Conflicting Indicators of 'Crisis' in American Civil-Military Relations

Bibliographic Data

ID2342884
AuthorsDeborah Avant (0000-0003-4881-2377, George Washington University and GWU's Elliott School of International Affairs, corresponding author)
Year1998
Volume24
Issue3
Pages375-387
Publication date1998-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessYes
TypeARTICLE
VenueArmed Forces & Society (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0095-327X • E-ISSN: 1556-0848
PublisherSAGE Publications Inc (PUBLISHER)
DOI10.1177/0095327x9802400303
OpenAlexW2140226222
LanguageEN
Citations received21

The indicators of the crisis in American civil-military relations can be disaggregated into three categories: (1) the level of military influence on policy; (2) the degree to which the military is representative of society; and (3) the level of civil-military tension. Behind each indicator is a different implicit theory about civil-military relations. These theories offer contradictory assessments about what we should want civil-military relations to be. Therefore, holding the current American civil-military relationship to all three standards is logically untenable. Reviewing the crisis literature and the various theories of civil-military relations underlying the different arguments suggests the need for a more nuanced research program examining the balance between efficiency and accountability inherent in the civil-military relationship

Balance (ability) · Civil–military relations · Military operations other than war · Military sociology · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Spanish Civil War · Defense, Military, and Policy Studies · International Relations and Foreign Policy · Law · Military History and Strategy · Psychology