Content area
Full Text
The alleged crisis in American civil-military relations has revived a long-standing theoretical debate in the field.l How does a civilian government control its military? Samuel Huntington's answer, by maximizing military professionalism, sparked a debate that continues to divide civil-military theoreticians forty years later. The debate continues despite the fact that Huntington's chief antagonists from the sociological school founded by Morris Janowitz offer essentially a very similar answer. In this article, I define the basic problematique both Huntingtonian and Janowitzean theories attempt to explain. Next I critically evaluate and call into question the continued validity of key propositions of each theory and especially each's reliance on "professionalism." The article concludes with a brief summary of the criteria that should guide the development of a new theory of civilian control.
The civil-military challenge is to reconcile a military strong enough to do anything the civilians ask them to with a military subordinate enough to do only what civilians authorize them to do. This is a special case of the general problem of political agency: how do you ensure that your agent is doing your will, especially when your agent has guns and so may enjoy more coercive power than you do? This long-standing challenge has gained greater salience recently as American civil-military relations have entered a phase of particular acrimony. The acrimony was manifested in the remarkable degree of public vitriol directed at the person of the Commander-in-Chief by uniformed officers, especially in off-the-record comments early in President Clinton's tenure.2 The acrimony was further manifested in a debate over whether senior military officers have usurped too much authority in shaping military and political-military decisions on the size and shape of the post-Cold War defense establishment, the use of force, and other strategic matters.3 Finally, the acrimony has been seen in friction generated by two simultaneous and contradictory trends. On the one hand, there has been a divergence in the sociology of civilian and military establishments as fewer political elites have direct experience or personal connections with the military; on the other hand, there has been a convergence in civilian and military functions as traditional military threats to U.S. interests fade and nontraditional missions increasingly occupy military energy and resources.4
The rhetoric of the public debate, peppered with...