The presumed “gap” in fundamental foreign policy beliefs between what Huntington (1957) described as “liberal society” and the “conservative military mind” lies at the core of research on civil–military relations. However, we still know surprisingly little about the precise nature of differences between the two groups’ core foreign policy orientations. This study presents the first empirically grounded evaluation of the public–military gap. We deployed a unique survey to directly compare the views of 470 active-duty US military officers against a representative sample of the American public. Our study included beliefs concerning the appropriate role of military force and of US engagement in global affairs, the likely direction of US national security in the coming decade, and the causes and costs of future military conflicts. While we confirm aspects of Huntington’s dichotomy, we also observe critical differences between the two groups that diverge from the traditional conceptualization of a “civil–military gap.”
BrodieB. (1973). War and politics. Macmillan Press.
2.
BrooksR. (2020). Paradoxes of professionalism: Rethinking civil-military relations in the United States. International Security, 44(4), 7-44.
3.
BrooksR. A. (2019). Integrating the civil–military relations subfield. Annual Review of Political Science, 22, 379-398.
4.
CallaghanK.SchnellF. (2005). Framing American politics. University of Pittsburgh Press.
5.
FeaverP. D. (2003) Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil-military relations. Harvard University Press.
6.
FeaverP. D.GelpiC. (2005). Choosing your battles: American civil-military relations and the use of force. Princeton University Press.
7.
FeaverP. D.KohnK. (2001). Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. MIT Press.
8.
GelpiC.FeaverP. D. (2002). Speak softly and carry a big stick? Veterans in the political elite and the American use of force. American Political Science Review, 96(4), 779-793.
9.
GolbyJ.FeaverP.DroppK. (2018). Elite military cues and public opinion about the use of military force. Armed Forces & Society, 44(1), 44-71.
HolstiO. R. (1999). A widening gap between the U.S. military and civilian society? Some evidence, 1976-96. International Security, 23(3), 5-42.
12.
HorowitzM. C.StamA. C. (2014). How prior military experience influences the future militarized behavior of leaders. International Organization, 68(3), 527-559.
13.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil-military relations. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
14.
JostT.KertzerJ. (2019). Armies and Influence: Public deference to foreign policy elites. Unpublished manuscript, Brown University and Harvard University.
15.
KertzerJ. D.PowersK. E.RathbunB. C.IyerR. (2014). Moral support: How moral values shape foreign policy attitudes. The Journal of Politics, 76(3), 825-840.
16.
KohnR. H. (1994). Out of control: The crisis in civil-military relations. The National Interest, 35, 3-17.
17.
KrebsR.RalstonR.RappaportA. (2021). No right to be wrong: What Americans think about civil-military relations. Perspectives on Politics, 1-19.
LuptonD. L. (2017). Out of the service, into the house: Military experience and congressional war oversight. Political Research Quarterly, 70(2), 327-339.
PosenB. (1986) The sources of military doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany between the world wars. Cornell University Press.
24.
Rahbek-ClemmensenJ.ArcherE. M.BarrJ.BelkinA.GuerreroM.HallC.SwainK. E. O. (2012). Conceptualizing the civil–military gap: A research note. Armed Forces and Society, 38(4), 669-678.
