Examining The Civil Military Divide Through New Institutional Lenses

Civil-military relations have existed for as long as there has been a military, but only in the last sixty years has research in the field began to examine the relationships between civilian elites and the military. Who controls the military? What level of influence by the military is acceptable in a liberal society, such as the United States? What is the appropriate role of the military? Who serves in the military? What pattern of civil-military relations best ensures the effectiveness of the military instrument? The study of these questions began with examining relationships between the military and the President, and moved to examine, in turn, the relationships between the military and Congress, and then, the military and both the President and Congress, ascertaining that there is a gap, and that it is widening. But, what role does the Judiciary serve in better understanding the relationship between the military and civilian elites? The military is examined through the Judiciary, and more specifically the Supreme Court, to answer this question. This work argues that the Supreme Court, as a rational actor and co-equal branch of government to both the President and the Legislature, is very much involved with the military, and that it has served to reinforce the widening gap found in earlier work. Every Supreme Court case that discusses the military, since the beginning of the All-Volunteer Force in 1973, is examined, and after selecting applicable cases, each case is examined both for what it said, and how it said it. Deferential doctrine that the Court uses when dealing with military cases is deeply analyzed, including discrepancies in majority sizes of military-related Supreme Court cases as against other cases, and that the Court engenders not one, but four separate civil-military gaps. Leveraging new institutionalism and bureaucratic autonomy, this work argues that the military, through its divergent institutions of authority, power, law, and morality, causes the Supreme Court to defer to the military, abdicating their own established standards, serving as both a catalyst to a widening gap, but also as an enabling factor to permit other branches to act similarly.

This book explores contemporary civil-military relations in the United States. Much of the canonical literature on civil-military relations was either written during or references the Cold War, while other major research focuses on the post-Cold War era, or the first decade of the twenty-first century. A great deal has changed since then. This book considers the implications for civil-military relations of many of these changes. Specifically, it focuses on factors such as breakdowns in democratic and civil-military norms and conventions; intensifying partisanship and deepening political divisions in American society; as well as new technology and the evolving character of armed conflict. Chapters are organized around the principal actors in civil-military relations, and the book includes sections on the military, civilian leadership, and the public. It explores the roles and obligations of each. The book also examines how changes in contemporary armed conflict influence civil-military relations. Chapters in this section examine the cyber domain, grey zone operations, asymmetric warfare and emerging technology. The book thus brings the study of civil-military relations into the contemporary era, in which new geopolitical realities and the changing character of armed conflict combine with domestic political tensions to test, if not potentially redefine, those relations.

"Following a decade of war, the civil-military divide in the United States continues to occupy deep discussion on military bases, in university classrooms, journalistic conference rooms, the Pentagon, and on Capitol Hill. Much of the study of the divide in the civil-military relationship focuses on civilian control of the military, and attempts to remedy this divide through civilian actions. Expanding on the focus of study heretofore--and using a new paradigm employing a version of the Clausewitzian trinity represented by the military, the people, and the government--the author identifies four areas of civil-military divide: The Culture Divide, the Control Divide, the Connectivity Divide, and the Knowledge Divide. The author recommends methods to improve each divide from a military perspective, with the intent of spurring further study and discussion. The ultimate aim of this essay is to foster understanding and trust to improve United States foreign policy related to security and the military instrument of power."--Abstract

American political leadership, military commanders and informed observers have recognized a widening civil-military gap as a potential problem for American democracy. This gap has been characterized by the differing values, knowledge and experiences between the military and wider society. Although some rhetorical scholarship has examined military affairs, the field as a whole has paid limited attention to this perceived civil-military gap. Rhetorical analysis offers a novel means to examine the discourse surrounding the American civil-military relationship. This study uses complementary rhetorical approaches-- employing rhetorical criticisms of the communication surrounding the relief of General Stanley McChrystal and discourse analysis of online responses to an active duty Army officer's editorial on political affairs-- to offer insight about this gap. In an attempt to map a portion of the terrain surrounding the perceived civil-military divide, rhetorical analysis can illuminate unnoticed connections between the two sides of the divide: the actions that may occur when societal norms are violated, and online media as a space for study of the intersection between American civilian and military personnel; and increase understanding of the permeability of boundaries and the patterns of language use to chastise transgression and return violators to the fold within these spaces. This study suggests the utility of rhetoric not only to identify the boundaries of American civil-military relations, but the possibility of rhetoric to be part of a solution to lessen the perceived divide. New media spaces might provide one location to bridge the perceived civil-military gap. Such places provide an accessible space where a military viewed as a "separate tribe" might increasingly connect, at an unofficial level, with wider society to promote common understanding of differing experiences, values, knowledge and boundaries. The paper concludes that attention to rhetoric may better show and more healthily enact the subservient role of the military within American democracy and provides a potential means to bridge the perceived gap between wider society and its military.

What is the potential for a divergence in views among civilian and military elites (sometimes referred to as the civil-military gap) to undermine military effectiveness? Although a variety of differences were found among the views of military and civilian survey respondents, these differences mostly disappeared when the authors focused on the attitudes that are pertinent to civilian control of the military and military effectiveness.

politics, and national security policy.--John R. Ballard "On Point"

The intervention of the military in national politics and the everyday lives of citizens is a key question in civil-military relations. This book explains how concordance theory can provide a model for predicting such domestic intervention.Models dealing with the relationship between the military and society are usually based on Western nations wit

Trust in many institutions, such as government and media, has declined in the past two decades. Although such trends are well documented, they are not well understood. The study described in this report presents a new framework for assessing institutional trust and understanding the individual characteristics and institutional attributes that affect trust. Analysis is based on a survey of 1,008 respondents conducted through the RAND Corporation's American Life Panel in April 2018. The study makes several key contributions to the field of institutional trust research. First, researchers used a scale that distinguishes between trust and distrust, thus allowing a different understanding of trust. Second, the analysis is a first step toward understanding why people trust institutions. The framework allows exploration of components of trustworthiness-i.e., the institutional attributes that people say they consider important to levels of trust (e.g., integrity, competence). The researchers also analyzed relationships between components of trustworthiness and the individual characteristics of those expressing the level of trust. Third, the survey featured questions about multiple institutions, allowing researchers to make comparisons across institutions. The research provides insights into individual characteristics and institutional attributes associated with institutional trust. This study is a "first cut" at a complicated concept and at exploring what is needed to rebuild institutional trust.

The Model Rules of Professional Conduct provides an up-to-date resource for information on legal ethics. Federal, state and local courts in all jurisdictions look to the Rules for guidance in solving lawyer malpractice cases, disciplinary actions, disqualification issues, sanctions questions and much more. In this volume, black-letter Rules of Professional Conduct are followed by numbered Comments that explain each Rule's purpose and provide suggestions for its practical application. The Rules will help you identify proper conduct in a variety of given situations, review those instances where discretionary action is possible, and define the nature of the relationship between you and your clients, colleagues and the courts.