Civilians and military personnel do not have a clear view of each other in the United States today. Conspiring against such understanding are the norms and traditions of the two cultures. On the one hand, the military is considered to like its secrecy and think of itself as morally superior to the civilians it is meant to serve. On the other hand, civilians praise or blame the armed forces based on political exigencies and generally without true comprehension of their culture. And their mutual misperceptions seem greater now than in the late 1960s and early 1970s during the Vietnam War. Yet, as U.S. Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming points out, the military is linked to the civilian world so fundamentally that all of us pay the price if they do not develop an appreciation of one another--but that is achievable only if each side also strives to see itself clearly. As the military fulfills its mission of protecting Americans and their way of life, civilians must also do their part and support the military through budget allocations, legislation, and enlistment. Without this shared commitment, American interests suffer as a whole. Fleming shows how to close a military-civilian gap that yawns so large in twenty-first-century America that it potentially threatens national security and essential freedoms.
This book examines how U.S. domestic institutions stand up to global threats and whether intelligence sharing across military and civilian law enforcement barriers is legal. The U.S. Constitution is designed to distribute power in order to prevent its concentration, and in particular, it draws clear lines between the responsibilities of the military and those of civilian law enforcement. But the new global threat paradigm, requiring responses both abroad and at home, calls out for military and civilian intelligence gathering to work in tandem. The Civil-Military Divide: Obstacles to the Integration of Intelligence in the United States looks at historic and legal ramifications of such efforts. Louise Stanton's thought-provoking work sums up the current state of U.S. intelligence gathering at all levels of government. It then looks at the range of recommendations for overhauling our intelligence efforts in the context of the U.S. Constitution to assess what may or may not be constitutionally supportable. At issue are three long-established, often reaffirmed principles: the separation of powers, the federalist system that gives the U.S. government precedence over states, and the separation of the civilian and military sectors.
Since the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the American public and the Armed Forces have steadily drifted apart. This has resulted in a division between the people of the nation and the individuals that defend its values. Consequently, as this division increases, the American public is thankful of military servicemen, but believes that service is something others should do. Conversely, the military’s sole purpose is to protect and defend the nation, its people, and its values, but it has become more isolated. Additionally, military service is becoming a family tradition in which outsiders cannot easily understand the values and pride of service. This gap is further perpetuated by incongruences between the media’s portrayal of the military—in movies and on the news—and what real military life consists of. This is problematic because both parties are crucial to the other’s success. If the military does not understand the public, it cannot represent and protect its ideologies, likewise, if the people do not understand the military, they will lose sight of what the true cost of freedom is, as well as, implement policies that prevent the military from accomplishing its mission set. Due to the disproportionate representation of the military within the nation—less than 1% of the total population- this study will examine the civilian-military divide from the perspective of the military. Through a careful analysis of the U.S. Army profession, and the information collected from soldier interviews, several issues were identified as the primary factors in the current division. The first factor to forging partnerships is that both parties must have a desire to be involved. The second factor to overcome is perceptions about the military that are created through media. The third factor, is a general misconception regarding what the true Army profession is and what it entails. This issue is common in both civilian and military settings. The final factor is that some civilians are ignorant about the day-to-day operation of the military, believing the military to be in a perpetual state of combat. The analysis of these contentions has produced the following objectives: 1. Define the Army profession 2. Differentiate soldiers from media portrayals 3. Examine soldier involvement in their community In addressing these objectives, this study will use an ethnographic approach to ascertain how members of the 25th Infantry Division conceptualize themselves. Twenty soldiers were interviewed and asked questions regarding their assessments of the Army profession, life in the military, and their involvement in the community. The information derived from these interviews was used to determine essential themes within the Army community and capture these themes on film. The final compilation consisted of a photo-essay that explains a key tenet of military culture and provides a visualization of the military experience. The aim of this compilation is to take an initial step toward the resolution of the civilian-military divide by breaking down current perceptions of the military and defining the life of a service member.
From the three-time Pulitzer Prize-winning author of the New York Times bestseller Angler, who unearthed the deepest secrets of Edward Snowden's NSA archive, the first master narrative of the surveillance state that emerged after 9/11 and why it matters, based on scores of hours of conversation with Snowden and groundbreaking reportage in Washington, London, Moscow and Silicon Valley Edward Snowden chose three journalists to tell the stories in his Top Secret trove of NSA documents: Barton Gellman of The Washington Post, Glenn Greenwald of The Guardian and filmmaker Laura Poitras, all of whom would share the Pulitzer Prize for Public Service. Poitras went on to direct the Oscar-winning Citizen Four. Greenwald wrote an instant memoir and cast himself as a pugilist on Snowden's behalf. Barton Gellman took his own path. Snowden and his documents were the beginning, not the end, of a story he had prepared his whole life to tell. More than 20 years as a top investigative journalist armed him with deep sources in national security and high technology. New sources reached out from government and industry, making contact on the same kinds of secret, anonymous channels that Snowden used. Gellman's old reporting notes unlocked new puzzles in the NSA archive. Long days and evenings with Snowden in Moscow revealed a complex character who fit none of the stock images imposed on him by others. Gellman now brings his unique access and storytelling gifts to a true-life spy tale that touches us all. Snowden captured the public imagination but left millions of people unsure what to think. Who is the man, really? How did he beat the world's most advanced surveillance agency at its own game? Is government and corporate spying as bad as he says? Dark Mirror is the master narrative we have waited for, told with authority and an inside view of extraordinary events. Within it is a personal account of the obstacles facing the author, beginning with Gellman's discovery of his own name in the NSA document trove. Google notifies him that a foreign government is trying to compromise his account. A trusted technical adviser finds anomalies on his laptop. Sophisticated impostors approach Gellman with counterfeit documents, attempting to divert or discredit his work. Throughout Dark Mirror, the author describes an escalating battle against unknown digital adversaries, forcing him to mimic their tradecraft in self-defense. Written in the vivid scenes and insights that marked Gellman's bestselling Angler, Dark Mirror is an inside account of the surveillance-industrial revolution and its discontents, fighting back against state and corporate intrusions into our most private spheres. Along the way it tells the story of a government leak unrivaled in drama since All the President's Men.
A diverse group of contributors offer different perspectives on whether or not the different experiences of our military and the broader society amounts to a "gap"—and if the American public is losing connection to its military. They analyze extensive polling information to identify those gaps between civilian and military attitudes on issues central to the military profession and the professionalism of our military, determine which if any of these gaps are problematic for sustaining the traditionally strong bonds between the American military and its broader public, analyze whether any problematic gaps are amenable to remediation by policy means, and assess potential solutions. The contributors also explore public disengagement and the effect of high levels of public support for the military combined with very low levels of trust in elected political leaders—both recurring themes in their research. And they reflect on whether American society is becoming so divorced from the requirements for success on the battlefield that not only will we fail to comprehend our military, but we also will be unwilling to endure a military so constituted to protect us. Contributors: Rosa Brooks, Matthew Colford,Thomas Donnelly, Peter Feaver, Jim Golby, Jim Hake, Tod Lindberg, Mackubin Thomas Owens, Cody Poplin, Nadia Schadlow, A. J. Sugarman, Lindsay Cohn Warrior, Benjamin Wittes
A celebration of the extraordinary courage, dedication, and sacrifice of this generation of American veterans on the battlefield and their equally valuable contributions on the home front. Because so few of us now serve in the military, our men and women in uniform have become strangers to us. We stand up at athletic events to honor them, but we hardly know their true measure. Here, Starbucks CEO and longtime veterans’ advocate Howard Schultz and National Book Award finalist Rajiv Chandrasekaran of The Washington Post offer an enlightening, inspiring corrective. The authors honor acts of uncommon valor in Iraq and Afghanistan, including an Army sergeant who repeatedly runs through a storm of gunfire to save the lives of his wounded comrades; two Marines who sacrifice their lives to halt an oncoming truck bomb and protect thirty-three of their brothers in arms; a sixty-year-old doctor who joins the Navy to honor his fallen son. We also see how veterans make vital contributions once they return home, drawing on their leadership skills and commitment to service: former soldiers who aid residents in rebuilding after natural disasters; a former infantry officer who trades in a Pentagon job to teach in an inner-city neighborhood; a retired general leading efforts to improve treatments for brain-injured troops; the spouse of a severely injured soldier assisting families in similar positions. These powerful, unforgettable stories demonstrate just how indebted we are to those who protect us and what they have to offer our nation when their military service is done.
"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
