One Nation under Arms? Military Participation Policy and the Politics of Identity

Bibliographic Data

ID6121982
AuthorsRonald R Krebs (0000-0001-6504-060X, corresponding author)
Year2005
Volume14
Issue3
Pages529-564
Publication date2005-04-01
Peer ReviewedYes
Open AccessNo
TypeARTICLE
VenueSecurity Studies (JOURNAL)
Journal identifiersISSN: 0963-6412 • E-ISSN: 1556-1852
PublisherInforma UK Limited (PUBLISHER • GB)
DOI10.1080/09636410500323245
OpenAlexW2095153714
LanguageEN
Citations received15

Students of comparative military organizations have advanced three hypotheses to explain when armed forces adopt more liberal manpower policies: when a major security threat looms, when the military professionalizes, or when the surrounding society grows more tolerant of difference. This article argues that all three are theoretically and empirically problematic: they potentially have much to contribute, but only in conjunction with a perspective that is more appreciative of the centrality of political processes. Enduring reform of the military's participation policies is more productively viewed through the lens of the struggle over national and communal identity. To illustrate the power of this alternative approach, this article reconsiders cases commonly cited in support of the existing hypotheses: the racial desegregation of the U.S. military, the integration of the Druze into the Israel Defense Forces, and the imperial and independent Indian armies' policies with respect to what the British termed “class.”

Centrality · Desegregation · National security · Political economy · Political science · Politics · Sociology · Gender, Security, and Conflict · Law · Military History and Strategy · Politics and Conflicts in Afghanistan, Pakistan, and Middle East · Public Administration

Tools

Open DOISci-Hub