CIVIL-MILITARY GAP

November 1999
		Is there a widening "thought gap" between civilians and the military? Colonel Charles Dunlap, Colonel Mackubin Owens and professor Richard Kohn respond to your questions.

Forum introduction Who gives the military its "reality check?" Does the gap go deeper than just between civilians and top military leaders? Do civilians understand the military's mission? Is the civil-military gap a function of natural selection? Should the military change to emulate society? Could a military coup occur in the U.S.?   Online Special: Background on the civil-military gap by forum participants. Nov. 10, 1999: A discussion on the civil-military gap. Sept. 20, 1999: A report on the lobbying campaign to save the defense project F-22. July 1, 1999: Gen. Wesley Clark discusses the war in Kosovo and the military lessons learned. April 15, 1999: A look at the continuing debate over the use of ground forces in Yugoslavia. April 8, 1999: Two experts discuss the draft issue in comparison to an all-volunteer military force. Browse the NewsHour's coverage of the military.     The TISS Project on the Gap Between the Military and Civilian Society "The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012" by Charles Dunlap The Pentagon The Department of Defense

Tim Wells of Boise, ID asks: In the end, is this an issue that civilian leaders need to address more than military leaders? Should the military change to emulate society, even if emulating society might degrade national security?   Col. Charles Dunlap responds: I do think that civilian leaders need to play a more visible role in ensuring appropriate civil-military relations. That said, I don't know that the military needs to emulate civilian society; rather, there needs to be greater mutual understanding and respect.   Professor Richard Kohn responds: To your first question, yes absolutely! Civilian leaders are responsible for our military establishment, and it will be up to them, ultimately, to address these issues. And I believe they will. However at the same time, with institutions so large and complex, many of the steps must be undertaken by the military itself. Like all professions, it is responsible for, and must mold, its relationship with its "client," the American people. All militaries adapt to society they serve, and the American military establishment historically has done so magnificently. One of our studies shows that is has adapted well over the last half century, in the areas of racial and gender integration, changing styles of leadership, and even to a degree in discipline and military justice. And very much without losing effectiveness or capability as military organizations. That said, armed forces cannot emulate society to the point of ineffectiveness for their tasks--they cannot take on the characteristics of individualistic, democratic society and succeed in battle and defend this country. The criticial issue is to know where and when to adapt and how to do so WITHOUT harming military effectiveness, or at the very least understanding the tradeoffs and the costs. That is the responsibility of leadership, military and civilian. As we used to say in the Pentagon, "that's why they get the big bucks!" Your question is at the root of much of the controversy over today's military policy.   Col. Mackubin Owens responds: I could not agree more. As I suggested in my answer to question number 1 above, the real danger to the US is not that civil society will be militarized, but that military culture will succumb to pressures to civilianize. A liberal democracy such as the United States faces a dilemma when it comes to its military: if it is to fulfil its functional imperative, that military cannot govern itself by the liberal principles it ultimately defends. As T.R. Fehrenbach wrote in his classic study of the Korea conflict, This Kind of War, "By the very nature of its missions, the military must maintain a hard and illiberal view of life and the world. Society's purpose is to live; the military's is to stand ready, if need be, to die." If we cannot count on the military to prepare itself for that eventuality, it will fail--and if it does, the liberal American society that the military protects will go down with it.