Civilian-Military Relations 1
Civilian-Military Relations and National Security
Jeremy Philips
Helms School of Government, Liberty University
Abstract
The relationship between civilian leadership and military institutions in democratic
societies represents a critical factor impacting national security and democratic governance.
Contemporary scholarship and biblical principles reveal key challenges facing modern
civilianmilitary relations, including political polarization, tensions between professional military
expertise and democratic control, and the erosion of institutional trust. Dysfunctional
civilianmilitary relationships pose direct threats to national security through compromised
strategic coherence and damaged international credibility. Recent examples, particularly during
periods of heightened political stress, demonstrate how the politicization of military institutions
and breakdown of traditional consultation processes undermine both democratic principles and
defense capabilities. Biblical principles of divine authority, wise counsel, justice, and servant
leadership provide a framework for understanding and improving civilian-military relations.
Civilian-Military Relations 2
Effective civilian-military relations require institutional designs that emphasize accountability
and shared commitment to the common good. Implementation recommendations include
strengthened consultation mechanisms, enhanced education for both civilian and military
leaders, and protection of professional military advice from political interference. When
properly structured according to biblical principles, civilian-military relations can enhance
national security while preserving democratic values and moral standards essential for just
governance and the legitimate use of military force.
Keywords: civilian-military relations, national security, democratic governance, biblical
principles, military professionalism, servant leadership
Civilian-Military Relations and National Security
The relationship between civilian leadership and military institutions represents one of
the most critical aspects of democratic governance and national security. This delicate balance
requires careful navigation to ensure both effective defense capabilities and preservation of
democratic principles. Civilian-military relations encompass the complex interactions, tensions,
and collaborative efforts between elected officials, government administrators, and military
personnel in matters of national defense and security policy. The challenges inherent in these
relationships can significantly impact a nation's security posture, democratic stability, and
international standing. From a Christian perspective, understanding these dynamics through
biblical principles provides essential guidance for maintaining just and effective governance
structures that honor both divine authority and human responsibility in matters of war, peace,
and national defense. Civilian-military relations fundamentally concern the distribution of
authority and responsibility between civilian leaders and military professionals in democratic
Civilian-Military Relations 3
societies. According to Dempsey (2021), these relations involve "the relationship between the
people of a nation, their government, and their military" (p. 7). This relationship operates on
multiple levels, including strategic policy formulation, operational decision-making, resource
allocation, and oversight mechanisms. The civilian leadership, typically represented by elected
officials and appointed administrators, maintains ultimate authority over military policy and
strategic direction, while military professionals provide expertise, counsel, and implementation
capabilities. The theoretical foundation for modern civilian-military relations largely stems from
Samuel Huntington's concept of objective civilian control, which emphasizes military
professionalism as the key to maintaining appropriate civilian authority (Nix, 2012). This model
suggests that highly professional military institutions, characterized by expertise, responsibility,
and corporateness, naturally defer to civilian authority while maintaining their professional
integrity. However, this theoretical framework faces practical challenges in implementation,
particularly during periods of political polarization or when civilian and military perspectives
diverge significantly on strategic issues. Banerjee et al. (2024) highlight that civilian-military
relations must be understood "through a perilous lens," recognizing the inherent tensions and
potential for conflict that exist within these relationships. These tensions arise from
fundamental differences in institutional cultures, decision-making processes, and perspectives
on risk, time horizons, and strategic priorities. Military institutions typically emphasize hierarchy,
discipline, and mission accomplishment, while civilian institutions operate through democratic
processes, political compromise, and electoral accountability.
Civilian-Military Relations 4
Challenges in Civilian-Military Relations
Contemporary civilian-military relations face unprecedented challenges due to
increasing political polarization and institutional stress. Binkley (2024) documents how the
Trump administration's approach to civil-military relations demonstrated "rejection of military
professionalism and the deterioration of civil-military relations" (p. 55). This deterioration
manifested through several concerning patterns, including attempts to politicize military
leadership, bypass traditional consultation processes, and use military institutions for domestic
political purposes. The politicization of military institutions poses particular risks to democratic
governance and military effectiveness. When military leaders become associated with partisan
political positions or when civilian leaders attempt to leverage military credibility for political
gain, the foundational principle of military professionalism becomes compromised. This erosion
can lead to decreased public trust in both civilian and military institutions, reduced military
effectiveness, and potential constitutional crises.
Professional Military Expertise vs. Democratic Control
Another significant challenge emerges from the tension between professional military
expertise and democratic control. Feaver and Kohn (2021) emphasize that senior leaders often
lack understanding of the nuanced dynamics involved in civilian-military relations, leading to
inappropriate expectations and management approaches. Military professionals possess
specialized knowledge and experience that civilian leaders may lack, creating potential for
disagreement over strategic decisions and policy implementation. This expertise gap can
manifest in several problematic ways. Civilian leaders may either defer excessively to military
judgment, abdicating their constitutional responsibilities, or dismiss military counsel entirely,
Civilian-Military Relations 5
potentially compromising national security effectiveness. The challenge lies in maintaining
appropriate civilian authority while leveraging military expertise effectively. This balance
requires sophisticated understanding of roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes
from both civilian and military participants. Modern security environments place extraordinary
demands on civilian-military coordination and cooperation. Reveron et al. (2015) document how
the evolution of American foreign policy and defense strategy has created an "incidental
superpower" with global commitments that strain traditional civilian-military relationship
models. The complexity and pace of contemporary security challenges require unprecedented
levels of civilian-military integration and coordination. These operational demands can stress
traditional boundaries and create pressures for military institutions to assume roles traditionally
reserved for civilian agencies. When diplomatic, economic, and informational instruments of
national power prove inadequate or unavailable, military capabilities may be called upon to fill
gaps, potentially creating mission creep and role confusion that complicates civilian-military
relations.
National Security Challenges Posed by Civilian-Military Relationships
Dysfunctional civilian-military relations pose direct threats to national security through
compromised strategic coherence and policy implementation. When civilian leaders and military
professionals operate with conflicting assumptions, priorities, or timelines, the resulting
strategic incoherence can undermine national security objectives. This incoherence manifests in
inconsistent messaging to allies and adversaries, inefficient resource allocation, and reduced
operational effectiveness. Banerjee et al. (2024) argue that these challenges require viewing
civilian-military relations through a "perilous lens" that recognizes the potential for serious
Civilian-Military Relations 6
security consequences when relationships break down. Strategic incoherence can signal
weakness to adversaries, create uncertainty among allies, and reduce the credibility of
deterrent threats. When civilian and military leaders publicly disagree or when military advice is
consistently ignored or overruled without adequate explanation, the international community
may question the nation's ability to execute its stated policies effectively. The health of
civilianmilitary relations directly impacts institutional legitimacy and public trust, both essential
components of national security. Binkley (2024) demonstrates how deteriorating civilian-
military relations during the Trump administration eroded public confidence in both civilian and
military institutions. When military leaders appear politicized or when civilian leaders appear to
lack military support, public trust in government institutions declines, potentially undermining
support for necessary security policies and defense investments. This erosion of trust can have
cascading effects on national security. Reduced public support for military operations limits
policy options and reduces strategic flexibility. International partners may question the stability
and reliability of commitments made by a government that appears to lack control over its
military institutions or whose military appears politicized. Adversaries may perceive
opportunities to exploit apparent divisions between civilian and military leadership. Problematic
civilian-military relations can significantly impact alliance relationships and international
credibility. Allied nations rely on confidence in American civilian control of the military and
professional military competence. When these foundations appear shaky, alliance cohesion
suffers, and international cooperation becomes more difficult to achieve and maintain. Feaver
and Kohn (2021) emphasize that senior leaders' lack of understanding regarding civilian-military
dynamics can lead to inappropriate actions that damage international relationships. When
American civilian leaders appear unable to work effectively with military professionals, or when
Civilian-Military Relations 7
military leaders appear to operate independently of civilian control, allied nations may question
American reliability and competence. This uncertainty can encourage allies to develop
independent capabilities or seek alternative security partnerships, ultimately weakening
collective security arrangements that enhance American national security.
Biblical Principles for Civilian-Military Relations
Scripture provides foundational principles for understanding authority relationships that
apply directly to civilian-military relations. Romans 13:1-7 establishes that "there is no authority
except that which God has established" and that governing authorities are "God's servants" for
the purpose of maintaining order and promoting good while restraining evil. This passage
indicates that both civilian and military authority derive ultimately from God and must be
exercised in accordance with divine purposes and principles. Civilian-military relations should be
characterized by mutual recognition of legitimate authority within appropriate spheres. Civilian
leaders exercise authority as representatives of the people and stewards of democratic
governance, while military leaders exercise authority as professional servants of the state within
their sphere of competence. Both types of authority are legitimate and necessary, but both are
also limited and accountable to higher standards of justice and righteousness. First Peter 2:13-
17 reinforces this theme by instructing believers to "submit yourselves for the Lord's sake to
every human authority" while maintaining ultimate allegiance to God. Military professionals
should respect civilian authority while maintaining moral and professional standards that honor
God. Similarly, civilian leaders should exercise authority with humility and recognition of their
accountability to divine justice and the common good. Biblical wisdom literature provides
crucial guidance for civilian-military decision-making processes. Proverbs 11:14 states that
Civilian-Military Relations 8
"where there is no guidance, a people fall, but in an abundance of counselors there is safety."
This principle emphasizes the importance of seeking and receiving counsel from multiple
sources, particularly in matters of significant consequence like national security decisions. The
principle of seeking wise counsel suggests that effective civilian-military relations require
genuine consultation and collaboration between civilian and military leaders. Civilian leaders
should actively seek military expertise and counsel while retaining ultimate decision-making
authority. Military leaders should provide honest, professional advice while respecting civilian
prerogatives and decisions. The goal is not consensus but rather informed decision-making that
benefits from multiple perspectives and expertise. Proverbs 27:17 adds that "iron sharpens iron,
and one man sharpens another," indicating that productive tension and debate between civilian
and military perspectives can strengthen both institutions and improve outcomes. This suggests
that disagreement between civilian and military leaders is not necessarily problematic but can
be beneficial when conducted with mutual respect and shared commitment to national welfare.
Biblical principles of justice and righteousness provide essential standards for evaluating civilian-
military relations and national security policies. Micah 6:8 summarizes divine requirements as
doing "justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God." These standards apply
to both individual leaders and institutional relationships within government. The pursuit of
justice requires that civilian-military relations serve the common good rather than narrow
political or institutional interests. Civilian leaders should not exploit military institutions for
partisan advantage, and military leaders should not pursue institutional interests at the expense
of civilian authority or democratic governance. Both civilian and military institutions should
prioritize protection of the innocent, restraint of evil, and promotion of human flourishing.
Isaiah 1:17 commands to "learn to do good; seek justice, correct oppression; bring justice to the
Civilian-Military Relations 9
fatherless, plead the widow's cause." This suggests that national security policies emerging from
civilian-military cooperation should protect the vulnerable and promote justice both
domestically and internationally. Military force should be employed only for just purposes and
through just means, with careful consideration of impacts on civilian populations and
noncombatants. Jesus' teaching on leadership provides a transformative model for civilian-
military relations. Mark 10:42-44 records Jesus saying, "You know that those who are
considered rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones exercise authority over
them. But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your
servant, and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all." The idea of servant
leadership suggests that both civilian and military leaders should view their authority as an
opportunity to serve rather than dominate. Civilian leaders should exercise authority with
humility and genuine concern for military personnel and national welfare. Military leaders
should view their professional expertise and institutional capabilities as resources to serve
civilian leadership and the nation rather than sources of autonomous power. Civilian and
military leaders should be willing to acknowledge limitations, mistakes, and the need for
correction. Pride and defensiveness can prevent the honest communication and mutual
accountability necessary for effective civilian-military relations. Philippians 2:3-4 instructs to "do
nothing from selfish ambition or conceit, but in humility count others more significant than
yourselves. Let each of you look not only to his own interests, but also to the interests of
others."
Civilian-Military Relations 10
Application and Implementation
Biblical principles suggest several practical applications for improving civilian-military
relations. First, institutional design should emphasize accountability mechanisms that encourage
both civilian and military leaders to exercise authority responsibly and with appropriate
humility. This includes regular consultation processes, transparent decision-making procedures,
and clear delineation of roles and responsibilities. The principle of seeking wise counsel
suggests that formal mechanisms for civilian-military consultation should be strengthened and
protected from political interference. Military leaders should have regular, protected access to
civilian decisionmakers, and civilian leaders should be required to consider military advice
seriously, even when choosing different courses of action. These processes should be designed
to encourage honest communication and professional disagreement when appropriate. Biblical
principles also suggest the importance of professional development and education that
emphasizes moral character, wisdom, and understanding of appropriate authority relationships.
Both civilian and military leaders should receive education in the principles and practices of
democratic governance, military professionalism, and ethical decision-making. This education
should emphasize the servant leadership model demonstrated by Jesus and the importance of
viewing authority as a responsibility to serve others rather than an opportunity for self-
advancement. Professional military education should include substantial attention to civilian-
military relations, democratic theory, and ethical decision-making. Similarly, civilian leaders
responsible for national security should receive education in military culture, capabilities, and
professional norms.
Civilian-Military Relations 11
Conclusion
Civilian-military relations represent a fundamental challenge for democratic governance
and national security that requires careful attention to both practical and moral considerations.
The challenges identified in contemporary scholarship—including political polarization,
expertise gaps, and operational pressures—pose significant risks to national security through
compromised strategic coherence, reduced institutional legitimacy, and damaged international
relationships. However, biblical principles provide essential guidance for navigating these
challenges through emphasis on divine authority, wise counsel, justice, and servant leadership.
The application of biblical principles to civilian-military relations suggests that both civilian and
military leaders should approach their roles with humility, mutual respect, and genuine
commitment to serving the common good rather than narrow institutional or political interests.
This requires institutional designs that encourage accountability, consultation, and professional
development while protecting both civilian authority and military professionalism. When
civilian-military relations operate according to these principles, they can enhance rather than
compromise national security while maintaining the democratic values and moral standards that
justify the use of military force in service of justice and peace. The path forward requires
sustained commitment from both civilian and military leaders to the principles and practices
that support healthy civilian-military relations. This includes resistance to politicization
pressures, commitment to professional excellence, and recognition that effective national
defense requires both strong civilian leadership and competent military institutions working in
harmony toward shared objectives rooted in justice and righteousness.
Civilian-Military Relations 12
References
Banerjee, V., Webeck, S. P., & Webeck, S. P. (2024). Civil–Military Relations: Through a
Perilous Lens. Armed Forces and Society. 50(1), 3–24.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X221108198
Binkley, J. C., & Binkley, J. C. (2024). Civil–Military Relations During the Trump Administration:
Rejection of Military Professionalism and the Deterioration of Civil–
Military Relations. Armed Forces and Society., 50(1), 55–80.
https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X221106783
Dempsey, M. E. (2021). Civil-Military Relations: "What Does It Mean?": SSQ. Strategic Studies
Quarterly, 15(2), 6-11.
Feaver, P. D., & Kohn, R. H. (2021). Civil-Military Relations in the United States: What Senior
Leaders Need to Know (and Usually Don't): SSQ. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 15(2), 12-
37.
Nix, D. E., PhD. (2012). American civil-military relations: Samuel P. Huntington and the Political
Dimensions of Military Professionalism. Naval War College Review, 65(2), 88104.
Reveron, D. S., Gvosdev, N. K., & Owens, M. T. (2015). US foreign policy and defense strategy:
The evolution of an incidental superpower. Georgetown University Press.
