Suchergebnisse

"Civil–Military Relations" published on by Oxford University Press.

How informed are civilian leaders when they choose to commit the military instrument? How well does the prevailing pattern of civil-military relations enable the integration of divergent and even contradictory views? Does this pattern ensure a practical military strategy that properly serves the ends of national policy?

Uniformed officers have an obligation to stand up to civilian leaders if they think a policy is flawed. But once a policy decision is made, soldiers are obligated to carry it out. The idea that a general or admiral should publicly attack government policy and its civilian authors in time of war is dangerous.

Reformers have a broad menu of candidates to blame for deficiencies in American defense policy. For some it is the very constitutional framework of the American government itself, which leads to competition and even conflict between the legislative and executive branches.

Part of preparing for war is to understand it. What is the nature of war? What is the character of war? Will war in the future be like war in the past? These are critical questions that today's military professional must attempt to answer. Unfortunately, our track record is not very good. To envision the future is to "look through a glass darkly." A case in point is the debate that took place a decade ago in the wake of the Cold War's end and Operation DESERT STORM, the first Gulf War, of 1991.