Soldiers of the State: Reconsidering American Civil-Military Relations

Abstract

In American academe today the dominant view of is sternly critical of the military, asserting that of the military is dangerously eroded. (1) Though tension clearly exists in the relationship, the current critique is largely inaccurate and badly overwrought. Far from overstepping its bounds, America's military operates comfortably within constitutional notions of separated powers, participating appropriately in defense and national security policymaking with due deference to the principle of Indeed, an active and vigorous role by the military in the policy process is and always has been essential to the common defense. A natural starting point for any inquiry into the state of in the US today is to define what is meant by the terms civil-military relations and civilian control. Broadly defined, civil-military relations refers to the relationship between the armed forces of the state and the larger society they serve--how they communicate, how they interact, and how the interface between them is ordered and regulated. Similarly, civilian control means simply the degree to which the military's masters can enforce their authority on the military services. (2) Clarifying the vocabulary of sheds an interesting light on the current, highly charged debate. The dominant academic critique takes several forms, charging that the military has become increasingly estranged from the society it serves; (3) that it has abandoned political neutrality for partisan politics; (4) and that it plays an increasingly dominant and illegitimate role in policymaking. (5) This view contrasts the ideal of the nonpartisan, apolitical soldier with a different reality. In this construct, the military operates freely in a charged political environment to impose its own perspective in defiance of the principle of (6) The critique is frequently alarmist, employing terms like ominous, (7) alienated, (8) and out of control. (9) The debate is strikingly one-sided; few or military leaders have publicly challenged the fundamental assumptions of the critics. (10) Yet as we shall see, the dominant scholarly view is badly flawed in its particulars, expressing a distorted view of the military at work in a complex political system that distributes power widely. The Civil-Military Gap The common assertion that a gap exists which divides the military and society in an unhealthy way is a central theme. Unquestionably, the military as an institution embraces and imposes a set of values that more narrowly restricts individual behavior. But the evidence is strong that the public understands the necessity for more circumscribed personal rights and liberties in the military, and accepts the rationale for an organizationally conservative outlook that emphasizes the group over the individual and organizational success over personal validation. The tension between the conservative requirements of military life and the more liberal outlook of civil society goes far back before the Revolution to the early days of colonial America's militia experience. Though it has waxed and waned, it has remained central to the national conversation about military service. (11) The issue is an important one: the military holds an absolute monopoly on force in society, and how to keep it strong enough to defend the state and subservient enough not to threaten it is the central question in relations. Most commentators assume that this difference in outlook poses a significant problem--that at best it is a condition to be managed, and at worst a positive danger to the state. As a nation, however, America has historically accepted the necessity for a military more highly ordered and disciplined than civil society. While important cultural differences exist between the services and even between communities within the services, (12) the military in general remains focused on a functional imperative that prizes success in war above all else. …