Military Relations between the United States and Canada, 1939-45.

This chapter argues that the changing character of conflict demands rethinking U S civil-military relations. The United States has long relied on a nuclear deterrent and conventional military superiority to defend itself, but its adversaries have changed the rules of the game to exploit civilian vulnerabilities in the U S homeland using non kinetic tools. To ensure continued civilian control of the military use of force and effective management of competition below the threshold of war, civilian leaders must assume greater responsibility for the political and operational management of hostilities in the Gray Zone. Because civilian leaders are underprepared for this new global competition, they will be tempted to default to conventional military solutions. Traditional civil-military frameworks did not envision permanent conflict or the centrality of civilian terrain, capabilities, and operational responsibilities. The United States needs civilian-led tools and approaches to effectively avoid the dual extremes of national immobilization in the face of non kinetic threats and inadvertent escalation of conflict without civilian authorization or intent. Civilian adaptation could also diminish the traditional role of the armed forces in defending the nation. The United States must rewire the relationship of the military and civilians through its decisions about how to manage Gray Zone competition.

Download Full-text

China’s Relations with Russia

China and the World ◽

10.1093/oso/9780190062316.003.0011 ◽

2020 ◽

pp. 233-250 ◽

Cited By ~ 1

Author(s):

Alexei D. Voskressenski

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Soviet Union ◽

The United States ◽

Soviet Period ◽

Bilateral Relations ◽

The Soviet Union ◽

The World ◽

Military Relations ◽

Post Soviet Period

Russia’s relations with China (and vice versa) have evolved steadily during the post-Soviet period. Leaders on both sides have proclaimed, for a number of years now, that their bilateral relations are at their best point in history. How did the China-Russia relationship reach such a stage, especially given their long (and largely discordant) history? This chapter traces the evolution of China-Russia relations since the collapse of the Soviet Union. It identifies the commonalities and common purposes Moscow and Beijing have in world affairs, as well as their bilateral economic, cultural, and military relations. The China-Russia relationship has important implications for the United States, as well as American allies in the world.

Download Full-text

Speak Softly and Carry a Big Stick? Veterans in the Political Elite and the American Use of Force

American Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s000305540200045x ◽

2002 ◽

Vol 96 (4) ◽

pp. 779-793 ◽

Cited By ~ 49

Author(s):

Christopher Gelpi ◽

Peter D. Feaver

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

American Foreign Policy ◽

The United States ◽

Executive Branch ◽

Political Elite ◽

Military Force ◽

Militarized Disputes ◽

Military Relations ◽

The Military ◽

The Impact

Other research has shown (1) that civilians and the military differ in their views about when and how to use military force; (2) that the opinions of veterans track more closely with military officers than with civilians who never served in the military; and (3) that U.S. civil–military relations shaped Cold War policy debates. We assess whether this opinion gap “matters” for the actual conduct of American foreign policy. We examine the impact of the presence of veterans in the U.S. political elite on the propensity to initiate and escalate militarized interstate disputes between 1816 and 1992. As the percentage of veterans serving in the executive branch and the legislature increases, the probability that the United States will initiate militarized disputes declines. Once a dispute has been initiated, however, the higher the proportion of veterans, the greater the level of force the United States will use in the dispute.

Download Full-text

The Decline of US Military Influence in Latin America

Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs ◽

10.2307/165943 ◽

1993 ◽

Vol 35 (2) ◽

pp. 1-50 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

J. Samuel Fitch

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Latin America ◽

Latin American ◽

Reagan Administration ◽

Dominant Role ◽

The United States ◽

Military Aid ◽

Us Military ◽

Military Presence ◽

Military Relations

The US military presence in Latin America has declined significantly over the last two decades, particularly in the major countries of the region. Despite the determined efforts of the Reagan administration to reverse that trend, with few exceptions the present ability of the United States to influence the Latin American militaries is far removed from the dominant role it played in the 1950s and 1960s. Given the pressures in Washington for further cuts in military aid programs, the trend toward declining US influence and increasingly divergent US-Latin American military interests is likely to continue in the 1990s. Although the United States will continue to be a major force in the region, the primary instruments of US influence are likely to be economic, rather than military-to-military relations.

Download Full-text

The New Civil-Military Relations

American Political Science Review ◽

10.1017/s0003055400124177 ◽

1961 ◽

Vol 55 (1) ◽

pp. 53-63 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Gene M. Lyons

Keyword(s):

United States ◽

Minimum Cost ◽

The United States ◽

Fundamental Principle ◽

Civilian Control ◽

Military Establishment ◽

Military Leaders ◽

Civil Military Relations ◽

Military Relations ◽

The Military

Historically the character of civil-military relations in the United States has been dominated by the concept of civilian control of the military. This has largely been a response to the fear of praetorianism. As recently as 1949, for example, the first Hoover Commission asserted that one of the major reasons for strengthening the “means of exercising civilian control” over the defense establishment was to “safeguard our democratic traditions against militarism.” This same warning was raised in the report of the Rockefeller Committee on defense organization in 1953. While the overriding purpose of the committee's recommendations was to provide “the Nation with maximum security at minimum cost,” the report made it clear that this had to be achieved “without danger to our free institutions, based on the fundamental principle of civilian control of the Military Establishment.” Finally, during the debate on the reorganization proposals of 1958, senators and congressmen used the theme of a “Prussianized” military staff to attempt to slow down the trend towards centralization in the military establishment.Despite this imposing support, the concept of civilian control of the military has little significance for contemporary problems of national security in the United States. In the first place, military leaders are divided among themselves, although their differences cannot be reduced to a crass contrast between dichomatic doctrines. Air Force leaders who are gravely concerned over the need to maintain a decisive nuclear retaliatory force are by now acknowledging the need to develop a limited war capability.

Download Full-text