Set and drift: The tale of The Red Knight - civil-military relations

Naval War College Review, Autumn, 2001 by James Rear Admiral Stavridis

Let me begin with a story.

Once upon a time, a mighty king held a banquet at his great court in central Europe. He had worked very hard over the previous decade to gather a superb collection of loyal knights. One evening, a particularly enthusiastic and powerful knight clad in red armor returned to the king's castle after several months away, the marks of much battle apparent on his armor.

The Red Knight presented himself to the king before all in the court. The king was pleased with the obvious efforts of the Red Knight and immediately asked him where he had been fighting. The Red Knight leaned on his sword and proudly said, "My Lord, I have been fighting in the west, laying waste to the enemies of the king!"

The king pondered this for a moment, looking around the great hall, then replied in a puzzled voice, "But good sir knight, I don't have any enemies in the west."

The Red Knight thought about that, straightened up, saluted the king, and said, "Well, sire, I think you do now."

This is a wonderful story, with a variety of lessons about the enthusiasm of subordinates, the importance of geopolitics, and perhaps even court etiquette, but I would like to focus on a different aspect of the story-"civil-military relations."

Over the past several years, much has been written in the general press, books, academic journals, and specialized defense literature popularizing the theory that there is an increasing gap between civilian and military sectors in U.S. society. It is an important subject with implications for both society in general and the military in particular.

Interestingly, the entire subject of civil-military relations has a long history of discussion in the United States, one that is reflected not only in scholarly theory but also in popular culture. Books like Seven Days in May (1962) by Fletcher Knebel and Charles Bailey II, Guard of Honor (1998) by James Gould Cozzens, and the recently published A Soldier's Duty (2001) by Tom Ricks come to mind, as well as three recent films, No Way Out, G.I. Jane, and A Few Good Men.

A variety of scholarship exists on the subject. Samuel P. Huntington wrote the classic, The Soldier and the State. (1) In it, he focuses on the relationship between "two active directing elements" in the military and society at large--the officer corps and the state. Huntington finds the military ethic realistic and conservative, stressing the supremacy of society over the individual and "the importance of order, hierarchy, and the division of function." (2) On the other hand, the civilian outlook in America tends to emphasize individuality and initiative in a loosely joined heterogeneous whole. (3) Clearly, there is potential for conflict and miscommunication between civilian and military actors in our society.

One sociologist who has taken a broad look at how societies are structured is Jane Jacobs. Her Systems of Survival identifies two structural approaches in society--one facilitates governance and exhibits a "guardian" culture, and the other facilitates commerce and displays a "trader" culture. Essentially, her theory is that many actors in a society function as either "guardians" or "traders."

Guardianship evolves from the very human tendency to protect territory. Jacobs argues that the guardians in a society--the police, firefighters, politicians, teachers, and the military, for example--have a basic need for boundaries, stemming from their desire to distinguish between insiders and outsiders. In such a culture we find clear rules of conduct, a code that requires adherence to those rules, and an appreciation for respect and authority. The guardian code, according to Jacobs, includes exhortations to shun trading, exert prowess, be obedient and disciplined, adhere to tradition, respect hierarchy, be loyal, show fortitude, and treasure honor. (4)

On the other hand, traders--largely encompassing the rest of society--are less concerned about boundaries. In fact, the commercial world usually acts to reduce barriers and enhance the opportunities for trade. A trader will welcome knowns and unknowns alike into the shop. What matters most is selling. Traders include businessmen, merchants, producers of goods and services, entertainers, and entrepreneurs. Their moral code, according to Jacobs, emphasizes honesty; competition, thrift, optimism, initiative and enterprise, inventiveness and novelty; traders wish to shun force, come to voluntary agreements, respect contracts, collaborate easily with strangers, and promote comfort and convenience. (5)

Clearly, the differences between guardians and traders in a society create contrasting views of how the world should be structured. All societies face this kind of division, and they have dealt with it in a variety of ways. Looking back over history, it appears there are three basic models of the civil-military relationship.

The first model might be termed "military dominated." In such a construct, the guardians--in this case the military--hold the greatest influence in the society. Historical examples include, most famously, Sparta in the Hellenic era. Many other examples exist, of course, among the praetorian societies of Europe, Asia, and South America. In the modern era, the Soviet Union was to some extent dominated by the military, although individual civilians tended to use the military instrument to further their personal and political agendas rather than creating a culture of pure military domination. During the post--World War II period, many Latin American, African, and Asian dictatorships were essentially military dominated as well. Certainly there can be various levels of military domination within a society, from military influence with civilian control, through extensive military participation, to military control, either with or without partners from the civilian sector. (6)