Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security
During the 1990s, U. S. civil-military relations became the subject of a highly charged debate. Critics detected worrisome signs of a growing divide between soldiers and the rest of American society, especially between the upper echelons of the officer corps and civilian elites. Others dismissed such concerns as fanciful. Fueled by anecdote and predisposition, the controversy generated more heat than light. But this impressive volume, the product of a multidisciplinary research effort directed by Feaver and Kohn, moves that debate appreciably closer to a resolution. Combining empirical evidence with judicious, historically informed analysis, it provides authoritative answers to several questions: Does a civil-military gap exist? If so, what does it signify? And to the extent that the gap jeopardizes either military effectiveness or civilian control, how can it be reduced? The authors find that although claims of a full-fledged "crisis" are overblown, "numerous schisms and trends" point toward a civil-military relationship under severe stress. Unless addressed, these trends will worsen -- with potentially dire consequences. Since September 11, civil-military concerns have slipped into the background, but the problems identified by this study remain unresolved. This volume serves as a powerful warning that American soldiers and civilians alike would be ill advised to take civil-military harmony for granted.
Related
The debates over Kosovo blurred the old divisions between liberals and conservatives, but they did not rise above an even older split in American politics and foreign policy: the enduring divide between a hawkish South and a dovish North. Regional differences based on culture and values have made Greater New England the heartland of opposition to foreign wars and the U.S. military establishment since the 1700s; they have also made the South a bastion of interventionism. All too often, the regional divides over U.S. foreign policy have just been a reprise of the Civil War -- and they are a recipe for paralysis.
Russia's post-Soviet orientation is in serious trouble. The West does not want to see any structure in Eurasia that permits Russian hegemony, but abetting continued chaos in the former Soviet space is hardly in the West's interest. Central Asia and the Caucasus are rife with flash points that could ignite and draw in outside powers, and the presence of nuclear weapons raises the stakes even higher. The United States should support integration, not division. For its part, Russia should work with nearby countries to help unite diverse peoples in a stabler system.
Michael Ignatieff's report on ethnic and other bitter mini-wars is evocative but only sporadically illuminating.

Sign-up for free weekly updates from ForeignAffairs.com.