With large-scale U.S. military involvement in Iraq receding in the rearview mirror, and Afghanistan soon to follow, debate is raging over the lessons Americans should draw from a decade of counterinsurgency. This debate is unfolding in a wide range of contexts and from many perspectives. Of these, one of the most important is a re-examination of American civil-military relations, especially the involvement of senior military leaders in building and sustaining public support for counterinsurgency campaigns like those in Iraq and Afghanistan.
In the traditional model of American civil-military relations, civilian officials develop broad national policy, then build and sustain public support for it. Uniformed military leaders offer private advice to civilian policymakers, but they do not actually formulate national policy, publicly advocate for a particular policy option or play a major role in selling policy to the public or Congress. Historically, military leaders who openly advocated policies other than the official one found themselves relieved or at least reined in. Their job was to provide quiet counsel and then to execute decisions made by the president and his top civilian advisers. ...
To read the rest, sign up to try World Politics Review
Sign up for two weeks of free access with your credit card. Cancel any time during the free trial and you will be charged nothing.
Request a free trial for your office or school. Everyone at a given site can get access through our institutional subscriptions.
- Strategic Horizons: To Deter Adversaries, U.S. Military Must First Understand Their Fears
- The Realist Prism: U.S. Outreach to Iran, Cuba Still Lacks Broader Strategic Framework
- As U.S. Draws Down, Afghanistan’s Women Weigh Uncertain Future
- Strategic Horizons: Iran Deal Opponents Have Forgotten the Logic of Arms Control
- World Citizen: U.S. Cuba Policy, Human Rights Vie for Spotlight at Americas Summit