This paper examines the critical importance of the relationship between military and civilian leaders in the United States. It argues that because civilian branches of government — Congress, the executive, and the judiciary — ultimately control declarations of war, defense spending, and constitutional boundaries, military leaders must actively cultivate effective relationships with civilian authorities. The paper discusses public accountability, the necessity of clear strategic objectives, proportional use of force, and the erosion of public trust following events such as the Vietnam War, the Iraq invasion, and debates over intervention in Syria. It concludes that military success depends not only on battlefield capability but on transparent communication and cooperation between military and civilian leadership.
Much as military leaders might prefer to set aside the need to foster productive civilian relationships, it is ultimately the civilian component of the U.S. government that makes policy decisions regarding peace and war. On one hand, there is a continuing trend toward democratization and transparency in the developed world, and citizens are demanding increased accountability from their governments — particularly regarding how military leaders conduct themselves at home and abroad. On the other hand, we also live in an increasingly dangerous world, which means that calls for vigilance in protecting civilians from national and non-national threats are equally strong.1
1 Gregory Foster, "Civil-Military Relations: The Postmodern Democratic Challenge," World Affairs, Winter 2005, 167(3): 91.
Congress has the power to declare war; the executive branch selects the heads of the Departments of State and Defense; the judiciary exercises discretion over which actions are considered constitutional and unconstitutional. Non-military branches of government will invariably influence military policy, including decisions to enter into conflict, defense spending, and the delicate balance between protecting individual versus collective liberties. The image of the United States around the world — in terms of its adherence to both the spirit and the letter of international law — is also of great concern.
As Foster argues, "The threat to civil society, then, is that which, in the process of providing for the common defense, creates or feeds injustice, foments civil unrest, diminishes the general welfare, and infringes on civil liberties."2 Democracy cannot be destroyed from within in the name of preserving it. While some degree of secrecy may be necessary for national security, there are legitimate concerns that too much has been concealed from the public — limiting voters' ability to make informed decisions and undermining support for military actions.
2 Foster, 93.
"Vietnam, Iraq, and Syria eroded public support for military action"
"Clear goals and proportional force require civilian-military alignment"
America remains confronted by a persistent threat. As McCausland observes, "We are confronted by an enemy who would replace secular governments with theocratic regimes hostile to our national interests and values."3 Combating such an enemy requires intensive intelligence-gathering as well as a military that is securely funded and backed by the public. But earning that support means upholding American values — including an open dialogue between citizens and the elected leaders who govern the policies that the military will ultimately carry out.
The military bears primary responsibility for ensuring that the United States prevails, but civilian leaders often play the greater role in defining what that victory should look like and in controlling the resources needed to achieve it. Rather than growing frustrated with civilian leaders' and the public's limited understanding of military affairs, military leaders must learn to work constructively with representatives of civil authority. Civil-military cooperation is not a constraint on military effectiveness — it is a prerequisite for it.
3 Jeffrey D. McCausland, "Developing Strategic Leaders for the 21st Century," SSI, 2008, xii.
You’re 66% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 2 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.