"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
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.
During the 1990s, many observers expressed concerns about the state of civilian-military relations in the United States. Although the expression of these concerns was muted in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, the underlying issues they raised remain salient. Specifically, there is a potential for a civil-military gap to undermine military effectiveness by reducing support for defense budgets, increasing the difficulties of recruiting quality people to join the military, and dwindling public support for using military force, particularly where high casualties are likely. Some observers even worried that a growing civilian-military gap could undermine the principle of civilian control of the military. The armed services have an abiding interest in preventing problems that may reduce military effectiveness. Potential problems with resource availability and with recruitment and retention of personnel are basic concerns of the services, because they relate directly to tasks specified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Consequently, the Army asked RAND Arroyo Center to examine the evidence on the existence of a civil-military gap to determine how it might affect military effectiveness, what implications it might have on the U.S. actions to deal with trans-national terrorist groups, and, finally, to recommend actions that might close any breach that might exist.
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.
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.
Surveys show that the all-volunteer military is our most respected and trusted institution, but over the last thirty-five years it has grown estranged from civilian society. Without a draft, imperfect as it was, the military is no longer as representative of civilian society. Fewer people accept the obligation for military service, and a larger number lack the knowledge to be engaged participants in civilian control of the military. The end of the draft, however, is not the most important reason we have a significant civil-military gap today. A More Perfect Military explains how the Supreme Court used the cultural division of the Vietnam era to change the nature of our civil-military relations. The Supreme Court describes itself as a strong supporter of the military and its distinctive culture, but in the all-volunteer era, its decisions have consistently undermined the military's traditional relationship to law and the Constitution. Most people would never suspect there was anything wrong, but our civil-military relations are now as constitutionally fragile as they have ever been. A More Perfect Military is a bracingly candid assessment of the military's constitutional health. It crosses ideological and political boundaries and is challenging-even unsettling-to both liberal and conservative views. It is written for those who believe the military may be slipping away from our common national experience. This book is the blueprint for a new national conversation about military service.
