Commander William Earl Fannin, Class of 1945, Capstone Essay Contest
Many members of the military find it easy to talk down to those on the outside when it comes to moral and social issues. Closing the civil-military gap, however, involves cooperation and understanding—not patronization.
As the world enters the 21st century, the United States stands as the model of a stable, democratic government for the rest of the world, and it enjoys a position of authority and power in the international arena unprecedented in the history of the nation. The Constitution remains strong and functional, as evidenced by the recent peaceful transfer tumultuous election. There are countless reasons for our country to treasure this time of peace and prosperity. While there is much cause to be optimistic about the future of the nation, there is, however, a growing concern in the area of civil-military relations. The theory of an expanding cultural gap between civilian society and the military is gaining acceptance. While some may dismiss the issue as another attempt to inflame controversy, it is critical that military personnel—especially officers—understand the dynamics of the debate.
Civil-military relations are the foundation of service within the armed forces. The oath of office clearly articulates the responsibility of a military officer to "support and defend the Constitution," and it is essential to remember that the Constitution establishes civilian control of the military. "It is a basic tenet of the professional ethos of the military that, although disagreements with the civilian leadership may exist and may be discussed in private during policy making process, once the commander in chief makes a final decision, that decision will be accepted and implemented."
It is both logical and necessary that there be a certain gap between the civilian and military worlds, but there are areas in which alienation between the two have the potential for disastrous consequences. Junior officers in particular have a responsibility to understand the importance of the civil-military relationship and to make a conscious effort to strengthen the bonds between these two cultural spheres.
The Healthy Gap
The differences between civilians and uniformed personnel are not inherently harmful, as some critics may suggest. On the contrary, there is a fundamental need to have a military that is concerned about issues and situations that the rest of society has the freedom to overlook. The military has a specific mission and purpose to provide security and defense for the nation. "[Military personnel] must work together to accomplish their missions, and very often it is not just success, but their life that depends on qualities like teamwork, taking and executing orders and being loyal." The military must maintain a unique perspective, for as military analyst John Hillen notes, "the military culture exists for a reason and it is indexed to the military's function; you cannot change the culture and still maintain the ability of the military to do its job successfully. If we compromise the standards of military culture too far, we will end up compromising their fighting ability and might lose a war as a result." The military trains to protect and uphold the freedoms and liberties of the citizenry, to the point that the average American does not have to be unduly concerned about constitutional rights or national security.
Average American citizens are concerned about carving out their own niches within society. They are focused on economic and social prosperity in order to provide for themselves and their families. They are concerned about the workplace, the school system, and their communities. Granted, not all citizens contribute equally to the betterment of society, but most citizens do care deeply for the society and nation of which they are a part. Even though the civilian and military frameworks for living are distinctly unique, one is not superior to the other. They complement each other in such a way that a symbiotic relationship should exist between society as a whole and the armed forces.
Find the Balance
Much has been written about the increasing gap between the military and the rest of society. Some argue the current situation is developing into such a serious problem that it has the potential to rend the very fabric of American society. They believe the gap has grown so wide that it is leading inevitably to a conflict of interests between civilian officials and subordinate military commanders. According to Dr. Pauline Kaurin, "there is more than a culture gap; rather, what we have is a wide chasm which seems to be becoming more pronounced and shows no signs of reversing. A chasm is cause for a great deal more concern and hand wringing than a mere cultural difference." Other experts maintain there is no need to be alarmed about the current state of civil-military relations. They assert it is simply a product of the times in which we live.
It is the challenge of the military officer to find a workable balance between these two extremes. To achieve this balance, a basic understanding of the issues creating all the commotion is both necessary and valuable. The debate can be distilled into three main areas: social, institutional, and geopolitical.
Institutional Developments
The end of the Vietnam War brought an end to conscription and marked the start of the military's transition to an all-volunteer force. No longer was military service a common link among Americans; instead, the military and civilian worlds developed increasingly separate norms. According to Charles Dunlap, "not only was the all-volunteer military undiluted by the liberalizing effect of conscription, it also was the direct descendent of the traumatized forces that lost the Vietnam War."5 As the all-volunteer military evolves, it may be becoming a subculture that is no longer a reflection of the society it serves and is out of touch with mainstream America.
Throughout U.S. history, there has been a strong connection between policy makers and military officials, as many members of Congress and the executive branch had experience serving in the military. Until the early 1970s, two-thirds of Congress had served in the armed forces; today, less than one-third has such experience. This fact should not come as a surprise nor should it be alarming, but it is important to understand the framework in which the military must operate. It no longer can be taken for granted that the civilians controlling the military will have a keen understanding of the military or what it does. Military leaders not only must understand this dynamic, but also must make a concerted effort to help civilian policy makers better understand the unique perspective of the military. Through better communication and openness, a healthy mutual respect can develop.
Social Aspects
In current military circles, there is an increasing amount of criticism of mainstream American cultural values. Oftentimes members of the military view themselves as a cut above the rest of society. At the same time, the military just as often is viewed with suspicion and distrust by many segments of society. Many citizens believe the military is out of touch, especially because a disproportionate number of uniformed personnel have aligned themselves politically with conservative Republicans. While there may be real differences between those in uniform and the rest of society at large, to assume one is better than the other is to make a value judgment based solely on perception. This assessment was made by Washington Post columnist Thomas E. Ricks: "Over the last several decades American society has become more fragmented, more individualistic, and arguably less disciplined, with institutions such as church, family, and school wielding less influence. These changes are put at odds with the classic military values of unity, self-discipline, sacrifice, and placing the interests of the group over those of the individual."
Geopolitical Considerations
As the Berlin Wall crumbled in 1989, the structure of the international geopolitical structure underwent a major shift. The Cold War provided a balance of power between the democratic nations led by the United States and the communist regimes led by the Soviet Union. The 1990s not only brought an end to the Cold War, but also proved to be a time of transition in the global arena. The U.S. armed forces were left to search for a specific mission following the collapse of the monolithic communist threat. While the Gulf War provided a splendid opportunity to assert our dominance, many other military operations during the 1990s were much more difficult and complicated. The military took positive steps in the areas of peace making and peacekeeping in such places as Somalia, Haiti, and Bosnia. While the threats of the Cold War waned, the operational tempo of the armed forces actually increased. This fact, coupled with the notable downsizing of forces and cuts in spending, placed the military in some challenging circumstances, both operationally and administratively. As the United States continues to shape and develop its national security policy for the coming century, the military must prepare for an uncertain future. The sum of these global and domestic events in the 1990s is additional tension in civil-military relations.
Reconciling Differences
Considering the prodigious amount of information currently available on the civil-military relations debate, it is easy to become lost in a quagmire of academic pinball. For the officer, this can become a justification either to ignore the issue or to become polarized to one side of the controversy. Neither of these options is an appropriate option. Instead, officers must take a more temperate and prudent approach. Officers have a responsibility to understand the dynamics of the civil-military relationship and to act in a manner that strengthens the bonds of friendship.
Officers must start by respecting and deferring to civilian superiors. Even though this may appear to be applicable solely to flag officers serving in billets with civilians, junior officers have an important role in this relationship as well. It is the duty of junior officers to respect those civilians who lead the armed forces and with whom they work. While it is acceptable to hold strong political convictions, those convictions never should erode the respect for the chain of command or, ultimately, the Constitution.
Another aspect of civil-military relations in which officers have the opportunity to bolster the connection between society and the military is in understanding the "healthy" gaps and communicating the importance of these differences to both their colleagues and the larger society of which they are a part. When examining the necessary differences between these two cultures, there is a dangerous tendency for uniformed personnel to look at civilian society with arrogance and condescension. This habit must change. Now-retired Admiral Stanley Arthur poignantly declared, "Today the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve. More and more, enlisted as well as officers are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society that they serve. This is not healthy in an armed forces serving a democracy."
Instead of standing on a bastion of moral high ground and ethical standards condemning the rest of society, we must humbly serve in our positions of responsibility, setting the example of civic duty for those around us. Through an attitude of selflessness, not selfishness, military officers can develop trusting relationships that will serve to strengthen civil-military relations.
Second Lieutenant Strabbing will depart in September 2001 for two years of study at Oxford University to develop a thesis examining the role of the military in the process of democratization.