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.