The Characteristics of Civil-Military Relations in the United States of America

Civil and Military Relations

Petrasia Depe Gani [016202100154]

Introduction
Security is the primary priority in any state, democratic or non-democratic. Therefore consequently, the
state will maximize and employ all available resources to defend itself against internal or external
aggression. The military institution or organization is most likely and always responsible for this task.
Historically, we can see that the profession of military members has not yet entered the professional
world and is still based on volunteers. The institutionalized military organization that exists today is the
result of massive technological advancements and the spread of nationalism. Professional military
personnel are later perceived as experts in dealing with violence.1 Furthermore, their distinct abilities set
them apart from their civilian counterparts.

The first thing we should know about civil-military relations in America is that they existed long before
the country gained independence. However, it was not until the mid-1950s that a more comprehensive
understanding of this relationship emerged when Samuel Huntington presented his classic argument on
civil-military relations. In the case of the United States, it has relied on citizen participation to govern at
the local, state, and national levels since its inception. This citizen participation ensures that
representative democracy thrives and that the people continue to influence the government.2 Citizens'
right to participate in government is an essential feature of democracy, and many have fought for it over
the centuries. History has shown that civil-military relations in the United States have been stretched for
a long time, particularly during times of war. War and the military are two features that are inseparably
linked to the history of the United States of America. General George Patton of the United States Army
stated that Americans enjoy fighting. Geoffrey Peret, one of the authors, also wrote a book titled "A
Country Made by War." Based on these two facts, Americans should acknowledge that their military and
war contributed to the formation of the great nation they live in today. The United States cannot exist
without it. When it comes to civil-military relations in the United States, history has shown that this has

1
Bruneau, Thomas, and Scott Tollefson. Who guards the guardians and how Democratic Civil-military
relations. Texas, USA: Univ of Texas Pr, 2008.
2
Army, USA. “The Army’s Vision and Strategy: The United States Army.” The Army’s Vision and Strategy
| The United States Army. Accessed July 18, 2023. https://www.army.mil/about/.
been the case for a long time, especially during times of war. Hence, in this paper, the author will
examine the characteristics of civil-military relations in America from the past, present, and future
projections, as well as the factors that influenced the current civil-military relations in the United States.

Political System and the Place of Military

The United States is one of the largest democracies in the world. They are the major promoters of
democratic values in the practice of the nation and become an example of a democratic state. From its
historical perspective, the United States was born in an armed revolution and the union was saved in a
great civil war. Consequently, the United States spends more on defense than the next six great powers
combined. They have stationed their armed forces in over a hundred countries worldwide. Their history
has also proven how civil-military relations in America have been maintained since colonial times until
today. It has a massive influence on almost every aspect of today’s International system. When it comes
to the political system, we acknowledge the United States as a representative democracy that designed a
well-defined division of power between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches.3

In Article 1 of the U.S. Constitution, the legislative branch in this case congress a certain power to
govern, oversee, and fund the U.S. military. This also means that the congress has the power to declare
war. The executive branch or in this case President, meanwhile, derives the power to direct the military
after a Congressional declaration of war from Article II, Section 2, which names the President
Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces.4 These provisions require cooperation between the President
and Congress regarding military affairs, with Congress funding or declaring the operation and the
President directing it. Therefore, from this, we can perceive that the two branches of the government
which are the Congress and the executive should work together to implement the policy regarding
civil-military.Nevertheless, throughout the 20th and 21st centuries, Presidents have often engaged in
military operations without express Congressional consent. For example, the conduct of several
operations throughout history included the Korean War, the Vietnam War, Operation Desert Storm, the
Afghanistan War of 2001, and the Iraq War of 2002. This indicates that even in a democratic country, the

3
Feaver, Peter, and Richard Kohn. “Civil-Military Relations in the United States: What Senior Leaders
Need to Know (and Usually Don’t).” STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - FEATURE ARTICLE, 2021.
4
University, Cornell. “Military.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed July 15, 2023.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/military#:~:text=Military%20Law%3A%20An%20Overview,this%20area%
20is%20federal%20law.
implementation and the practice of civil-military relations are not always following the constitution.
Nevertheless, the U.S. government heavily emphasizes the importance of security and the military since
it is central to U.S. foreign policy from the past until today in the modern world. Consequently, we can
see the quality of the practice of democracy in the U.S. by looking at its civil-military relations. In my
opinion, the political system of the United States and its military are strong and well-integrated. As a
result, we can see in the practice of today’s international system, almost every aspect is influenced by
the U.S. in which their military capacity also significantly contributed to the obtaining their status quo as
the superpower.

Historical Role and Significance of the Army in the U.S.

The United States Army is the oldest and largest service in the military with the original aim to protect
the freedom of the 13 colonies.5 It was founded on June 14, 1775, and organized by the Continental
Congress to include militia force in the American Revolution. It comprised the 22,000 militia troops then
besieging Boston and an additional 5,000 militiamen in New York. Since its establishment, the Army was
placed under civilian control (the president) which is guaranteed in their constitution. After that, the
number of soldiers increases during times of crisis, swells due to conscription, and decreases during
peacetime. Therefore, the role of the American army has not been the same over time. This is obvious
because there have been many changes in security regimes, leadership, political systems, etc. This has
also greatly impacted civil-military relations in the United States over time.

The nature of the civil-military relationship in America has changed over time. Historically, these changes
have been caused by several factors including wars, leadership, political systems, and others. Therefore,
in the following explanation, the author will indicate several major events during history that impacted
civil-military relations in the U.S.

5
Congress, Library. “Creating a Continental Army : The American Revolution, 1763 - 1783 : U.S.
History Primary Source Timeline : Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress : Library of
Congress.” The Library of Congress. Accessed July 14, 2023.
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/american-revolutio
n-1763-1783/creating-a-continental-army/.
Before Independence (American Revolution; an Army for Freedom)
American Revolution, also known as the United States War of Independence was started in 1765 - 1783.
This can be described as the form of insurrection by which 13 of Great Britain’s North American colonies
won political independence and went on to form the United States of America. To lead the troops
somewhat to war, George Washington, who later became America's first president, was unanimously
appointed as Commander-in-Chief of the Army. He then had the main task of leading the militia and
continental army to seize independence. In my view, this was not easy given the involvement of civilians
who lacked military skills plus their opponents were the much better-trained British army. But they still
achieved victory and made George Washington set out to create an army that could stand up in the field
to the best army in the world at that time. Over time, Washington would come to believe that only the
creation of a permanent standing army could save the revolution. This was the forerunner to the
formation of the American army that we know today.
American Civil War
The United States faced its greatest crisis of the time in 1861. Northern and southern states were
becoming progressively differing - socially, economically, and politically. Among other things, it was
undoubtedly a civil-military crisis. Hundreds of US military officers took up arms against the country's
elected civilian leadership. President Abraham Lincoln struggled to keep even his own Union generals
under control. For example, Major General John C. Fremont famously defied Lincoln and issued a
proclamation emancipating enslaved people in Missouri. Following that, Fremont actively sought to
prevent Lincoln's emissaries from delivering the presidential message removing him. As a result, a costly
and bloody civil war occurred. The Civil War killed nearly as many Americans as all of the nation's other
wars combined. The Union was restored by force of arms after four years of fighting. The problems of
rebuilding the Union were as difficult as the problems of fighting the war. Because the majority of the
war was fought in the South, the region was physically and economically devastated.

From a historical standpoint, we can see that the Army played an important role in defending the
nation's unity. Furthermore, we can see that the civil-military relationship at the time was not
particularly positive. Southern states began seceding from the Union in 1860, following a long-running
dispute over states' rights to allow their citizens to own slaves. The war that followed would go down in
history as one of the most significant conflicts in American history.
World War
The United States sent soldiers abroad to defend foreign soil for the first time in American history during
World War I. When the United States declared war on Germany on April 6, 1917, it had a standing army
of 127,500 officers and soldiers. By the end of the war, four million men had served in the United States
Army, with an additional 800,000 serving in other branches of the military. When war was declared, the
army attempted to mobilize troops as quickly as possible. The mobilization effort put the American
military to the test, necessitating new organizational strategies and command structures to transport
large numbers of troops and supplies quickly and efficiently. The Army slowly grew until the mid-1900s
as the United States rebuilt after the Civil War. During World War I, several important Army branches
were established, including the Veterinarian Corps, the Chemical Corps, and the Aviation Section within
the Army Signal Corps, the precursor to the Air Force. World War II saw the establishment of the Office
of Strategic Services, which later became the CIA, as well as the introduction of the G.I. Bill by Franklin
Delano Roosevelt. The Army established the Medical Service Corps, later renamed the Army Medical
Department (AMEDD), two years after the war.6
Post-War
Following WWII, the United States entered the Cold War with Soviet Russia, which resulted in conflicts in
Korea and Vietnam. This period is arguably the turning point for US foreign policy since a lot of things
happened such as Saddam Hussein's invasion of Kuwait. Following the September 11, 2001 attacks,
American and coalition forces would re-enter the Middle East conflict against terrorist forces in Iraq and
Afghanistan. This resulted in the shifting in the civil-military relations in which the U.S. Army received
numerous of support for counter-terrorism action, etc.

Today’s Civil-Military Relations in The United States

Civil-military relations are by definition complicated. This is because many factors and indicators
influence its dynamics. Many experts believe that civil-military relations in America are currently
complex but not broken.7 Despite this, the American public still holds the military in high regard. This is

6
Stoler, Mark A. “US Civil-Military Relations in World Warii.” The US Army War College Quarterly:
Parameters 21, no. 1 (1991). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1610.
7
Collins, Joseph J. “US Civil-Military Relations Are Complicated, but Not Broken.” Defense One, June 18,
2021.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/06/us-civil-military-relations-are-complicated-not-broken/174826/
.
because military personnel have demonstrated throughout history how important they are in
maintaining American sovereignty and security both at home and abroad. Respect for the American
military has grown since the 9/11 incident, which is regarded as a watershed moment in US foreign
policy. Therefore, civilians and the military, according to Hunginton, have distinct but essentially
complementary duties and responsibilities. Civilians should use military advice to develop appropriate
policies and grand strategies. The military should make decisions about weapons, operations, and tactics
based on orders of war, experience, and professional expertise. According to Huntington, the military
voluntarily submits to civilian command in exchange for civilians upholding this division of
responsibilities. Civilians make important decisions such as who to fight when to fight, how much money
to spend on the military, what weapons to purchase, and what policies will govern the military. They
then give the military authority over how to fight and how to carry out civilian decisions. Based on
Hunginton's view above, we can assess the relationship between civilians and the military in terms of the
principles of democracy. As we know most of the principles of civilian control originated from the
essence of democratic theory.

In a democracy, the military serves to provide security for the nation. Hence, the military interests are
never autonomous, instead, they are subjected to the interest of the government. One of the important
concepts proposed by Clausewitz is that “the political objective is the goal, and war is the means to
achieve that goal. Moreover, the goal and means cannot be separated”. Therefore, inherently, the
military is under the elected government that established the policy. That’s why most of the democratic
and military theories are rooted in civilian control and there will be numerous civil-military dynamic
relations. Therefore, the overall interaction and relations between citizens, government, and military in
the U.S. can be seen in the following figure.

From the figure beside, we can understand that

in the United States, civilian indeed has the
power to control the military. This is justifiable
since they are a democratic country. As we know,
the basic principle of democracy is from people,
for people, and by people. Hence, the democratic
function of the country can be seen in the form
of delegation, sensation, and accountability. In short, we can categorize their relations as follows; (1) The
government is elected by the people which is why they have to serve the people. The official
government acts as the principal (in a democratic country). They are also accountable to the public and
responsible for making policy in the national interest. (2) The military on the other hand served as the
agent to help the government achieve its goals. They are also responsible for being accountable to the
civilian leadership and have the responsibility to offer military advice, assess risks, and execute the policy
(this includes the use of force). This relationship between the public, government, and military somehow
creates boundaries for each group and dilemma. The fact is that the military can assess what threatens
them, but only the public decides whether or not they feel threatened. The military of course can
disagree with the chosen course of action. However, democratic theory insists that civilian decisions are
central. To simplify it, we can see the following model.

The model indicates that another factor affecting civil-military

relations in the United States today is the division of power
between the executive and legislative branches. The civilian
government means those who are democratically elected by
the people to represent the government. As we know in
America, Congress as the people's representative has a very
strong influence compared to Congress in other democratic
countries. This is because as representatives of the people,
the constitution mandates them with great duties and
powers to pass policies including defense policies and budgets. The US Congress even has the power to
decrease or increase the amount of the defense budget and has the power to completely reject or
approve the policy or proposal. This is certainly very helpful in terms of keeping military institutions
accountable to the public. But nowadays, as we can see, there is a change in civil-military relations in
America. This is related to the next factor, which is the leadership in the country. Although Congress
indirectly holds the supreme power, the president still acts as the one who gives orders to the defense
institutions and other executive branches. This is often a problem when there is a conflict of interest
between Congress, the president, and military institutions or organizations in America. If these parties
are unable to harmonize their interests and strengths, it will hurt the dynamics of diplomacy-military
relations in the country. This can be even more dangerous because the American military has
tremendous power.
Comparison of US and Indonesia Civil-Military Relations.

Regarding the comparison of civil-military relations in these two countries, the first thing we need to
know is that both are democracies. In principle, we should not find many significant differences in the
practice of civil-military relations in society. However, in reality, even though both countries are
democracies, there are still many differences and different practices regarding civil-military relations. In
my opinion, this is due to two factors. First, National policy directions and priorities. The national interest
is central to all national policy decisions. From this aspect, we can see that the national interests of the
US and Indonesia are different, with the US focusing on security, economy, and idealism. Meanwhile,
Indonesia still focuses on economics and social welfare. One indicator is that we can see from the
amount of budget for defense which is very different from these two countries. Second, Powers held by
the civilian government and the military. Basically, as democracies, Indonesia and America both have
branches of government, namely the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. Each of these branches
has almost the same duties as part of a democratic state. However, the power held by each actor is
different. An example is parliament. Congress in the United States is mandated by the Constitution to
keep the people's leaders accountable and not abuse their power. In this case, Congress has the right to
examine, approve, and or reject defense policy and budget proposals submitted by the executive branch.
In the most serious cases, Congress can even dismiss the president. Whereas in Indonesia, the
parliament does not have such power to change the amount of the defense budget and cannot impeach
the president.

The potential future scenario of civil-military Relationships in the USA

The future of the American military is unquestionable. This is because America is well-prepared and
advanced in terms of military policies, budgets, manpower, and other military equipment. In the future,
the potential for civil-military relations in the United States also depends heavily on its current military
strength and resources. Based on my research, the future of military power is promising but American
civil-military relations will be fraught with new challenges including shifts in leadership and foreign
policy. However, I don't see this as a stumbling block to the relationship as the US clearly states in its
foreign policy that security will always be its priority. Another fact is that the US Army currently has many
programs that include civilians in them and make them the center of their service to the country. This
was said by General James C. Mcconville, Chief of Staff of the Army that "Our People are the centerpiece
of the Army". This shows that in the future Civil-Military relations in America will continue to be
maintained because military personnel realize that the people are the subject and the only party whose
interests must be put forward, especially in a democratic country.

Another factor is geopolitics. As we all know, lately there have been a lot of regional and international
tensions that have arisen in terms of economics, security, and human rights issues. Almost all of these
issues involve America in them. This indirectly requires America to somehow send military forces to deal
with these issues. An example that we can see is the Russia-Ukraine war. On a global scale, we see that
American citizens are very vocal in defending Ukraine and even the US government is providing military
assistance. Decision-making for this must certainly go through the approval of the people or in this case
the civilian leader. From this, I think in the future military organizations or institutions will continue to
receive popular support if it hurts the value of democracy or human rights and threatens the interests of
the American state.

Other factors that are also indicators of the future of civil-military relations in America are the economy
and technology. It is undeniable that these two things directly impact the modernization of the American
military, making it the largest military power in the world. In my view, it is a success for America to
integrate these two things into its military. The use of technology to produce weapons or military
equipment is then exported and becomes one of the economic activities that add to the country's
foreign exchange. Civilians certainly benefit from this economic activity because there will be more jobs
and the country's economy will improve. Therefore, the military industry is one of the prospects for the
United States as well as a new job for policymakers and leaders on how to lobby other countries to start
cooperation in this field.
Conclusion

From the explanation above, it can be concluded that civil-military relations in the United States are one
of the parameters to measure the quality of democratic practices in the country. This is clear because
although civilians and the military have different expertise they complement and help each other,
especially during times of crisis. This harmonious relationship can be maintained if the commitment of
each party, including the community, civilian government, and military institutions, still upholds
democratic values and is in line with the country's policies. New challenges may arise along with the
times, but as long as security is a priority for the United States, the civil-military relationship in America
will remain.
 References

Army, USA. “The Army’s Vision and Strategy: The United States Army.” The Army’s Vision
and Strategy | The United States Army. Accessed July 18, 2023.
https://www.army.mil/about/

Bruneau, Thomas, and Scott Tollefson. Who guards the guardians and how Democratic
Civil-military relations. Texas, USA: Univ of Texas Pr, 2008.

Collins, Joseph J. “US Civil-Military Relations Are Complicated, but Not Broken.” Defense
One, June 18, 2021.
https://www.defenseone.com/ideas/2021/06/us-civil-military-relations-are-complicated-
not-broken/174826/.

Congress, Library. “Creating a Continental Army: The American Revolution, 1763 - 1783:
U.S. History Primary Source Timeline: Classroom Materials at the Library of Congress:
Library of Congress.” The Library of Congress. Accessed July 14, 2023.
https://www.loc.gov/classroom-materials/united-states-history-primary-source-timeline/
american-revolution-1763-1783/creating-a-continental-army/.

Congress, Library. “The American Expeditionary Forces : A World At War: Articles and
Essays : Stars and Stripes: The American Soldiers’ Newspaper of World War I, 1918-1919:
Digital Collections: Library of Congress.” The Library of Congress. Accessed July 14,
2023.https://www.loc.gov/collections/stars-and-stripes/articles-and-essays/a-world-at-wa
r/american-expeditionary-forces/.

Feaver, Peter, and Richard Kohn. “Civil-Military Relations in the United States: What Senior
Leaders Need to Know (and Usually Don’t).” STRATEGIC STUDIES QUARTERLY - FEATURE
ARTICLE, 2021.
Stoler, Mark A. “US Civil-Military Relations in World War II.” The US Army War College
Quarterly: Parameters 21, no. 1 (1991). https://doi.org/10.55540/0031-1723.1610.

University, Cornell. “Military.” Legal Information Institute. Accessed July 15, 2023.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/military#:~:text=Military%20Law%3A%20An%20Overvi
ew,this%20area%20is%20federal%20law.

University, New Jersey. “History of the Army.” Army ROTC. Accessed July 15, 2023.
https://armyrotc.rutgers.edu/about-us/history-army.