Search results

Historically the character of civil-military relations in the United States has been dominated by the concept of civilian control of the military. This has largely been a response to the fear of praetorianism. As recently as 1949, for example, the first Hoover Commission asserted that one of the major reasons for strengthening the "means of exercising civilian control" over the defense establishment was to "safeguard our democratic traditions against militarism." This same warning was raised in the report of the Rockefeller Committee on defense organization in 1953. While the overriding purpose of the committee's recommendations was to provide "the Nation with maximum security at minimum cost," the report made it clear that this had to be achieved "without danger to our free institutions, based on the fundamental principle of civilian control of the Military Establishment." Finally, during the debate on the reorganization proposals of 1958, senators and congressmen used the theme of a "Prussianized" military staff to attempt to slow down the trend towards centralization in the military establishment.Despite this imposing support, the concept of civilian control of the military has little significance for contemporary problems of national security in the United States. In the first place, military leaders are divided among themselves, although their differences cannot be reduced to a crass contrast between dichomatic doctrines. Air Force leaders who are gravely concerned over the need to maintain a decisive nuclear retaliatory force are by now acknowledging the need to develop a limited war capability.

THIS ARTICLE IS A COPY OF FOUR REACTIONS TO RICHARCH H. KOHN'S ARTICLE IN THE SPRING 1994 ISSUE OF THE SAME JOURNAL. ALSO PRINTED IS A RESPONSE FROM THE AUTHOR. THE FIRST ARTICLE WAS ENTITLED, "OUT OF CONTROL: THE CRISIS IN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS." THE FOUR AUTHOR'S RESPONSES CONSISENTLY DENOUNCE ANY CLAIMS THAT THERE IS A CRISIS IN AMERICAN CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS, CITING EXAMPLES OF THE HARMONY BETWEEN THESE BRANCHES DURING THE BUSH AND CLINTON ADMINISTRATIONS.

"Tanzania: Civil–Military Relations and Nationalism" published on by Oxford University Press.

Die Tatsache, daß der Text der neuen russischen Militärdoktrin vom 2. November 1993 bislang nicht veröffentlicht wurde und die zur Erläuterung wesentlicher Grundsätze der Doktrin abgegebenen Erklärungen führender Poltiker und Militärs keinen eindeutigen Charakter tragen, erschweren gegenwärtig die Einschätzung der neuen Doktrin. Der Zeitpunkt ihrer Verabschiedung deutet jedoch darauf hin, daß die russischen Streitkräfte ihre im Gefolge ihres Eingreifens in den Oktoberunruhen 1993 gewachsene politische Stärke zu nutzen beginnen. Die weitere Entwicklung des zivil-militärischen Kräfteverhältnisses bleibt angesichts einer Reihe von Imponderabilien unsicher. (BIOst-Srt)