Conflicting Indicators of "Crisis" in American Civil-Military Relations

Abstract

The indicators of the crisis in American civil-military relations can be disaggregated into three categories: (1) the level of military influence on policy; (2) the degree to which the military is representative of society; and (3) the level of civil-military tension. Behind each indicator is a different implicit theory about civil-military relations. These theories offer contradictory assessments about what we should want civil-military relations to be. Therefore, holding the current American civil-military relationship to all three standards is logically untenable. Reviewing the crisis literature and the various theories of civil-military relations underlying the different arguments suggests the need for a more nuanced research program examining the balance between efficiency and accountability inherent in the civil-military relationship.