Civil-Military Relations

“For the Common Defense, a military history of the United States from 1607-2012” is a military historic book written by Allan R. Millet, Peter Maslowski, and William B. Feis. Millet is a historian and a retired colonel of the Marine Corps. Maslowski is a professor at the University of Nebraska. Feis is a professor at Buena Vista University. This book was published in September 2012. It focuses on chronologically describing the changes of the United States military for over 400 years. Even though that is the main purpose, it does include political information. Although this book does not have an exact thesis, its purpose is to inform readers of the creation and enhancements of the US military. At almost 700 pages, this book educates about

The military is comprised of leaders and followers: this concept of leadership is the foundation of the military, leaders are the decision makers, and followers carry out their decisions. These decision makers are the role models the followers have a great deal of respect for and should admire. A good leader is decisive, has integrity, and leads by example. Being entrusted to lead, to mold the individuals around you into a cohesive unit is a special opportunity and only a few in respects to the total population are commissioned. General Colin L. Powell stated, “The most important thing I learned is that soldiers watch what their leaders do. You can give them classes and lecture them forever, but it is your personal example they will

Balancing the role of the Professional Leader has been an ongoing issue for the Army since the latter decades of the 19th century when the U.S. Army was professionalized. The Army has struggled with the matter of balancing a force as massive as the Army. When out of balance the Army does not have the capability to send Soldiers where they are needed. During the Second War in Iraq it was obvious that the Army was not upholding this balance, junior leaders in the Army were fighting against a counterinsurgency campaign that they were ill prepared to handle due to a lack of necessary experience and equipment.

The beliefs, values, and customs that are associated with the armed forces has cultivated into a unique culture within the military community (Hall, 2016, p. 41). In essence, a sub-culture has been established that is distinctly different from the culture of the United States. Thus, those that enter military service resign themselves to the fact that the military lifestyle is a departure from the civilian lifestyle and therefore, will differ from society as a whole. The military itself is rigidly structured, an aspect that essential not just to the military’s purpose, but to its continued existence. Thus, personnel, and by extension their families, are required to not only adhere to the many rules and regulations, but embrace them as well (Hall, 2016). Honor is a central tenet within the armed services and is ingrained within the culture (Hall, 2016). As such, the military mission has created a culture that champions having “the right stuff”, so to speak, and encourages the suppression of feelings and emotions (Hall, 2016, p. 11). Moreover, this warrior society embraces secrecy, stoicism, and denial, as these concepts are viewed as essential ingredients to the success of the self,

The U.S. Constitution provides power to the President and Congress to develop and enact national security policy (Ulrich, 1). As such our civilian leaders have the right and responsibility to maintain oversight of the military. Two civil-military relations theories, Normal and Clausewitzian, offer competing views. The Normal theory suggests officers are professionals and interference from civilian leaders is inappropriate (Cohen, 4). The Clausewitzian theory contends the statesman may inject himself in any aspect of military strategy since

The author states “When the orders we receive from a civilian authority pass legal, ethical or moral boundaries, any soldier of any rank has the right and the duty to first question those orders to receive clarification, and if necessary disobey them if they cross the line.” The author says this because he has been in the army for decades and to him it is the highest form of honor. The author is successful in using tone to express his disdain towards a particular candidate, and to warn other candidates of making the same

However, this external trust has been fraying from the edges for many years – clear and realistic political strategy has been lacking from civilian leaders, a well-meaning yet disengaged public, and an insular military class that fails to organically adapt to emerging technologies. A clear and realistic political strategy determined by civilian leaders addresses the first leg of the strategic triad – government. It is said success begins at the top, with a cohesive vision and unified guidance. One doesn’t have to look further than the 2003 invasion of Iraq - then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld claimed it would require no more than 150,000 troops to secure Iraq, despite the insistence of then Army Chief of Staff Eric Shinseki that it would take 300,000 troops, a number derived from his experience in Bosnia. (Mills, 2013) However, this detail overshadows the deeper implication – that civilian leaders were not planning for stability operations, or had a plan in place after the conventional phase of the war. The lack of guidance and vision from the nation’s strategic leaders make it extremely difficult, if not impossible for the military to effectively prosecute

“Within the Army, trust serves as a vital organizing principle that establishes the conditions necessary for effective and ethical mission command and a profession that continues to earn the trust of the American people” (pg. 2-1). Civilian authorities and the people the Army protects and fights for must never doubt the integrity of the Army. True belief in just acts forms a bond between the military and the civilian domain that is vital to function as a complete enterprise where both entities better the

In the case study “Generals versus the President,” General Ridgeway’s level of dissent eventually crossed the line of acceptability to the point where he committed professional suicide. Initially, he attempted to directly influence the opinions of the members of the JCS and the NSC to not support President Eisenhower’s policy of massive retaliation. His actions within the JSC and NSC were not totally outside of the bounds of normalcy.

There are very few things in the modern military of today or any military that has ever existed before our current military for that matter, that are more important than the rank structure and the the respect that is demanded of you by that rank structure. Those are two very important characteristics of every successful military unit. With added details here and there, in this essay I will mainly be discussing what respect actually is, how being respected is normally earned and in the military how it is demanded of you as a sub-ordinate to any ranks higher than you or in some cases any fellow military personnel who is more senior to you and why. On top of that I will be covering

In 2013, a West Point survey found that American “civilians born between 1980 and 2000 want no part of military life and want it separate from civilian life”. According to Lieutenant Colonel Remi H. Hajjar, a professor of behavioral sciences and leadership at the United States Military Academy, “most Americans consider our military to be like a guard dog. It offers them protection, but they’d rather not have it as a neighbor.” The question to ask is why? Why is it that Americans choose not to connect to their military if they seek their protection? This discourse poses three significant challenges: incompatibility in the workplace, lack of shared understanding, and

Perhaps there 's no getting away from our awesome political gap, a perpetual conflict of armed forces, and any endeavors to change the guidelines of engagement are purposeless. Alternately perhaps the trivialization of governmental issues has achieved a final turning point, so that the vast majority consider it to be only one more preoccupation, a game, with legislators our paunch-bellied combatants and the individuals who try to focus just fans on the sidelines: We paint our confronts red or

Over the years, the American people lost trust in the Army Profession. We, the Army professionals, convinced ourselves it was incompatible to society. Furthermore, the “lack of trust in civilian officials as well as significant distrust of the media by members of the profession posed additional risk. Distrust of elected officials and the media exacerbated the Army’s separation from the society it served. The indicators of mistrust pointed to potential challenges for civil-military relations and the trust placed in the U.S. military by society.” (Allen, C.D & Braun III W.G. (2012). Trust: Implications for the Army Profession, Unpublished manuscript) The convincing incompatibility stood firm and caused not only the American people (external population) to lose hope; but the Army professionals (internal population) as well. We succumbed to the controversial stigmatism and plague the American people instilled throughout the Nation.

Military administration in the American Civil War was affected by expert military instruction and the well deserved sober mindedness of order experience. While not all pioneers had formal military preparing, the Assembled States Military Foundation at West Point, New York and the Unified States Maritime Institute at Annapolis made committed frameworks of expert officers whose comprehension of military science had significant impact on the behavior of the American Civil War and whose enduring legacy fashioned the conventions of the advanced U.S. officer corps of all administration branches.

Prejudice within the military can be found when service members of racial and sexual minorities are being the target of favoritism. Back in 1948, anti-Black approaches were widespread movements in the U.S. military, what made President Truman order an end to the racial discrimination in the armed forces. Even though Whites' approaches toward Blacks in the military have transformed in the past fifty years, racial prejudice is still common throughout the military society. Moreover, substantial numbers of heterosexual service members expressed negative attitudes toward gay men and lesbians (Race).