American Civil-Military Relations
Annotated Bibilography
1. Introduction: Liberal Theory and the Founding Fathers
Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control,” Armed Forces & Society Winter 1997, pp. 149-178
The author calls for an alternative theory of American civil-military relations. Citing the classical civil military theorists, Huntington and Janowitz, he argues that explaining how civilian control is maintained over the military is not adequately explained by maximizing military professionalism. He then lays out the “Civil-Military Problematique”, the paradoxical problem of developing an institution (the military) that will protect us from our enemies, yet preventing that same military from becoming a threat to the nation that engendered it. Feaver offers a four criteria that should guide the new theory: (1) begin with analytically distinct civilian and military spheres, (2) it must explain the factors that shape how civilians exercise control over the military, (3) it should transcend the concept of professionalism, and (4) the theory should be deductively derived before being empirically tested against the historical record.
Lindsay Cohn, “The Evolution of the Civil-Military Gap Debate,” paper prepared for the TISS Project on the Gap Between the Military and Civilian Society, available at www.duke.edu/~pfeaver/
The “civil-military gap” debate has surfaced in recent years due to the decline of members of the American society who have significant military experience. The author discusses the history of the debate, dividing into three significant time periods:
1. World War II to the All Volunteer Force (AVF)
2. The AVF to the End of the Cold War
3).The Post Cold War Period.
In each period, she asks questions:
1. What is the gap?
2. What has caused it?
3. Why does it matter?
4. How to correct the problem?
She then looks at the common positions, finding that there is general (although not complete) agreement that there is a necessary gap between the military and the civilian, and that the gap is a positive factor. In the conclusion she finds that there is a lack of agreement on how to empirically analyze the problem, and argues that the literature is mostly anecdotal in nature and lacks systematic data.
Peter D. Feaver, “Civil-Military Relations,” in Annual Review of Political Science 1999.
Federalist Papers, No. 8, 26, 47, 48, 51
Herbert J. Storing, ed., The Anti-Federalist: Writings by the Opponents of the Constitution (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1985), pp. 13-20, 145-158
Richard Kohn, “The Constitution and National Security: The Intent of the Framers,” in Richard Kohn, ed., The United States Military Under the Constitution, pp. 61-94
2. Classical Theory: Huntington
Huntington, Soldier and State, pp. 1-97, 143-193, 456-466
3. Classical Theory: Janowitz and Neo-Janowitzean Theories
Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier (Free Press, 1971), pp. 3-103, 196-232
Charles C. Moskos, “Institutional and Occupational Trends in Armed Forces,” in Charles C. Moskos and Frank Wood, The Military: More Than Just a Job? (Washington: Pergamon & Brassey’s, 1988), pp. 15-26
Frank Wood, “At the Cutting Edge of Institutional and Occupational Trends: The U.S. Air Force Officer Corps,”in Charles C. Moskos and Frank Wood, The Military: More Than Just a Job? (Washington: Pergamon & Brassey’s, 1988), pp. 27-38
Charles A. Cotton, “The Institutional Organization Model and the Military,” in Charles C. Moskos and Frank Wood, The Military: More Than Just a Job? (Washington: Pergamon & Brassey’s, 1988), pp. 39-55
David R. Segal, “Measuring the Institutional/Occupational Change Thesis,” Armed Forces & Society 12, No. 3 (1986), pp. 351-376.
4. Neo-Institutional Theories: I
Michael C. Desch, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1999), pp. 1-38, 135-141
Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Lessons From Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994), pp. 1-75
2
5. The Cold War Puzzle and The Agency Theory Alternative
Peter D. Feaver, Armed Servants, Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5
6. The Use of Force
Chris Gacek, The Logic of Force: The Dilemma of Limited War in American Foreign Policy (Columbia 1994), pp. 1-24, 250-293
Roy K. Flint, “The Truman-MacArthur Conflict: Dilemmas of Civil-Military Relations in the Nuclear Age,” in Richard Kohn, ed., The United States Military Under the Constitution, pp. 223-267.
Richard Betts, Soldier, Statesmen, Cold War Crises, pp. 1-30, 96-182, 214-236
Peter D. Feaver and Christopher Gelpi, Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force, Chapters 2 and 3
7. The Agony of Vietnam
Harry G. Summers, On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. Different editions have different chapter numbers and page numbers. I want us to read the following sections: from the Introduction through to the end of the chapter “Friction: The Bureaucracy”; also “Friction: The Doctrine;” also from “Tactics, Grand Tactics, and Strategy” through to the end of “Unity of Command;” and “Epilogue.” If you use the Dell, 1982, edition, that translates into: pp. 21-84, 97-106, 151-204, 241-258; if you use the library reserve copy, which is Presidio, 1982, that translates into: pp. 1-52, 63-70, 108-150, 181-195.
H. R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty (Harper Collins, 1997), pp. 243-334
8. The Post-Cold War Crisis
Richard Kohn, “Out of Control,” National Interest (Spring 1994)
“Exchange on Civil-Military Relations” with Colin Powell, John Lehman, William Odom, Samuel Huntington and Richard Kohn, National Interest (Summer 1994)
Deborah Avant, “Are the Reluctant Warriors Out of Control: Why the U.S. Military is Averse to Responding to Post-Cold War Low-Level Threats,” Security Studies 6, No. 2 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 51-90
Charles Dunlap (USA) “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” in Parameters (Winter 1992-1993), pp. 2-20
Charles Dunlap, “Welcome to the Junta: The Erosion of Civilian Control of the U.S. Military,” in Wake Forest Law Review (Vol. 29, No.2), pp. 341-392
9. Contending Explanations of the Post-Cold War Crisis
Deborah Avant, “Conflicting Indicators of ‘Crisis’ in American Civil-Military Relations,” Armed Forces & Society 24, No. 3 (Spring 1998), pp. 375-389.
Cori Dauber, “The Practice of Argument: Reading the Condition of Civil-Military Relations,” Armed Forces & Society 24, No. 3 (Spring 1998), pp. 435-446.
Peter D. Feaver, Armed Servants, Chapter 6
2
10. The Culture Gap Thesis
Thomas E. Ricks, “The Widening Gap Between the U.S. Military and U.S. Society,” The Atlantic Monthly (July 1997), pp. 66-78.
Ole Holsti, “A Widening Gap between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976-1996,” International Security 23, No. 3 (Winter 1998/99), pp. 5-42
John Hillen, “Must Military Culture Matter?” Orbis 43, no. 1 (Winter 1999), pp. 43-58
James Webb, “Military Leadership in a Changing Society,” paper presented at the Naval War College Conference on Ethics, 16 November 1998
Elizabeth Kier, “Discrimination and Military Cohesion: an Organizational Perspective” in Katzenstein and Reppy, eds., Beyond Zero Tolerance (Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, Inc., New York; 1999), pp. 25‑52.
11. The Culture Gap: New Evidence
Ole Holsti, “Of Chasms and Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilians and Military Elites at the Start of a New Millennium,” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, forthcoming)
James Davis, “Attitudes and Opinions Among Senior Military Officers and a U.S. Cross-Section, 1998–99,” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Paul Gronke and Peter Feaver, “Uncertain Confidence: Civilian and Military Attitudes about Civil-Military Relations” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Michael Desch, “Explaining the Gap: Vietnam, the Republicanization of the South, and the End of the Mass Army,” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Krista Wiegand and David Paletz, “The Elite Media and The Military-Civilian Culture Gap,” Armed Forces & Society, (Winter 2000)
12. So What Questions: Casualty Aversion and Cooperation in Command
Peter D. Feaver and Christopher Gelpi, Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force, Chapters 3 and 4
Cori Dauber, “Image as Argument: the Impact of Mogadishu on US Military Intervention,”Armed Forces & Society, (Winter 2000)
Eliot Cohen, “The Unequal Dialogue: The Theory and Reality of Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force,” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Russell Weigley, “The American Civil-Military Cultural Gap: A Historical Perspective, Colonial Times to the Present” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
Peter Roman and David Tarr, “Military Professionalism and Policy-making: Is There a Civil-Military Gap at the Top? If So, Does it Matter?” in Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians (Cambridge: MIT Press, 2001)
2