DOCSLIB.ORG

Between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976-96

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976-96 A Widening Gap Ole R. Holsti between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976-96 ~ Although civilian-mili- tary relations are central to democratic governance, American interest in the issue has waxed and waned. Until 1945 the United Sates’ favorable geographic position permitted it to demobilize rapidly after each war. The onset of the Cold War almost before the guns of World War I1 had cooled ensured that the United States would maintain a large military establishment. The unprece- dented threats arising from the Cold War and the inception of nuclear weapons heightened concerns about relations between the military and civilian society. They also triggered a flurry of important studies on civilian-military relations,’ as well as a warning from retiring President Dwight D. Eisenhower on the Ole R. Holsfi is the George V. Allen Professor of International Affnirs in the Department of Political Science at Duke University. He is the author of Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996). I am greatly indebted to the National Science Foundation for grants that have supported the research described here, most recently with grant no. NSF-SBR-95-14921 to support the 1996 Foreign Policy Leadership Survey; to the Josiah C. Trent Memorial Foundation for its support of the 1996 survey; tu Daniel Harkins for his expert programming and skills in navigating his way through the Duke computer system; to Rita Dowling for her secretarial expertise and willingness to type a seemingly endless number of tables with good humor; to Davis Bobrow, Vincent Davis, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver, Joseph Grieco, Charles Hoppe, Richard Kohn, Miko Nincic, Edward Rhodes, Thomas Ricks, James Rosenau, Gene Wittkopf, Robert Zelnick, and two anonymous reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier draft; to Edward Laurence of the Naval Post- Graduate School and Terry Deibel of the National War College, who provided invaluable assistance in distributing the Foreign Policy Leadership Project (FPLP) questionnaires to military officers at the Naval Post-Graduate School and the National War College, respectively; and, of course, to the almost 14,000 civilian and military leaders who took the time to fill out the questionnaires in the six FPLP studies. 1. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Pouwr: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power iii the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: Tlzc Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control,” Arrned Forces aiid Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178. I?iternntro?ialSecurity. Vol. 23, No. 3 (Winter 1998/99), pp. 542 0 1998 by the President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 5 Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.23.3.5 by guest on 28 September 2021 lnterizational Security 23:3 1 6 potential dangers to democratic society of a permanent "military-industrial complex.'r2Two schools of thought about coping with the civilian-military gap emerged from these studies. According to one perspective, associated most closely with Samuel Huntington, because military values and ways of thinking were more appropriate for dealing with the external threats of the Cold War, the gap would best be closed by society moving toward the more conservative values of the military. Military sociologist Morris Janowitz presented an alter- native prescription, focusing on the technological requirements of modern warfare that should appropriately lead toward civilianizing the military. Controversies surrounding the Vietnam War provided the impetus for re- newed consideration of the relationship between the military and civilian society. The flood of postmortems on the causes of U.S. failure in Vietnam has only slightly abated a quarter century after the last evacuation of Americans from Saigon. The wide range of explanations includes some that lay the blame on the civilian leadership for incompetence-or worse-and undue meddling in the conduct of war, as well as others that indict the military leadership for a variety of serious shortcoming^.^ The end of conscription in 1973 and the disintegration of the Soviet Union in 1991 have given rise to a "third wave" of questions about civilian-military relations. The United States has reverted to an older tradition of an all- volunteer military, but it will remain far larger than it was in previous periods of peace. At the same time, issues such as the extraordinary efforts to avoid military service during the Vietnam War by top political and opinion leaders in Washington (President Bill Clinton, House Speaker Newt Gingrich, Senate Majority Leader Trent Lott, columnists George Will and Patrick Buchanan), the treatment of women in uniform, a host of widely publicized sex scandals in the military, incidents of mutual disrespect between the military and members of the Clinton administration, and policies toward gays and lesbians in uni- form have further roiled civilian-military relations. Tensions between the first Clinton administration and the military so quickly became visible that only ten weeks after Inauguration Day the Gallup Organization, whose surveys have 2. Dwight D. Eisenhower, "Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People," January 17,1961. Pirblic Papers ofthr Presidents: Dwight D. Eisrtiho7uer. 1960-1961 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), pp. 1035-1039. 3. This literature is far too extensive to list here. Recent publications that blame the failures in Vietnam on the Johnson administration and the military, respectively, include: H.R. McMaster, Derdiction of Duty: /ohnson, McNainara, the Ioint Chiefs of Stnf, atid the Lies Tlwt Led to Viettinni (New York: HarperCollins, 1997); and Robert Buzzanco, Masters of War: Militor!/ Dlsscrit nizd Politics in the Vidrinm Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997). Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.23.3.5 by guest on 28 September 2021 The U.S. Civilian-Military Gap I 7 rarely touched upon civilian-military relations, asked the public to ”rate rela- tions between Bill Clinton and the military.” Almost two-thirds of the respon- dents replied ”not good,” and of these, 65 percent stated that the president was to blame for this state of affairs4 The anecdotal evidence about changes and strains in contemporary civilian- military relations receives additional systematic support from an analysis of seventy-five policy disagreements between civilian and military authorities spanning a period of more than six decades and ending in 1997. Prior to the end of the Cold War, civilian preferences prevailed in well over 90 percent of the cases (fifty-nine of sixty-three), whereas during the post-Cold War period they did so in fewer than half (five of t~elve).~ A further source of controversy centers on the possible use of the armed forces to cope with a plethora of domestic problems6 The military were actually deployed to cope with the Los Angeles riots following the Rodney King verdict, in which four white police officers were found not guilty of beating a black motorist; and there have been proposals for using the armed forces to cope with domestic terrorism, drug interdiction, immigration control, and other problems7 Some recent articles in military journals have even sug- gested that it may be necessary for the armed forces to cope with domestic “chaos” and to arrest a societal decline into decadence. According to one author, “We must be willing to realize that our real enemy is as likely to appear within our own borders as without.”’ In short, the 1990s have witnessed many developments that have generated a vigorous debate centering on an important question: Is there a crisis in 4. George Gallup, Jr,, The Gnllir)~Poll: Pzrblic Opirzion 1993 (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1994), p. 241. 5. Michael C. Desch, Civiliarz Coiitrol of the Military: The Clioripg Secicrify Eriviroiirnuif (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming). 6. Federal military forces have been used for dealing with civil disturbances, racial disorders, labor unrest, and other domestic problems since the early days of the republic. Excellent overviews may be found in Robert W. Coakley, The Xolc, (if Fdcrnl Milifnu!/ Forces in Dornrstic Distirrbnriscs, 1787-187s (Washington, D.C.: US. Army Center of Military History, 1989); and Clayton D. Laurie and Ronald H. Cole, The Role [I! Fcdernl Military forces iri Doriiesfic Disorders, 1877-1945 (Washington, D.C.: US. Army Center of Military History, 1997). 7. On April 18, 1998, ABC News reported that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the armed forces rather than local law-enforcement authorities have received the lion’s share of funding for antiterrorist training. On May 21, 1998, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the defense bill authorizing the military to patrol US. borders against drug smuggling and illegal immigration. 8. Colonel Michael Wyly quoted in Thomas E. Ricks, Mnkzrzg fhe Corps: Sixty-orie Men Cnrne to Parris Island to Become Mavirzes, Not A// of Them Made If (New York Scribner, 1997), p. 294, as part of a broader discussion of one school of military thinking about civilian society. Downloaded from http://www.mitpressjournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1162/isec.23.3.5 by guest on 28 September 2021 International Security 23:3 1 8 civilian-military relations? In a provocative article and subsequent book, jour- nalist Thomas kcks presented some disturbing evidence pointing to an alarm- ing and growing cultural chasm between the professional military and civilian society.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Government for a Digital Economy 77
    EDITED BY NICHOLAS BURNS AND JONATHON PRICE CONTRIBUTORS INCLUDE: Graham Allision; Zoë Baird; Robert D. Blackwill; Nicholas Burns; James Cartwright; John Dowdy; Peter Feaver; Niall Ferguson; Stephen Hadley; Jennifer M. Harris; Christopher Kirchhoff; Jane Holl Lute; Joseph S. Nye; Thomas Pritzker; Kirk Rieckhoff; John Sawers; Julianne Smith; James Steinberg; Douglas Stuart; Dov Zakheim; Leah Joy Zell Copyright © 2016 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2016 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-650-8 Wye Publication Number: 16/013 Cover design by: Steve Johnson Interior layout by: Sogand Sepassi aspen strategy group CHAIR EMERITUS MEMBERS Brent Scowcroft Madeleine K. Albright President Chair The Scowcroft Group, Inc. Albright Stonebridge Group Graham Allison CO-CHAIR Director Belfer Center for Science and Joseph S. Nye, Jr. International Affairs University Distinguished Service Professor John F. Kennedy School of Government John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Harvard University Zoë Baird CEO and President DIRECTOR Markle Foundation Nicholas Burns Stephen Biegun Goodman Family Professor of Diplomacy Vice President and International Relations Ford Motor Company John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Robert D. Blackwill Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy DEPUTY DIRECTOR Council on Foreign Relations Jonathon Price Kurt Campbell Deputy Director Chairman and CEO Aspen Strategy Group The Asia Group, LLC James E. Cartwright Harold Brown Chair in Defense Policy Studies ASPEN INSTITUTE PRESIDENT Center for Strategic and International Studies Walter Isaacson Eliot Cohen President and CEO Robert E.
    [Show full text]
  • America's Path: Grand Strategy for the Next Administration
    MAY 2012 America’s Path Grand Strategy for the Next Administration Edited by Richard Fontaine and Kristin M. Lord Contributors: Robert J. Art, Richard K. Betts, Peter Feaver, Richard Fontaine, Kristin M. Lord and Anne-Marie Slaughter Acknowledgments The editors would like to thank the four distinguished authors who devoted their time and effort to writing chapters for this volume; their dedication and work made this grand strategy project possible. We would like thank all those at CNAS who reviewed the chapters, especially Patrick Cronin. We express our appreciation to Nora Bensahel for her key editing role and to Oriana Maestro for her insights into the literature on grand strategy. Liz Fontaine lent her considerable talents to the design of this volume. To them and others at CNAS who helped make this volume possible, we offer thanks. Cover Image Illustration by Liz Fontaine, Center for a New American Security. TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction: Debating America’s Future 3 Chapter III: A Grand Strategy of Network Centrality 43 By Richard Fontaine and Kristin M. Lord By Anne-Marie Slaughter Chapter I: Selective Engagement 13 Chapter IV: American Grand Strategy 57 in the Era of Austerity at the Crossroads: Leading from By Robert J. Art the Front, Leading from Behind or Not Leading at All Chapter II: American Strategy: 29 By Peter Feaver Grand vs. Grandiose By Richard K. Betts MAY 2012 America’s Path Grand Strategy for the Next Administration Edited by Richard Fontaine and Kristin M. Lord Contributors: Robert J. Art, Richard K. Betts, Peter Feaver, Richard Fontaine, Kristin M.
    [Show full text]
  • Civil-Military Module Discussion Questions
    Civil-Military Module Discussion Questions ............................................................................ 1 Introduction Richard H. Kohn, “Six Myths about Civil-Military Relations in the United States” ................... 2 Civil-Military Relations and Civilian Control Eliot A. Cohen, Supreme Command: Soldiers, Statesmen, and Leadership in Wartime (New York: The Free Press, 2002), Pgs. 1-14, 199-207, 225-233, 239-248 .......................................... 3 Participation in Politics Gen Martin E. Dempsey, “Letter to the Editor: Military leaders do not belong at political conventions,” Washington Post, July 30, 2016 and “Keep Your Politics Private, My Fellow Generals and Admirals,” Defense One, August 1, 2016, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/military-leaders-do-not-belong-at-political- conventions/2016/07/30/0e06fc16-568b-11e6-b652-315ae5d4d4dd_story.html , https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2016/08/keep-your-politics-private-my-fellow-generals-and- admirals/130404/; Heidi Urben, “Commentary: Generals Shouldn’t Be Welcome at These Parties: Stopping Flag Officer Endorsements,” War on the Rocks, July 27, 2020, https://warontherocks.com/2020/07/generals-shouldnt-be-welcome-at-these-parties-stopping- retired-flag-officer-endorsements/ ; Bryan Bender, “’Disturbing and reckless:’ Retired brass spread election lie against Biden and Democrats,” Politico, May 11, 2021, https://www.politico.com/news/2021/05/11/retired-brass-biden-election-487374 ...................... 4 Resignation Peter Feaver, “Should Senior Military Officers
    [Show full text]
  • 42, the Erosion of Civilian Control Of
    'The views expressed are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the US Air Force, Department of Defense or the US Government.'" UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY Develops and inspires air and space leaders with vision for tomorrow. The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today Richard H. Kohn University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill The Harmon Memorial Lectures in Military History Number Forty-Two United States Air Force Academy Colorado 1999 For sale by the Superintendent of Documents U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 Lieutenant General Hubert Reilly Harmon Lieutenant General Hubert R. Harmon was one of several distinguished Army officers to come from the Harmon family. His father graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1880 and later served as Commandant of Cadets at the Pennsylvania Military Academy. Two older brothers, Kenneth and Millard, were members of the West Point class of 1910 and 1912, respectively. The former served as Chief of the San Francisco Ordnance District during World War II; the latter reached flag rank and was lost over the Pacific during World War II while serving as Commander of the Pacific Area Army Air Forces. Hubert Harmon, born on April 3, 1882, in Chester, Pennsylvania, followed in their footsteps and graduated from the United States Military Academy in 1915. Dwight D. Eisenhower also graduated in this class, and nearly forty years later the two worked together to create the new United States Air Force Academy. Harmon left West Point with a commission in the Coast Artillery Corps, but he was able to enter the new Army air branch the following year.
    [Show full text]
  • Critical Planning Assumptions
    CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY HAL BRANDS, PETER FEAVER, WILLIAM INBODEN, AND PAUL D. MILLER CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND AMERICAN GRAND STRATEGY HAL BRANDS PETER FEAVER WILLIAM INBODEN PAUL D. MILLER 2017 ABOUT THE CENTER FOR STRATEGIC AND BUDGETARY ASSESSMENTS (CSBA) The Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments is an independent, nonpartisan policy research institute established to promote innovative thinking and debate about national security strategy and investment options. CSBA’s analysis focuses on key questions related to existing and emerging threats to U.S. national security, and its goal is to enable policymakers to make informed decisions on matters of strategy, security policy, and resource allocation. ©2017 Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments. All rights reserved. ABOUT THE AUTHORS Hal Brands is a Senior Fellow at the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments and is also Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS). In 2015–2016, he was a Council on Foreign Relations International Affairs Fellow. In that capacity, he served as a special assistant to the Secretary of Defense, working on a range of strategic planning and policy issues. He has also consulted with a range of government offices and agencies in the intelligence and national security communities, as well as the RAND Corporation, and provided research and analysis for the Office of Net Assessment in the Department of Defense. He received his BA from Stanford University (2005) and his Ph.D. from Yale University (2009). He previously worked as an Assistant and Associate Professor at Duke University’s Sanford School of Public Policy and as a researcher at the Institute for Defense Analyses.
    [Show full text]
  • SECURING CYBERSPACE a New Domain for National Security
    SECURING CYBERSPACE A New Domain for National Security FOREWORD BY JOSEPH S. NYE & BRENT SCOWCROFT EDITED BY NICHOLAS BURNS & JONATHON PRICE Copyright © 2012 by The Aspen Institute The Aspen Institute One Dupont Circle, N.W. Suite 700 Washington, DC 20036 Published in the United States of America in 2012 by The Aspen Institute All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America ISBN: 0-89843-562-5 Wye Publication Number: 12/001 Cover Design by: Steve Johnson Interior Layout by: Sogand Sepassi aspen strategy group CO-CHAIRMEN Graham Allison Director, Belfer Center Joseph S. Nye, Jr. John F. Kennedy School of Government University Distinguished Service Professor Harvard University John F. Kennedy School of Government Harvard University Zoë Baird Budinger President Brent Scowcroft Markle Foundation President The Scowcroft Group, Inc. Samuel R. Berger Chair Albright Stonebridge Group DIRECTOR Stephen E. Biegun Nicholas Burns Vice President Professor of the Practice of Diplomacy Ford Motor Company and International Politics John F. Kennedy School of Government Robert D. Blackwill Harvard University Henry A. Kissinger Senior Fellow for U.S. Foreign Policy Council on Foreign Relations DEPUTY DIRECTOR Eliot Cohen Jonathon Price Professor Deputy Director Johns Hopkins SAIS Aspen Strategy Group Susan Collins Senator ASSOCIATE DIRECTOR United States Senate Jennifer Jun Richard Cooper Associate Director Professor Aspen Strategy Group Harvard University Richard Danzig Chairman MEMBERS Center for a New American Security Madeleine Albright John Deutch Chair Institute Professor Albright Stonebridge Group Massachusetts Institute of Technology Richard Falkenrath Richard G. Lugar Principal Senator The Chertoff Group United States Senate Peter Feaver Leo Mackay Professor Vice President Duke University Ethics & Business Conduct Lockheed Martin Corporation Dianne Feinstein Senator Jessica T.
    [Show full text]
  • Strategic Studies Quarterly Summer 2021 Vol 15, No. 2
    SUMMER 2021 Vol. 15, No. 2 Civil- Military Relations: “What Does It Mean?” Martin E. Dempsey FEATURE ARTICLE CMR in the United States: What Senior Leaders Need to Know (and Usually Don’t) Peter D. Feaver Richard H. Kohn The Line Held: CMR in the Trump Administration Kori Schake An “Unprincipled Principal”: Implications for Civil- Military Relations Pauline Shanks Kaurin Through the Looking Glass: Trump- Era CMR in Comparative Perspective Risa Brooks Maximum Toxicity: Civil- Military Relations in the Trump Era Mackubin Thomas Owens Trump’s Generals: A Natural Experiment in Civil- Military Relations James Joyner ONLINE ONLY Uncivil-Military Relations: Politicization of the Military in the Trump Era Jim Golby Strategic Studies SSQ Quarterly Chief of Staff, US Air Force Gen Charles Q. Brown, Jr., USAF Chief of Space Operations, US Space Force Gen John W. Raymond, USSF Commander, Air Education and Training Command Lt Gen Marshall B. Webb, USAF Commander and President, Air University Lt Gen James B. Hecker, USAF Director, Academic Services Mehmed Ali, PhD Director, Air University Press Maj Richard T. Harrison, USAF Guest Editor Dr. Jim Golby Managing Editor Print Specialist Illustrator Jeanne K. Shamburger Megan N. Hoehn Daniel M. Armstrong Advisers Contributing Editors Gen Michael P. C. Carns, USAF, Retired David C. Benson, PhD James W. Forsyth, PhD Mark J. Conversino, PhD Christina Goulter, PhD Kelly A. Grieco, PhD Christopher J. Bowie, PhD Michael R. Kraig, PhD Jay P. Kesan, PhD Dawn C. Murphy, PhD Charlotte Ku, PhD David D. Palkki, PhD Martin C. Libicki, PhD Nicholas M. Sambaluk, PhD Wendy Whitman Cobb, PhD https://www.af.mil/ https://www.spaceforce.mil/ https://www.aetc.af.mil/ https://www.airuniversity.af.edu/ Strategic Studies Quarterly An Air Force–Sponsored Strategic Forum on National and International Security SUMMER 2021 VOL.
    [Show full text]
  • I Three Essays on Decisions to Use Military Force by Jaron Wharton Public Policy Duke University Date
    Three Essays on Decisions to Use Military Force by Jaron Wharton Public Policy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Bruce Jentleson, Supervisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver ___________________________ David Rohde ___________________________ Bruce Kuniholm Dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy in the Graduate School oF Duke University 2018 i v ABSTRACT Three Essays on Decisions to Use Military Force by Jaron Wharton Public Policy Duke University Date:_______________________ Approved: ___________________________ Bruce Jentleson, Supervisor ___________________________ Peter Feaver ___________________________ David Rohde ___________________________ Bruce Kuniholm An abstract oF a dissertation submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Public Policy in the Graduate School oF Duke University 2018 Copyright by Jaron Wharton 2018 Abstract There are a multitude of influences on presidential decisions to use military force -- pre-tenure life experiences, domestic politics, and so on. The three papers that comprise this dissertation, each formatted as separate journal articles, are linked thematically and interrogate the impact of such variables. The First article, entitled “To Underpin or Undermine? Interbranch Relations and the Use of Military Force,” provides an overview of extant literature in the field. Interdisciplinary scholarship provides insight into the influence of interbranch politics on decisions to use military Force in the American context. To appreciate this influence, however, requires an understanding of the changing relationship between the executive and legislative branches of government and the impact of public opinion on both branches of government. This review Finds that our understanding of these Factors is incomplete and requires further study.
    [Show full text]
  • Stress-Testing American Grand Strategy
    Stress-Testing American Grand Strategy Hal Brands and Peter Feaver The 2016 presidential campaign, and its ultimate outcome, raised sharper questions about the fundamental nature and purpose of the United States’ grand strategy than at any time in a generation. In doing so, the campaign also served as a reminder of the critical role of assumptions in shaping US statecraft. In the grand-strategic context, assumptions are the ingrained, overarching ideas that US officials have about how the world works, and about America’s role within the global arena. Simply put, such assumptions represent the intellectual foundation upon which American statecraft rests. If the foundation is solid, then American strategy has a decent chance of success. If the foundation is shaky, American strategy is likely in for a world of trouble. Yet because assumptions are, by their very nature, often implicit rather than explicit, and because the most fundamental assumptions underlying American grand strategy do not frequently surface in the course of day-to- day policy debates, these assumptions are rarely scrutinised or even made explicit to the degree they ought to be. This is dangerous. If assumptions are not identified and stress-tested, how will policymakers know, other than by pure intuition, when those assumptions are no longer valid and the concep- tual foundation of strategy has begun to crack? Hal Brands is the Henry A. Kissinger Distinguished Professor of Global Affairs at Johns Hopkins University’s School of Advanced International Studies. His most recent book is Making the Unipolar Moment: U.S. Foreign Policy and the Rise of the Post-Cold War Order (Cornell University Press, 2016).
    [Show full text]
  • Rumsfeld, the Generals, and the State of U.S. Civil-Military Relations," Naval War College Review: Vol
    Naval War College Review Volume 59 Article 6 Number 4 Autumn 2006 Rumsfeld, the Generals, and the State of U.S. Civil- Military Relations Mackubin Thomas Owens Follow this and additional works at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review Recommended Citation Owens, Mackubin Thomas (2006) "Rumsfeld, the Generals, and the State of U.S. Civil-Military Relations," Naval War College Review: Vol. 59 : No. 4 , Article 6. Available at: https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/nwc-review/vol59/iss4/6 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Naval War College Review by an authorized editor of U.S. Naval War College Digital Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Color profile: Generic CMYK printer profile Composite Default screen Owens: Rumsfeld, the Generals, and the State of U.S. Civil-Military Rela RUMSFELD, THE GENERALS, AND THE STATE OF U.S. CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS Mackubin Thomas Owens n the Summer 2002 issue of the Naval War College Review, the eminent historian IRichard Kohn lamented the state of civil-military relations, writing that it was “extraordinarily poor, in many respects as low as in any period of American peacetime history.”1 The article was based on the keynote address that Professor Kohn had delivered as part of a Naval War College conference on civil-military relations in the spring of 1999. Accordingly, the focus of attention was on prob- lems that had bedeviled the Clinton administration. Some of the most highly publicized of these civil-military problems reflected cultural tensions between the military as an institution and liberal civilian society, mostly having to do with women in combat and open Dr.
    [Show full text]
  • Key Takeaways from the CAPSTONE Civil-Military Relations Module
    Key Takeaways from the CAPSTONE Civil-Military Relations Module............................ 5-A Richard H. Kohn, list from “Six Myths about Civil-Military Relations in the United States,” Unpublished ................................................................................................. 5-B Richard H. Kohn, “Civil-Military Relations: Civilian Control of the Military,” revised/updated from John Whiteclay Chambers, II, ed., The Oxford Companion to American Military History (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 122-125 ................................................................................................................................. 5-C Peter Feaver, “The Right to Be Right: Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision,” International Security, Vol. 35, No. 4 (Spring 2011), pp. 93-97 (excerpt) ...................................................................................................................... 5-D Jim Golby, “In the Wake of Chaos: Civil-Military Relations Under Secretary Jim Mattis,” War on the Rocks, February 4, 2019, https://warontherocks.com/ 2019/02/in-the-wake-of-chaos-civil-military-relations-under-secretary-jim-mattis/ ........... 5-E Peter Feaver, “Elephants in the Room: Mattis was the Best Secretary of Defense Trump Could Have Had,” Foreign Policy, February 12, 2019, https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/02/12/mattis-was-the-best-secretary-of-defense- trump-could-have-had/ .......................................................................................................... 5-F Richard
    [Show full text]
  • The Right to Be Right Peter D. Feaver Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision
    The Right to Be Right The Right to Be Right Peter D. Feaver Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision On January 10, 2007, President George W. Bush announced in a televised prime-time address to the nation a bold, even risky, new strategy in the Iraq War. The United States’ mili- tary and political fortunes in the war had eroded so sharply over the preceding year that President Bush had authorized a thorough internal review to deter- mine why the current strategy was not succeeding and what, if anything, could be done about it. The review had concluded that the United States was on a trajectory that would end in defeat unless the president authorized a new strategy and committed new resources to it. Bush used the televised address to describe in broad strokes the results of the review and the new strategy, which the media quickly dubbed the “surge strategy,” because its most controversial provision involved sending ªve new brigade combat teams (BCTs) to Iraq, a commitment that grew to a total of nearly 30,000 additional troops—this at a time when public support for the Iraq War was strained to the breaking point. The speech was somber. President Bush opened with a candid admission that the war in Iraq had not gone the way he had expected over the previous year. He acknowledged that his old strategy—dubbed by the media the “stand-up/stand-down” strategy—had failed even after being tweaked over the preceding year. In addition, he outlined the new strategy, including key features such as prioritizing the population security mission over the train- and-transition mission, focusing on bottom-up accommodation rather than top-down reconciliation, and complementing the military surge with a civilian surge of additional political and development resources.
    [Show full text]