Importance of understanding civil military relations

Once it became apparent that the American military was going to maintain historically high levels of active-duty personnel, concerns about the differences between civilian and military cultures quickly came to the forefront.

Strikes and even some rioting by military personnel at overseas bases in January pressured President Harry S. Feaver argued that his theory was different from other theories or models in that it was purely deductive, based on democratic theory rather than on anecdotal evidence, and better enabled analysis of day-to-day decisions and actions on the part of the civilian and military leadership.

Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war.

He was perhaps most influential with his definition of militarismwhich he described as the state of a society that "ranks military institutions and ways above the prevailing attitudes of civilian life and carries the military mentality into the civilian sphere.

With the understanding that the rise of the Soviet Union created a long-term threat, Huntington concluded that the liberal society of the United States would fail to create adequate military forces to ensure security over the long term.

Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. In response to this apparent "puzzle," Peter D.

He foresaw the necessity of creating a civilian government that kept the military at a distance. Since the military world as he saw it was fundamentally conservative, it would resist change and not adapt as rapidly as the more open and unstructured civilian society to changes in the world.

Concordance theory[ edit ] After observing that most civil-military theory assumes that the civilian and military worlds must necessarily be separate, both physically and ideologically, Rebecca L. Social composition of the officer corps. Experiences in Afghanistan highlight significant tension, if not conflict, between stabilisation and internationally recognised guidelines and principles governing civil—military interaction.

He also encouraged the use of more Reserve Officer Training Corps ROTC programs at colleges and universities to ensure that the military academies did not have a monopoly on the type of officer, particularly the senior general officer and flag officer leadership positions, in the military services.

The second period started in aboutwith the end of conscription and the establishment of the all-volunteer forceand continued until the end of the Cold War.

There was widespread agreement that there were two distinct worlds and that they were fundamentally different from one another. He concluded that the Vietnam War had actually been lost in Washington, D.

These writers were quite sure that a distinctly military culture was inherently dangerous to a non-militaristic liberal society. All were objects of concern because of the dangers each posed to liberal democracy and a free citizenry. While it is often impossible to "gauge accurately the intent of the Framers", [90] it is nevertheless important to understand the motivations and concerns of the writers with respect to the appropriate relationship between civil and military authority.

Following the end of the Cold War inhowever, the discussion began to focus on the nature of the apparent gap between civilian and military cultures and, more specifically, whether that gap had reached such proportions as to pose a danger to civilian control of the military.

He first defined a profession and explained that enlisted personnel, while certainly part of the military world, are not, strictly speaking, professionals. While concordance theory does not preclude a separation between the civilian and military worlds, it does not require such a state to exist.

Civilian leadership would decide the objective of any military action but then leave it to the military world to decide upon the best way of achieving the objective. If civilian control is the critical variable for military effectiveness, it raises the question of how civilian control is then to be determined.

The military cannot continue to be an organization with unmatched institutional reach and political influence, while limiting state capacity, because in doing so it will be evermore challenging for civilian supremacy to take a stance, thus establishing effective civil-military relations.

Such a regime, new in American history, was going to require a new military self-conception, the constabulary concept: However, civilian control over the military, despite the efforts that have been made over the past years, has yet to become institutionalized in many countries.

In particular, some have argued that the culture of political conservatism and the apparent increase in partisanship of the officer corps has approached a dangerous limit.

The only circumstance he could foresee that would permit adequate military security was for the United States to change the societal imperative. Does the gap matter?

Civil–military relations

If it does matter, what is causing it? As of February 28,a total of 1, men and women remain on active duty in the U. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing.

The second is that civilians must articulate a clear vision of what they expect in terms of the military mission. James Madison, in Federalist No. And the final suggestion is that the most practical and effective means of bringing about dialogue and understanding is to be bilateral education, in which both military and civilian elites would jointly attend specialized schools.

However, those who are concerned about the lack of understanding between the civilian and military worlds are uniformly convinced that the civil-military relationship in the United States is unhealthy.

While most agree that such a gap is to be expected and, in and of itself, is not dangerous, some do concede the aspects of that gap have led directly to misunderstandings between the two worlds.

Charles Maynes [98] worried that a military force consisting primarily of enlisted personnel from the lower socio-economic classes would ultimately refuse to fight for the goals of the upper classes.

The more such societal influences present within the military culture, the smaller the attitudinal differences between the two worlds and the greater the chance of civilians maintaining control over the military.

Huntington identified two shaping forces or imperatives for civilian control — 1 functional and 2 societal.How important is military professionalism in civil-military relations?

Why is the military considered to be important? What is the importance of games in the military?

power, the U.S. must improve civil-military relations by increasing the public’s knowledge of military history and its armed forces, reconnecting communities with the military, and by emphasizing the importance of civil-interaction with service members.

Comparing the Relative Importance of Political Leadership, Military Skill and Resources as Reasons for the Outcome of the American Civil War The American Civil war was the bloodiest conflict in American history, with someAmericans to die in the four-year conflict.

Civil–military relations (Civ-Mil or CMR) describes the relationship between civil society as a whole and the military organization or organizations established to protect it.

CMR is an umbrella concept that incorporates a diverse, often normative field, which moves within and across management, social science and policy scales. The Importance of Understanding Civil-Military Relations “Some folks are born made to wave the flag, Ooh, they’re red, white and blue And when the band plays hail.

Recent US deployments to Iraq and Afghanistan have demonstrated ineffective civil-military relations in the various important elements of stability operations that require cooperation such as improving security through the deployment of military and police forces, ensuring effective humanitarian relief, and finally improving capacity-building in the host country through development and governance.

Importance of understanding civil military relations
Rated 3/5 based on 9 review