Cordeiro Anne HIST 2100 4/29/09 TITLE: Creating a Balance: Civil-Military Relations in America Thesis: American intervention and regime change has been a staple of United States foreign policy since the late nineteenth century when the US became involved in what is today known as the Spanish-American War. As the US began to expand and intervene in more foreign affairs, there was naturally a growing public dissent towards these American regime changes. As the American moral conscious grew so did the anti-war sentiment, and the involvement in what the public sees as unjust wars1. When there is opposition to policy there is in turn a growing polarity between that of the government and the public. Although the roots of dissent can qualify anti-war sentiment, the government tends to see opposition to be universal towards all aspects of administration and this resistance is a large problem2. It is evident that there has been discord amongst the people in various American endeavors, from Vietnam to the current post 9/11 policies3; This presents the question: how strong are American civil-military relations? Civil- Military relations are based on the ideal that there is civilian control and supremacy over the military. In this modern era is it time to reconsider the civil-military relations, put a new perspective on them to make them more sound and realistic4. As policy and military actions mostly affect the civilians of a nation, it would make sense to put the sovereignty into the hands of the public and create a balance between the military institution and the people. The militarys main goal is the same as it has always been: to win wars. However, the dimensions of military professionalism have changed greatly4. The gap between civilians and military leaders is widening substantially, allowing
2 for the escalation of public dissent5. However it has been examined that when there is an increase in civilian control there is therefore less harmony amongst the military. If the level of civilian-military control affects the corresponding military behavior one must take this into account, is there a balance?6 However some believe that maximizing civilian power with no firm boundries, is the best way to maximize the effectiveness of civilmilitary control. 7 The military is simultaneously seen as the promoter of freedom but also a threat to it, therefore causing civil-military relations to be distinguished by many short term compromises.8 By examining US foreign policies and the basic aspects of a strong civil-military relations it can be said that there is a way to end the strong public dissent toward American intervention and regime change, and make long term progressive changes.
Footnotes 1) Mulford Q. Sibley, Anonymity, Dissent, and Individual Integrity in America, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 378, The Changing American People: Are We Deteriorating or Improving? (Jul., 1968), pp. 45-57. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1037447. 2) Brock Millman, HMG and the War against Dissent, 1914-18, Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 2005), pp. 413-440. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036336. 3) Karen Guttieri, Homeland Security and US Civil-Military Relations, Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 8 (August 2003), http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug03/homeland.asp. 4) Sam C. Sarkesian, Military Professionalism and Civil-Military Relations in the West, International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 2, No. 3, Civil-Military Relations (1981), pp. 283-297. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/1601063.
3 5) Joseph J. Collins and Ole R. Holsti, Civil-Military Realtions: How Wide is the Gap?, International Security, Vol. 24, No. 2 (Autumn, 1999), pp. 199-207. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539257. 6) Charles H. Longley, McNamara and Military Behavior. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1974): pp. 1-21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110652. 7) David E. Albright, Comparative Conceptualization of Civil-Military Relations. World Politics, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Jul., 1980): pp. 553-576. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010057. 8) Douglas Johnson and Stephen Metz, AMERICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS: New Issues, Enduring Problems, http://www.iskran.ru/cd_data/disk2/rr/041.pdf
Annotated Bibliography 1) Albright, David E. Comparative Conceptualization of Civil-Military Relations. World Politics, Vol. 32, No. 4 (Jul., 1980): pp. 553-576. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2010057. Albright talks about the conceptual framework that revolves around civil-military relations and how shifts in the variables that define the relations can result in great changes. Begins with examining the works of Samuel P. Huntington, who set the framework for studying civil-military relations. Albright is able to take experiences from communist states, then by applying Huntingtons theories advances the thought of civil-military relations in the United States. 2) Biddle, Stephen and Stephen Long. Democracy and Military Effectiveness: A Deeper Look. The Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 48, No. 4 (Aug., 2004), pp. 525-546. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/4149807. Speaks of the effectiveness of a democracy when establishing solid civil-military relations. Examines the notion of whether democracy is the consequence of a powerful army with good civil-military relations or rather the cause. Biddle from the US Army War College explores the claims that democracy and victory often go hand in hand, however is able to come to the conclusion that our knowledge of culture and war is not strong Researching enough. and building this relation will create stronger civil-military relations, producing more effective
4 militaries. 3) Collins, John J. and Ole R. Holsti. Civil-Military Relations: How Wide is the Gap? International Security Vol. 24, No. 2 (Autumn, 1999): 199-207. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2539257. Explores the widening gap between the public and the military. Collins served 28 years in the military, gaining an interesting perspective. Eight of those years were spent in the Pentagon witnessing civil-military relations from numerous vantage points. Collins also admits to having doubt that there was a gap between the military and civilian life while he served, giving readers a glimpse of how perspective can change. 4) Karen Guttieri.Homeland Security and US Civil-Military Relations, Strategic Insights, Volume II, Issue 8 (August 2003). http://www.ccc.nps.navy.mil/si/aug03/homeland.asp. Reflects of the civil-military relations post 9/11, with the modern obsession with homeland security. Guttieri reflects on how civil-military relations have and will greatly shape the war on terror, and how this war will inevitably shift those relations. Guttieri recognizes that a civil-military is embedded in the culture of the Unites States, yet questions whether the desire for strong homeland security will greatly shift the American military culture. However wars like Vietnam or Korea that similar to the war on terror, also did not have public support; these wars didnt change the nature of civilmilitary relations as much as Guttieri suggests the war on terror will. 5) Johnson, Douglas and Stephen Metz, AMERICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS: New Issues, Enduring Problems, http://www.iskran.ru/cd_data/disk2/rr/041.pdf Written in 1994, the study is not aimed to suggest solutions to the problems within civil-military relations, rather to bring focus back to the issue. Johnson and Metz aim to find the proper questions to ask when discussing civil-military relations and what certain events have put a strain on the relationship. In turn they come to the conclusion that government institutions play a larger role in military society and that when debating the issue, this factor should be examined. 6) Longley, Charles H. McNamara and Military Behavior. American Journal of Political Science, Vol. 18, No. 1 (Feb., 1974): pp. 1-21. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/2110652. Analyzes the nature civil-military relations as a case study in America. Focusing on the time period of 1953-64 Longley tries to assess the
5 hypothesis of: When civilian control is increased, the military becomes more critical of their civilian superiors. Longley evaluates that in America, the public runs under a traditional thought that strong national security demands a strong military, a notion shared with the military. However the relationship is extremely give-and-take; displeasure from one group is a win for the other. Longley states that the public and military must look at their civilian leaders and assess whether the rules of democracy are being applied. 7) Millman, Brock. HMG and the War against Dissent, 1914-18. Journal of Contemporary History, Vol. 40, No. 3 (Jul., 2005): pp. 413-440. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/30036336. Looks at how public dissent can build up to a unifying opposition. Also explores the governments reaction to this potential threat, and how administration will attempt to shut it down. Particularly in WWII Britain addressing the topic of total war. When a nation is a total war, should the military reins be given to those only in the military? Yet, during total war could it be assumed that the one main goal is national security is the primary issue at hand. Therefore wouldnt civilmilitary relations be stronger since there is a clear common goal? 8) Sarkesian, Sam C. , Military Professionalism and Civil-Military Relations in the West. International Political Science Review / Revue internationale de science politique, Vol. 2, No. 3, Civil-Military Relations (1981): pp. 283-297. JSTOR, http://www.jstor.org/stable/ 1601063 Explores the notion that not only are civil-military relations are not only founded on unstable grounds, but that are virtually impossible in modern times. Published in 1981, during the Cold War, Sarkesian assesses that the definition of civilmilitary relations is false. It is not civilian control over the military but rather built upon a few rare links between the military and civilian elite. Essentially the actual civilian population has little to no control over the military. Considering the article was written during the Cold War it easy to see as to why Sarkesian might have very little faith in the system, and why everything has a poitical base. Sarkesian suggests a compromise, where political-military and social concerns are considered. 9) Sibley, Mulford Q. Anonymity, Dissent, and Individual Integrity in America. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, Vol. 378, The Changing American People: Are We Deteriorating or Improving? (Jul., 1968): pp. 45-57. JSTOR,
6 http://www.jstor.org/stable/1037447. Examines the nature of dissent in America. Focuses on the moral conscious of Americans and how it has grown over time, therefore so has policy opposition. Sibley roots some of this opposition to the concept of subordination; Enslavement to labor subordination during the Industrial Revolution. There is indeed a long history of people being suppressed in the United States, but is this the reason we feel entitled to oppose government? Does democracy and its freedoms enforce the problems within civil-military relations?