Civil-Military Relations: Balancing Control and Bridging Divides

Civil-military relations involve the dynamics between a civil society and its military apparatus. This relationship is defined by a clear hierarchical structure, operating through strategic interactions based on preferences and expectations of the other group’s actions.

In democratic societies, civilian preferences must prevail over military ones, which often leads to challenges in the civil-military relationship. The most fundamental issues facing civil-military relations include finding a balance in control over the military and maintaining a healthy relationship between the general public and the military.

Huntington’s Theory of Civilian Control

Huntington discusses two types of civilian control over the military: subjective and objective.

Subjective Control: Involves a group or groups (by government institution, social class, or constitutional form) of civilians lessening the military’s power and maximizing civilian power through “civilianizing the military.”

Objective Control: Maximizes military professionalism to facilitate professional attitudes and behaviors by the military. This theory “militarizes” the military, making it a “tool of the state.”

Huntington’s theory of “objective control” creates two spheres to isolate soldiers from politics and focus solely on military matters. He argues that the military cannot exist if it is “progressively involved in institutional, class, and constitutional politics.”

As a result, Huntington’s theory is that objective civilian control is necessary to keep the military apolitical.

Flaws in Huntington’s Civilian Control Theory

Huntington’s theories on civilian control are flawed because he places the professional military in its apolitical sphere.

Within the military, this could create the notion that problems can be solved independently without oversight. Military leaders can maintain independence through information asymmetry because of their unique expertise, information classification, and issues with civilian competence on military subjects.

Huntington’s military sphere can lead to the military making more decisions internally due to their separate sphere and asymmetric information. Additionally, the isolation of soldiers through Huntington’s civilian control theory worsens the divide between the military and society.

Military communities already identify as “different” from civilian communities, and Huntington’s “sphere” compounds that.

Civilian Competence and Communication Challenges

Huntington’s theories on civilian control also make assumptions regarding communication that have problems in reality.

He assumes that all civilians have an in-depth understanding of the military. While there may be some great leaders who are well-versed in Clausewitz and can make strategic military decisions, this is not always the case.

In reality, civilians make decisions that are not the most conducive to national security or the military. In democracies, civilians “have the right to be wrong.”

Since military leaders are the experts, they should be able to communicate with and advise civilian leaders instead of being isolated in their apolitical sphere. The isolation caused by Huntington’s objective civilian control also creates a harmful separation between the military and civil society.

Recruitment Challenges and the Civil-Military Divide

Within civil-military relations, it’s important to have a healthy relationship between the armed forces and overall society. However, currently, a stark divide exists within the United States.

This is exemplified in the struggle for armed forces to recruit and retain qualified individuals because of issues with health and the propensity to serve. A significant obstacle in recruitment is military service becoming less of a civic duty and more of a “family business,” with 80% of new recruits having a family member that served.

The Rise of the Warrior Caste

Studies demonstrate a low propensity to serve, signaling a disconnect between the military and society. This disconnect is not only a national security challenge because of recruitment challenges but also a societal problem due to the creation of a warrior caste.

The warrior caste involves multi-generational military families and is an issue because it signals a military that is becoming increasingly removed from civil society.

However, it also poses a significant civil-military relations challenge when a small percentage of the population is sacrificing significantly more than the rest of society. This can lead to military agents being viewed as having special moral competence.

Within military families, who already have different identities from civilians, this disproportionate sacrifice furthers the civil-military divide. It can also present issues when civilian leaders are directing the military into harm’s way, especially if the civilian leaders do not have the education to make more effective military decisions.

Reinstating the Draft: A Controversial Solution

There are proposals suggesting that bringing back the draft in the United States would be beneficial because it would eliminate recruitment issues.

This would also help repair the divide between the military and multi-generational military families with the general public. Furthermore, in a country that is facing significant polarization, having this common experience could help build a more coherent society.

Challenges of the Draft:

Operational Feasibility: The military infrastructure would not be able to handle the force increase that a draft would bring about.

Historical Precedent: During the Vietnam War, soldiers faced extreme hostility after returning to the United States.

Additional Issues: Morale, quality of soldiers, and political costs also make conscription a suboptimal decision in the short term.

Combining Huntington and Janowitz’s Theories

Civilians should control the military with a combination of Huntington’s theories and the ideas of Morris Janowitz to help find a balance of military control and build a better relationship between the military and the general public.

Janowitz’s Integration: Janowitz proposed a closer relationship between civilian leaders and the military by integrating military professionalism and civic values. His theory would “civilianize the military” and “militarize civil society.”

Janowitz argues for a better civilian understanding of the military holistically, as a social institution, not just a political tool. This civilian exposure to the military will encourage civic duty and likely increase the propensity to serve.

Additionally, it will mitigate problems associated with the isolation of the military in Huntington’s spheres.

A Balanced Approach for Stronger Civil-Military Relations

Huntington is correct that the military should be an apolitical institution, but this is why there needs to be a combination of Huntington’s points and Janowitz’s theory.

By blending professionalism with civic integration, this approach strengthens oversight while reducing isolation, creating a more cohesive relationship between the military and the public it serves.