The New Civil-Military Relations
Bibliographic Data
| ID | 3716178 |
|---|---|
| Authors | Gene M Lyons (Dartmouth Hospital, corresponding author) |
| Year | 1961 |
| Volume | 55 |
| Issue | 1 |
| Pages | 53-63 |
| Publication date | 1961-03-01 |
| Peer Reviewed | Yes |
| Open Access | Yes |
| Type | ARTICLE |
| Venue | American Political Science Review (JOURNAL) |
| Journal identifiers | ISSN: 0003-0554 • E-ISSN: 1537-5943 |
| Publisher | Cambridge University Press (CUP) (PUBLISHER) |
| DOI | 10.2307/1976049 |
| OpenAlex | W4248281181 |
| Language | EN |
| Citations received | 5 |
| References cited | 4 |
Historically the character of civil-military relations in the United States has been dominated by the concept of civilian control of the military. This has largely been a response to the fear of praetorianism. As recently as 1949, for example, the first Hoover Commission asserted that one of the major reasons for strengthening the "means of exercising civilian control" over the defense establishment was to "safeguard our democratic traditions against militarism." This same warning was raised in the report of the Rockefeller Committee on defense organization in 1953. While the overriding purpose of the committee's recommendations was to provide "the Nation with maximum security at minimum cost," the report made it clear that this had to be achieved "without danger to our free institutions, based on the fundamental principle of civilian control of the Military Establishment." Finally, during the debate on the reorganization proposals of 1958, senators and congressmen used the theme of a "Prussianized" military staff to attempt to slow down the trend towards centralization in the military establishment.Despite this imposing support, the concept of civilian control of the military has little significance for contemporary problems of national security in the United States. In the first place, military leaders are divided among themselves, although their differences cannot be reduced to a crass contrast between dichomatic doctrines. Air Force leaders who are gravely concerned over the need to maintain a decisive nuclear retaliatory force are by now acknowledging the need to develop a limited war capability
Commission · Control (management · Democracy · Economics · Law and economics · Management · Militarism · Military science · National security · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Law · Military and Defense Studies · Public Administration
| Unique citing works | 5 |
|---|---|
| Citations per year | 0,11 |
| Citation span | 1980 - 2020 (41) |
| Citation velocity | historical |
| Highly cited | No |
| Citation types | Neutral: 5 |