PLCY 700 Literature Assessment.pdf

Literature Assessment

Nicholas Merritt

PLCY 700

August 15, 2021

Introduction

The purpose of this literature review will be to examine the impact of Civil-Military

Relations in policy making. It is clear that certain legislation started a shift of the balance of

power in this relationship. Traditionally, what has made the military power of the United States

has been the aggregate control over the military by elected officials. The balance of this power is

critical for the continued success of the nation. Up until 1980, the civilian control over the

Relations.

Research Question and Dependent Variable

The research question this review will attempt to answer is has the civilian population

lost control over the military? The re-organization from the Goldwater-Nichols Act led to a shift

in power away from elected officials and toward Joint Chiefs and Theater Commanders. The idea

was to give more control to the senior military officers in an effort to give them the ability to

successfully accomplish their missions. To this point, the majority of the power remained with

the civilian population. When President Trump was elected, the civilian population essentially

lost control over the military. A number of top policy positions were filled by the President with

active duty and retired officers. Positions like the National Security Advisor, The Secretary of

Defense, and The White House Chief of Staff were all filled with senior military officers. The

dependent variable of this review is the military chain of command starting with the President

and ending with the Theater Commander.

Trump’s Generals: A Natural Experiment in Civil-Military Relations

The first peer-reviewed source this literature review will examine discusses the number

of current and former generals President Trump appointed to top national security positions in

20161. To properly understand why this decision is controversial, we must first understand the

When President Trump was elected, he began his cabinet nomination process, which

including several former generals in key national security positions. The majority of them were

what was considered a true civilian, or out of the military for a prolonged period of time,

however his nomination for the Secretary of Defense, James Mattis required a congressional

waiver since he had served within the past seven years, which he received. The waiver process

requires a service member to be separated from the military for at least seven years and is one of

the many checks and balances put in place to maintain civilian control over the military.

After the President finished the nomination process, there were some concerns that the

balance between civil-military control was headed in the wrong direction. A small group of

legislators saw it as a possible way to reel in the President from some of his antics. The balance

of power was threatened, nonetheless. One of the primary concerns for the appointees was that

the nation’s foreign policy issues would become militarized. Many scholars asserted that while

having these former generals in these positions would benefit military strategy, the lack of

foreign policy expertise would hinder long term goals. With the Goldwater-Nichols Act in place,

the re-organization of command within theaters of combat made concerns reach a boiling point.

transition of power was threatened those in the necessary position stood firm by their defense of

the Constitution and ensured a peaceful transition. It would seem as though control over the

military remained in civilian hands, until the Biden Administration appoint General Lloyd Austin

the Secretary of Defense, using the same waiver that Secretary Mattis was given, further

muddling civil-military relations.

Post-9/11 Civil-Military Relations: Room for Improvement

The next article in this literature review discusses the poor decision making structure and

the gap between policy aims and war strategy during each of the Presidential Administrations

3 Robin Wright, “Trump Drops the Mother of All Bombs on Afghanistan,” New Yorker, 14 April

2017, https://www.newyorker.com/.

after the attacks on September 11th4. Regardless of the past experiences Cabinet Members have,

one of the keys to a successful civil-military relationship is the ability to work in harmony. The

civilian leadership must have a sound foundational knowledge of military operations and the

military leadership must present their civilian counterparts with unbiased opinions on decisions.

When there is a gap in this relationship, both national security and foreign policy are hindered.

When there is not a gap, the country has the ability to move forward by leaps and bounds.

It would seem as though the solution to bridging this gap is inserting former military

officials into positions such as the Secretary of Defense. Which would in theory correct the

problem, however this would bring into question the balance of the civilian military relationship.

The author discusses both the Bush and the Obama Presidencies. President Obama not having

any military experience, and President Bush was a former officer an pilot in the Air Force5. This

effectiveness diminished6. Second, wartime strategy on the military side has been ineffective,

4 Thomas Sheppard and Bryan Groves, “Post-9/11 Civil-Military Relations: Room for Improvement,” Strategic

Studies Quarterly (Fall 2015), https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/pdf/26271519.pdf?

ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default

%3A180240a3baeae69043da35053d1b60de.

5 Andrew Glass, “George w. Bush Suspended from Texas Air National Guard, aug. 1, 1972,” accessed August 14,

2021, https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/this-day-in-politics-aug-1-1972-095023.

6 Thomas Sheppard and Bryan Groves, “Post-9/11 Civil-Military Relations: Room for Improvement,” Strategic

partially due to the lack of proper communication between military leaders and civilian. Third,

the lack of proper decision making strained this relationship, also due to the lack of effective

communication. After noting these serious flaws, several solutions to the problems are brought

forward.

Sheppard and Groves recommend the next president which would turn out to be President

Trump, refresh this strained civilian military relationship by communicating with them his vision

on the issue and insist the top military officials give clear, unfiltered advice. The issue here, is

that not only did the President surround himself with former generals on all sides, but the

President ultimately did not find the fine line of communicating. The gap between policy aims

and war strategy can be closed with Congress reviewing the current and proposed strategies of

the President, which makes sense since they are the ultimate authority in declaring war in the

Military Officers: Political without Partisanship

ideals, which does create an environment of distrust or poor communication. If military officer

and theater commanders remove themselves from this politics, they would have to remove

themselves from policy and strategy7. In order for there to be effective policy and military

strategy, military officers must not only be a part of this process, but they must have the ability to

speak candidly on the issue.

One of the reasons the civilian military relationship remains successful is that the military

officers remain a political, simply offering advice based on military strategy. After all, the

civilian control over the military is one of the foundations of our democracy, and this factor helps

to keep that balance. But at what cost? When do you remain apolitical enough to maintain the

balance, but at the same time not negatively effecting military strategy. This is the dilemma

military officers find themselves in. This issue becomes even more complicated when a former

When attempting to achieve this balance, you must examine what it means to be political.

making process. The third is perhaps the worst part of the process, and that is the involvement in

partisan politics8. Politics creates a difficult situation between military officers and their jobs. As

7 Mackubin Owens, “Military Officers: Political without Partisanship,” Strategic Studies Quarterly 9, no. 3 (Fall

2015), https://www-jstor-org.ezproxy.liberty.edu/stable/pdf/26271520.pdf?

ab_segments=0%2Fbasic_search_gsv2%2Fcontrol&refreqid=fastly-default

%3A180240a3baeae69043da35053d1b60de.

8 Mackubin Owens, “Military Officers: Political without Partisanship,” Strategic Studies Quarterly 9, no. 3 (Fall

earlier stated, they must refrain from seeking any sort of political power and partisanship, but at

the same time, when they are thrust into these positions, they are forced too. This puts them in a

unfamiliar situation and they are expected to mold policy to protect the nation.

This further emphasizes the importance of civilian control over the military. A civilian put

into this position would not go through the same struggle. At the same time, part of being a

successful military officer is being put in those uncomfortable situations and adapting and

overcoming. What should be a clear line between this relationship continues to remain gray. The

article brings up an approach to solve this dilemma, created by Samuel Huntington in his study

The Soldier and the State. Huntington recommends a two pronged approach to this problem.

Achieving military control from the civilian population must be subjective and objective9. The

subjective approach maximizes the power of the civilian side, giving them complete control over

One of the reoccurring themes of the civilian military relationship is trust and

communication. Former Joint Chiefs of Staff General Martin Dempsey spoke in great length to

this truth. He says “I talk about the importance of trust at every opportunity, one way we earn

chain of command. Where this attitude gets muddled is when you thrust on of these former

generals into a civilian position, forcing them to adapt.

civilian population has lost control over the military. General officers have stood firm on the oath

they took on the Constitution which can clearly be seen after the January 6th riots. What does

become an issue is that if a civilian put into the Secretary of Defense for example has no military

experience, how can they effectively advise policy based on military strategy. They must defer to

their military counterparts for the strategy, but in the end the decision is up to them. Appointing a

former military officer into these positions of power is the prudent thing to do. They have the

knowledge to advise on effective military strategy, but in the end the decision remains in civilian

hands.

References

Glass, Andrew.. “George w. Bush Suspended from Texas Air National Guard, aug. 1, 1972.”

Accessed August 14, 2021. https://www.politico.com/story/2013/08/this-day-in-politics-aug-1-

1972-095023.

10 Martin Dempsey, “The Importance of Maintaining Trust: Civil-Military Relations and the Profession of Arms,”

accessed August 14, 2021, https://www.nationalguard.mil/News/Article-View/Article/575759/the-importance-of-

maintaining-trust-civil-military-relations-and-the-profession/.