The Virtues of Military Politics

Abstract

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.

Disentangling the US military's climate change paradox: An institutional approach

“…As a great deal of literature as shown, the military is an effective political actor, shaping both foreign and domestic priorities and processes (e.g. Ball & Millard, 1986; Coletta & Crosbie, 2021; Lachmann, 2020). We can thus expect effective opposition from within the military apparatus where the institutional logics of military effectiveness and climate change are in conflict.…”

“…First, it highlights the relationship between the armed forces and the political process, as an issue both of civil‐military relations (which organize the hierarchy between the civilian executive branch and the military) and of pressure politics (which clarify how the military navigates this relationship) (e.g. Ball & Millard, 1986; Burk, 2002; Coletta & Crosbie, 2021; Feaver, 1999). Second, it focuses attention on the actors within the military who have multiple, often competing, concerns and goals, including operational efficacy and career imperatives (e.g.…”

No Right to Be Wrong: What Americans Think about Civil-Military Relations

“…For moderate dissenting views, see Snider 2008; Golby 2015. For rare statements defending overt military involvement in policy debate, see Owens 2015; Coletta and Crosbie 2019.…”

Dynamic Intersection of Military and Society

“…For example, Menchaca-Bagnulo (2019) examined how the civic republican tradition in Western political thought adds to the debates surrounding officer resignation. Coletta and Crosbie (2019) drew on Aristotle and Machiavelli to examine virtue in the context of military political behavior. These commentaries link a vast philosophical and theoretical landscape to central issues of the field.…”