Ethical Lapses and the Military Profession

Since Huntington’s seminal work The Soldier and the State, the scholarship on civil–military relations in the American context has often emphasized the need for a professional military to maintain an apolitical stance and let the civilian principals lead. In this article, we ask, what can we learn about civil-military relations by seeking to better understand the relationship between political institutions and the politicization of the military? We argue that this literature insufficiently accounts for the perils that exist within separation of powers (i.e., presidential) systems. Consequently, the existing scholarship cannot distinguish when politicization happens because of or despite civilian principals. We use long-standing arguments from Comparative Politics to explain why problems of separation of powers systems are endemic to these institutions. We then present five questions and two examples to facilitate a theoretical reframing of the subject. Our argument suggests more work is needed to understand how American political institutions shape civil–military relations.

Section: Huntington and The Normal Schoolmentioning

confidence: 99%

Civil–Military Relations: Through a Perilous Lens

Banerjee

Webeck

2022

“…11 Measures relating to range and variability of advice across elite military offices, the uncertainty surrounding military projections, and presence (or absence) of scientific support for military advice were proposed, however, in the politically charged, hothouse environment of 2006–2007. Moreover, the implications emerged from a civilian supremacist theory of the case, laying blame for the collapse of constructive civil–military dialogue at the feet of the military and probing what might be done by senior officers, even in the face of cantankerous future secretaries of defense, to repair relations for improved national security decision-making (Coletta, 2007; Crosbie & Kleykamp, 2017, 2018).…”

Section: Civilian Supremacists Versus Principled Patriotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“… 3. Signs of resurging interest in Janowitz include the reissue of The Professional Soldier , several recent conference panels dedicated to Janowitz’s life and work, and the Army Research Institute’s funding of Crosbie’s ongoing replication of The Professional Soldier . See also Travis (2017, 2018) and Crosbie and Kleykamp (2017, 2018). …”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Virtues of Military Politics

Coletta

Crosbie

2019

Self Cite

Sociologists and political scientists have long fretted over the dangers that a politicized military poses to democracy. In recent times, however, civil–military relations experts in the United States accepted retired or indeed still serving generals and admirals in high-ranking political posts. Despite customary revulsion from scholars, the sudden waivers are an indicator that military participation in momentous national security decisions is inherently political without necessarily being partisan, including when civilian authority defers to a largely autonomous sphere for objective military expertise. Military politics is actually critical for healthy civil–military collaboration, when done prudently and moderately. Janowitz and Huntington, founders of the modern study of civil–military relations, understood the U.S. military’s inevitable invitation to political influence. Here, we elaborate on two neglected dimensions, implicit in their projects, of military politics under objective civilian control based on classical virtues of civic republicanism: Aristotle’s practical wisdom and Machiavelli’s virtú.

“…Recently, military scandals, as with scandals more generally, are attracting increased scholarly attention (Baugut, 2017; Crosbie, 2015; Crosbie & Sass, 2017; Habiba, 2017; Haller et al, 2018; Tumber & Waisbord, 2019; Wadham, 2016). Spurred by both growing scholarship on media–military relations (Corner & Parry, 2017; Hoskins & O’Loughlin, 2015; Maltby, 2012a, 2012b) and major episodes (Crosbie & Kleykamp, 2018) such as the HMS Vigilant (Wootson, 2017), “Fat Leonard” (Back, 2019), “Marines United” (Chappell, 2017), and the “Skype” scandal in Australia (Habiba, 2017; Wadham, 2016), studies of military scandals have raised both ontological and epistemological questions: What are military scandals? How can they be studied?…”

Section: The Military Scandal As a Phenomenon Of Interdisciplinary Inmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Military Scandal: Its Definition, Dynamics, and Significance

Andrews

Connor

Wadham

2019

Military scandals are disruptive episodes that can have long-lasting organizational consequences for military institutions. Recently, scholars who study military institutions have sought to understand this phenomenon and its significance. However, given their complexity and empirically opaque nature, military scandals are difficult to study, and a general account of this phenomenon has remained elusive. This article addresses this problem by drawing upon the growing field of scandal research to present a definition and account of the military scandal. We argue that military scandals are episodes of mediatized public moral conflict concerning transgressions involving the military institution, its members, and/or associated actors. We employ Ari Adut’s theory of public attention as a core explanation of scandal dynamics and effects and use this to argue that the military scandal phenomenon can be employed to simultaneously examine interactions and relationships between the military, the state, news media organizations, and civil society.