The Center for Civil-Military Relations in Monterey, California, helps nations resolve issues resulting from defense transformation, stability and support operations, terrorism, and other security challenges. In the past two years, the Center has helped educate almost 7,000 foreign military officers and civilians in programs conducted in host countries and in the United States.
While the president is the commander in chief, the US Congress plays a critical and underappreciated role in civil-military relations-the relationship between the armed forces and the civilian leadership that commands it. This unique book edited by Colton C. Campbell and David P. Auerswald will help readers better understand the role of Congress in military affairs and national and international security policy. Contributors include the most experienced scholars in the field as well as practitioners and innovative new voices, all delving into the ways Congress attempts to direct the military
Cover Page -- Title Page -- Copyright Page -- Contents -- List of Figures -- Dedication -- About the Author -- Foreword -- Preface -- Acknowledgements -- 1 Russian Civil-Military Relations in Transition -- 2 Military Doctrine and Security Strategy in Modern Russia -- 3 Past as Prologue: Setting the Scene, 1996-1998 -- 4 Case I: The Russians Are Coming! The Race to Pristina Airport, June 1999 -- 5 Case II: The Second Road to War in Chechnya: Dagestan, July-September 1999 -- 6 Case III: High Seas Tragedy and Military Melodrama: The Submarine Kursk Tragedy, August 2000 -- 7 Conclusions -- Epilogue: Russia and Georgia: The Summer of 2008 -- Appendices -- Appendix A Russian Military Doctrine, November 1993 -- Appendix B Russian National Security Policy, December 1997 -- Appendix C The World Ocean: Concept Paper for Russia's Naval Program -- Appendix D Russian National Security Concept, January 2000 -- Appendix E Russian Military Doctrine, April 2000 -- Bibliography
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.
In: Armed forces & society: official journal of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society : an interdisciplinary journal, Band 32, Heft 3, S. 437-453
In: The evolution of civil-military relations in South East Europe: continuing democratic reform and adapting to the needs of fighting terrorism, S. 229-257