How the U.S. military establishment interacts with other parts of the American government and the people impacts American national power. Because civil–military relationships are influenced by the context of the environment and the “kind of war” being waged, there are a variety of ways that military and civilian leaders can work together to improve the nation’s security. This article proposes an alternative civil–military relations model called pragmatic civilian control. It integrates Samuel Huntington’s objective civilian control theory with traditional American political philosophy and concepts established by Morris Janowitz, while accounting for current geopolitical conditions.
BetrosL. (2001, Summer). Political partisanship and the military ethic in America. Armed Forces & Society, 27, 501–523. doi:10.1177/0095327X0102700401
6.
BrendelD. H. (2006). Healing psychiatry: Bridging the science/humanism divide. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7.
BurkJ. (1991). Introduction: A pragmatic sociology. In BurkJ. (Ed.), Morris Janowitz on social organization and social control (pp. 1–56). Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
CannaS.PoppG. (Eds.). (2015, 10). No war/no peace: A new paradigm in international relationship and a new normal. 9th Annual Strategic Multi-layer Assessment (SMA) Conference, NSI, Joint Base Andrews.
FeaverP. D. (1996a). An American crisis in civilian control and civil–military relations?The Tocqueville Review, XVII, 159–182.
20.
FeaverP. D. (1996b, Winter). The civil–military problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the question of civil control. Armed Forces & Society, 23, 149–178.
21.
FlemingB. (2010). Bridging the military-civilian divide: What each side must know about the other—and about itself (pp. 200–210). Washington, DC: Potomac Books.
22.
GalbraithJ. K. (1969). How to control the military. Garden City: Doubleday and Company.
23.
GibsonC. (2009). Enhancing national security and civilian control of the military. In NielsonS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil–military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 239–263). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
24.
GreensteinF. I. (1982). The hidden-hand presidency. New York, NY: Basic Books.
25.
HookerR. D. (2011, 12). Soldiers of the state: Reconsidering American civil–military relations. Parameters, 41, 1–14.
26.
HuntingtonS. P. (1956a). Civilian control and the constitution. The American Political Science Review, 50, 676–699.
27.
HuntingtonS. P. (1956b). Civilian control of the military: A theoretical statement. In EulauH.EldersveldS. J.JanowitzM. (Eds.), Political behavior (pp. 380–385). Glencoe: The Free Press.
28.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
29.
HuntingtonS. P. (1961). The common defense. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.
30.
JanowitzM. (1971). The professional soldier. New York, NY: the Free Press.
31.
JanowitzM. (1983). Civic consciousness and military performance. In JanowitzM.WestbrookS. D. (Eds.), The political education of soldiers (pp. 55–80). London, England: Sage.
KohnR. H. (1999). The erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States today. The Harmon memorial lectures in military history, number 42. Colorado: US Air Force Academy.
34.
KohnR. H. (2008, Winter). Coming soon: A crisis in civil–military relations. World Affairs, 170, 69–80.
35.
KohnR. H. (2009). Building trust: Civil–military behaviors for effective national security. In NielsonS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil–military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 264–289). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
36.
KozakW. (2009). LeMay: The life and wars of general Curtis LeMay. Washington, DC: Regnery.
LivyT. (1939), Livy IV (PageT. E., Ed. FosterB.O., Trans.). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, book IV, paragraph IX.
39.
MillettA. R. (1979). The American political system and civilian control of the military: A historical perspective. Mershon center position papers in the policy sciences. Columbus: Ohio State Universit Press.
40.
MotenM. (2005). Root, miles, and carter: Political-cultural expertise and an earlier army transformation. In SniderD. M.MatthewsL. J. (Eds.), The future of the army profession (2nd ed., pp. 723–748). Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.
41.
NielsenS. C.SniderD. M. (2009). Introduction. In NielsonS. C.SniderD. M. (Eds.), American civil–military relations: The soldier and the state in a new era (pp. 1–10). Baltimore, MD: The Johns Hopkins University Press.
42.
OstromV. (1987). The political theory of a compound republic: Designing the American experiment. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
43.
OwensM. T. (2015, Fall). Military officers, political without partisanship. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 9, 88–101.
44.
RappW. E. (2015). Civil–military relations: The role of military leaders in strategy making. Parameters, 45, 13–26.
45.
RomanP. J.TarrD. W. (2001). Military professionalism and policymaking: Is there a civil–military gap at the top? If so, does it matter? In FeaverP. D.KohnR. H. (Eds.), Soldiers and civilians: The civil–military gap and American national security (pp. 403–428). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
46.
ShieldsP. (2008). Rediscovering the taproot: Is classical pragmatism the route to renew public administration?Public Administration Review, 68, 205–221.
47.
ShieldsP. (2011). An American perspective on 21st century expeditionary mindset and core values: A review of the literature. In FürstH.KümmelG. (Eds.), Core values and the expeditionary mindset: Armed forces in metamorphosis (pp. 17–34). Baden-Baden: Nomos.
48.
ShieldsP.SoetersJ. (2013a). Pragmatism, peacekeeping, and the constabulary force. In RalstonS. J. (Ed.), Philosophical pragmatism and international relations (pp. 87–110). New York, NY: Lexington Books.
