After Iraq: the politics of blame and civilian-military relations: the ideas and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Air Force Academy, the U.S. Air Force, or the U.S. government

Military Review, July-August, 2008 by George R. Mastroianni, Wilbur J. Scott

WHILE AMERICANS ARE widely distributed across the political spectrum and are closely divided between the Republican and Democratic parties, our all-volunteer military is more politically conservative and more Republican. Regardless of which party Americans endorse, their attitudes toward U.S. military members are more favorable now than they have been in modern memory. Public approval and appreciation of the U.S. armed forces has increased as military service has become the exclusive province of volunteers. However, the differences between military and civilian society may be cause for concern when the war in Iraq winds down. This discussion explores how competing post-Iraq narratives may lead to a broadening of divisions between military professionals and the civil society they defend.

The differing perspectives of Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz have framed thinking about civil-military relations for the last four decades. (1) Huntington saw the professional military as a national institution entrusted with the power to apply lethal force on a nation's behalf. He saw it as a warrior caste that could and should differ from civilian society in certain important respects. Huntington considered this difference as instrumental to achieving the military's goals and argued that an effective military's officer corps should stand apart from the society that it is meant to protect.

Janowitz, on the other hand, favored a conception of civil-military relations that integrated military and civilian institutions. In his view, civilians and members of the military interacted with one another extensively. Here the prototype of the senior military leader is the warrior-scholar-statesman well versed in the contingencies of both war and national politics. Further, Janowitz considered military service a key responsibility of male citizens and one that provided a vital crucible of common experience similar to that in classical Greek city-states' citizen armies. Concerned that the bonds between military and civil society might weaken, Janowitz questioned the wisdom of moving to an all-volunteer force when the United States abolished the draft in 1973. Such a force could make the loyalties of Soldiers eventually diverge from the society they protected.

It is now clear that what Huntington advocated and Janowitz feared has happened: the military has indeed become different from civilian society in many respects, including politically.

Competing Narratives

Within the military, the U.S. struggle in Iraq has provoked searching appraisals and examinations of preparations for the war and its conduct. This is especially true of the Army and Marine Corps, who are finding that understanding and assimilating the lessons of the Iraq war will be as complicated and controversial as was coming to grips with the lessons of Vietnam. For example, Greg Jaffe of the Wall Street Journal has described what he calls "failure narratives," or potential explanations, for our difficulties in Iraq that reflect nascent analyses internal to the military. (2) As military institutions grapple with the lessons of Iraq, a parallel process is taking place in the political arena. Those outside the military, especially politicians responsible for national policy, are also constructing narratives, and this process, too, has potentially far-reaching implications for the U.S. military.

In addition to the failure narratives, a competing "success narrative" is also under construction. The decline in casualties and improved stability in Iraq, which are attributed to General David Petraeus's troop surge and shift in strategy, have encouraged a sense of vindication among many of the war's most vocal advocates. Increasingly, the surge's success is cited as evidence of the wisdom of the administration and the weakness (or worse) of its critics. Just as assessments on progress in the war became a matter of partisan dispute, the surge and its long-term effects will become controversial, especially when questions about future courses of action in Iraq return to the front burner.

As the public debate about Iraq unfolds, there is a risk that the currently cordial relations between civil and military society may be threatened. One cannot yet know exactly how or when the Iraq war will end, or how most Americans will eventually judge the venture, but one can speculate about the future. The blame game is well underway, and it does not bode well. Many who have not yet taken the field in this contest of competing narratives are warming up on the sidelines.

The Blame Game

Discussions and debates about the conduct of the war will have a greater impact on civil-military relations over the next several months. The mistakes the U.S. made in the run-up to war are shared, by commission or omission, broadly across the political spectrum. However, ending the war will more clearly be the responsibility of the victors in the 2008 elections (or their successors). America will have to make important decisions about its future role in Iraq over the next several months, as the strains on its forces build and as American expectations of the Iraqi government increase. The United States will make these decisions against the backdrop of a presidential election campaign during which some politicians may attempt to use the military to legitimize their policies or candidacies (at least rhetorically).