Philosophers and rulers continuously grapple with the contentious relationship between a nation’s citizenry and its armed protectors. In the United States, the framers of the Constitution established national security institutions, procedures for their interaction, and methods by which civilian leaders might use military force. This attempt to limit military power through formal political structures was not unique. However, the informal politics – processes of alliance forming, exercising influence, and protecting institutional interests – that developed within structural constraints form the unique context of United States civil-military relations.
Formal separation of governmental powers guarded society “against the oppression of its rulers,…show more content… He also asserted that any behavior that civilianized the military by allowing it to participate in politics (i.e., subjective control) weakened its professionalization. Huntington’s conception of objective control was an ideal type that described how to maximize military professionalism, even though objective control remained a type, or subset, of subjective control. According to Huntington’s theory, the historic pattern of the United States military’s behavior should undermine their professionalism. Though at times true, such as the during the 1990s, when military leaders openly advocated positions contrary to civilian-directed policies, the military’s behavior supports civilian…show more content… Civilians remain firmly in control because the military has opportunities to exert informal influence at various points in formal political processes. Contrary to notions of objective control, military leaders maintain a professional ethos that respects the civil-military relationship, since jeopardizing it would likely result in a loss of trust and influence. Informal political processes enable the military to adapt to evolving internal and external contexts. These processes facilitate de facto negotiation with civilian leaders over evolving ideas of professional requirements within existing norms of civil-military relations. Though unintended, this is a positive trait that supports healthy civil-military relations in the United