and enlisted personnel in the U.S. Army. The Times suggest that this trend may be changing author not only seeks to understand Soldiers, and that political party preferences among offi- but he also wants to remind those same Soldiers cers are becoming more balanced.) Dempsey’s of the “importance of political neutrality” (p. own data partly confirms the Republican lean- xv). Dempsey gives us an invaluable insight into ings of the officer corps, but he points out that the complexities of political attitudes within enlisted personnel, ignored in most other sur- the officers and enlisted personnel of the entire veys, have different and more balanced political Active Army. In the process, he demolishes a preferences than their superior officers. On top number of commonly held myths about a mono- of that, newly commissioned officers are shown lithic, politically active officer corps. His book to be politically savvy, more active than their PRISM 1, no.

Load more

  4

Copy Link