The Practice of Argument: Reading the Condition of Civil-Military Relations

Abstract

Dauber approaches the question of civil-military relations from the perspective of argument studies. Viewed as an argument formation, the Weinberger Doctrine functions as a template that privileges technical argumentation in considerations of possible uses of force. As a result, public forms of argument, centered more on the value of the potential intervention than the methodology, becomes more difficult. The acceptance of the Weinberger Doctrine in the public forum, therefore, independent of whether or not the various services officially subscribe to the doctrine, produces a situation where civil-military relations are distorted. The military side of the ledger, determining the possible cost of an intervention, trumps the civil side, determining whether the cost is worthwhile. The result is an argument within which it is almost impossible to successfully defend interventions on purely humanitarian grounds.