Combating the crisis of civil-military relations - citizens, public officials and military have failed to meet each other's expectations, military must be reformed from within - Cover Story

Humanist, Jan-Feb, 1998 by Gregory D. Foster

Given the shortcomings of politics, however, the military generally is content to limit its expectations of civilian officials to two things that could reasonably be said to be the minimal obligations such officials bear under the tacit social contract of civil--military relations: appreciation and support--if not understanding--of the military's purposes and uses, its capabilities and limitations, its needs and concerns, and its value to society; and sufficient political acumen to get things done properly and effectively in the messy, frustrating pluralistic worlds of domestic and international politics.

No less telling in their impact on the attitudes, comportment, and performance of the armed forces are the military's expectations of The People. Though hoping for true appreciation, the military expects the support of the citizenry--if for no other reason than as psychological recompense for the sacrifices the military sees itself making. But it seems willing to accept mere noninterference in its professional affairs as a minimal reflection of public trust. The military also seems to expect civic commitment and public order--the contemporary equivalent of a permanently patriotic and dutiful home front--as essential signs of the public's willingness to meet the obligations of citizenship (preferably of the compliant, deferential kind).

For their part, The People seem to share with civilian officials the expectation that the military provide operational competence and sound advice--although the public's powers of discernment and judgment, as well as the concomitant good-faith willingness to forsake the rights to know about and speak out on allegedly sensitive national security matters, vary widely. Thus given to more or less blind trust in those who profess to serve them, The People therefore also implicitly ask that their military maintain strict political neutrality-distancing itself from partisan politics, staying out of domestic affairs-and that military personnel conform to the highest standards of ethical and legal conduct, even if the international environment in which they may have to operate is the dog-eat-dog, kill-or-be-killed Hobbesian jungle realists tell us it is and must be.

What is not so clear is what civilian officials and The People truly expect of one another and, moreover, where Congress fits into the equation--whether as an extension and voice of The People, as representative of an elitist class that consorts with Executive Branch officials over the heads (or behind the backs) of The People, or as an independent force having its own agenda, perspective, and expertise. One would like to think that The People (including Congress) expect civilian officials to demonstrate executive competence, provide clear strategic guidance, and serve the public interest unconditionally; and that civilian officials, in turn, expect active, knowledgeable civic participation for the common good from The People. A more cynical view, tempered by experience, suggests that what each ought to seek from the other is quite the opposite of what they actually do expect or want.