Abstract
Civilian-military relations are vital in the establishment and maintenance of national security. However, a variety of potential risks can arise and, as a result, undermine the principles of collaboration. These problems occur when the authority of civilian leaders is questioned and when the armed forces assume a role that makes them politically involved rather than remaining objective. This paper explores the intricacies of these connections and delves into existing issues and the security threats that can arise. In addition, a Biblical context is provided to ameliorate the limitations of hindered communication and understanding.
Keywords: civilian, military, leaders, decision-making, relations, Bible.
Civilian-Military Relations
The relationship between elected authorities and military leaders is complex. Both parties have shared responsibilities and duties, yet they are in charge of different objectives. The context of said interactions is built upon the need to maintain national security. A variety of legal considerations are employed to ensure that the military branch serves civilians’ interests.
On the other hand, Washington officials participate in decision-making, taking into account short- and long-term goals as well as diplomatic interests. In the current paper, the relations between the two actors will be assessed from the perspective of their nature, challenges, threats, and biblical contexts. It was determined that differences in goals and inappropriate political engagement can lead to conflict and undermine control.
Nature of Civilian-Military Relations
The nature of the relations between civilians and military entities and actors is multifaceted. Nonetheless, it can be summed up as the collaboration and interaction between policymakers and leaders on both fronts. The connection is based on the principle of national security, yet the roles differ in terms of operational involvement.
For example, despite the shared responsibility between the parties, Washington politics shapes foreign policy, while military leaders reinforce it (Paterson, 2022). Hence, the latter remains apolitical and takes an operational role. The said role, however, does not imply non-participation in matters related to the provision of objective advice, given extensive experience in conducting certain operations that politicians may not have direct insight into. In addition, the context of authority is principal when it comes to the nature of the relations.
Civilian authority entails decision-making on deployment and related matters, while the armed forces focus on developing tactics and operational strategies (Paterson, 2022). Regarding congressional testimony, the military has a dual responsibility to the president, the Secretary of Defense, and Congress. Active-duty personnel refrain from criticizing civilian defense authorities or policies. Said trait highlights the efforts to foster a respectful relationship between the branches. Nonetheless, tensions can arise when disagreements occur, as in the 2009 conflict between the Pentagon and Washington over the Afghanistan operations (Nix, 2012). Despite possible barriers, both branches operate under a constitutional framework, a primary characteristic that illustrates the essence of their interaction.
Challenges of Civilian-Military Relations
As highlighted previously, regardless of the collaborative effort and constitutional framework at the forefront of civilian-military relations, it is critical to acknowledge the challenges that arise in such cooperation. Understanding said difficulty is a significant aspect of mitigating limitations and establishing an environment in which shared goals can be achieved relatively problem-free. Said disruptions can occur on ethical, policy, psychological, and professional levels (Feaver & Kohn, 2021). Most frequently, two specific areas can be pinpointed: differences in goals and involvement in political environments.
Contrasting Goals
It is often the case that the principle of shared goals and perspectives is not effectively enacted in practice. The leaders of the armed forces may have contrasting priorities and understandings of the situation that do not align with those of Washington officials and policymakers. The said conflict of interest is, indeed, recognized in the relevant literature (Banerjee & Welbeck, 2022). For example, military representatives may favor operational efficiency and increased security during an operation. On the other hand, civilian officials can be more preoccupied with diplomatic matters and the conduct of international relations.
A similar challenge may arise regarding what constitutes an appropriate response to a threat. On the one hand, one party may perceive it as requiring an immediate counter-response, a decision that may be employed based on experience. On the one hand, civilians can be more likely to consider the long-term implications and consequences, opting for a less substantial engagement in the existing conflict. Needless to say, such scenarios depend on the circumstances, and a variety of perspectives can be outlined. The takeaway is that both entities have distinct priorities and viewpoints shaped by their respective duties.
Political Engagement
As highlighted previously, military representatives must, in theory, refrain from engaging in political discourse that criticizes civilians or political decisions. Said consideration stems from the aim of maintaining the order of responsibility between the two parties for different objectives. However, in practice, challenges arise when members of the armed forces engage in public discourse and become prominent political figures.
The problem is that the military is the most trusted institution (Hoover Institution, 2016). Hence, disturbances can occur when individuals endorse certain civilian leaders and decisions. For example, according to relevant sources, former President Trump co-opted members of the military for personal, partisan, and electoral gain (Golby, 2021). At the same time, countless active and retired personnel openly criticized the president, an unprecedented occurrence given the inflammatory nature of the criticism (Binkley, 2022). This is a challenge, as it undermines the apolitical context of actors who, due to the value of impartiality, should not engage in such discourse or participation.
Challenges to National Security Posed by the Civilian-Military Relationship
Needless to say, as national security is at the forefront of military-civilian relationships, challenges in collaboration undermine the very aim it is meant to serve. The severity of the challenges that can arise from mishandling highlights the importance of identifying areas requiring attention and implementing problem-solving strategies. As a result, national interest will be maintained, and cooperation will be maximized. The two particularly problematic challenges are the occurrence of conflicts and the lack of civilian control.
Conflicts between Civilian and Military Leaders
Conflicts arise from differences in opinions and approaches. Civilians are likely to support policies that may not benefit the armed forces due to misunderstandings or to serve diplomatic aims. At the same time, the counterparty is likely more experienced in conducting certain operations. As a result, the suggestions will be more practical yet less considerate of long-term effects. For example, researchers suggest that in countries where the military is highly restricted in decision-making, conflicts are likely to arise more frequently (Gonzalez, 2022).
The outcomes are countless and can be extremely damaging. For example, the coordination of decisions may be impaired, generating chaos in situations that require quick thinking and policy implementation. Hence, national security is compromised because the country cannot respond promptly to threats or circumstances. When military leaders resist complying with civilian leaders, tensions may undermine democracy as a whole. Unconstitutional actions may severely harm the peace and freedom that ought to be protected.
Undermined Civilian Control
An additional limitation of hindered relationships between the branches is the erosion of power control. Societies are built on civilian power to avoid politicizing armed forces. It is important to maintain impartiality to ensure that democratic principles remain as a foundational element. According to researchers, there are instances in which the self-superiority perceived by the armed forces can minimize their ability to exemplify their duty (Brooks & Grewal, 2022). Hence, the branch seeks greater independence and is likely to implement strategies not approved by the opposing party.
Instead of serving the country and national interests, additional goals may arise, such as serving a specific political party or ideology. The said outcome is a direct threat to national security as agendas can become tools of oppression and infringements of human rights. This is exactly why impartiality is a critical value that is to be maintained.
Biblical Principles
Principles derived from religious texts provide valuable, time-tested insights across multiple areas of life. Context can be employed effectively in military-civilian relations. The values depicted in the Bible and the philosophies they entail can mitigate the conflicts and barriers mentioned previously, including threats to national security. The areas that directly relate to the selected topic are the importance of following authority, having a shared vision, and applying wisdom when making choices.
Prioritizing the Civil
The civil forces currently have authority over the military regarding decisions that are beneficial and impartial, in accordance with circumstances and needs. Respecting authority is indeed a biblical principle well emphasized in relevant texts. Specifically, Romans 13:2 states, “Whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves” (New International Version, 2011). The two branches must coexist and operate for the benefit of the majority rather than follow a particular political agenda or personal interests.
Shared Purpose
The two parties need to acknowledge the vitality of collaboration. For the cooperation to be successful, a shared purpose is needed, such as protecting constitutional and democratic values and ensuring that national security is upheld. The notion of a shared objective is highlighted in sacred texts.
Specifically, Philippians 2:2-4 highlights the importance of “being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind” and “not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others”. (New International Version, 2011). According to the provided Biblical context, the branches can coexist and flourish together by working as a team. Each side is to consider both sides and the broader context to ensure that the decisions that are made do not hinder the safety and efficiency of the actors.
Incorporating Prudence
Prudence encompasses planning, careful deliberation, and the use of wisdom in accounting for implications and outcomes. As illustrated above, conflicts can arise when either elected officials or armed forces leaders rush into decisions and fail to see the broader context. From a Christian perspective, recognizing threats and risks before making a critical move is frowned upon.
Proverbs 22:3 exemplifies the phenomenon by suggesting, “The prudent sees danger and hides himself, but the simple go on and suffer for it” (New International Version, 2011). This implies that both sides must recognize the risks and take informed steps toward resolving the goal. In addition, the context is linked to the previously employed notion of a shared purpose. Fostering an environment in which the actors work collectively, engage in careful planning and open communication, and incorporate considerations from a variety of perspectives can minimize the instances in which conflicts can arise.
Conclusion
The collaboration between the armed forces and civilian officials can be rocky. Challenges can arise in areas such as political involvement and differences of opinion. As a result, there are greater risks to national security. Such difficulties can exemplify themselves as the exacerbation of unconstitutional principles as well as coordination problems. In all instances, both parties suffer from damages when said cooperation is not effectively reenacted in practice.
Biblical principles can be incorporated to prevent mistakes and establish an environment in which both actors work for the common good and have branch-specific responsibilities. Prioritizing civil authority, having a common purpose and vision, and incorporating diligence in planning and decision-making are contexts mentioned in the Bible that can ameliorate existing tensions. Maintaining positive relations is key to building a secure country grounded in democratic ideals.
References
Banerjee, V., & Webeck, S. P. (2022). Civil-military relations: Through a perilous lens. Armed Forces & Society, 50(1), 3–24.
Binkley, J. C. (2022). Civil-military relations during the Trump administration: Rejection of military professionalism and the deterioration of civil-military relations. Armed Forces & Society, 50(1), 55–80.
Brooks, R., & Grewal, S. (2022). “Twice the citizen”: How military attitudes of superiority undermine civilian control in the United States. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 66(4–5), 623–650.
Feaver, P. D., & Kohn, R. H. (2021). Civil-Military Relations in the United States: What Senior Leaders Need to Know (and Usually Don’t). Strategic Studies Quarterly.
Golby, J. (2021). Uncivil-Military Relations: Politicization of the Military in the Trump Era. Strategic Studies Quarterly, 15(2), 149–174.
Gonzalez, E. (2022). Adjudicating competing theories: Does civilian control over the military decrease conflict? Armed Forces & Society, 50(1), 149–176.
Hoover Institution (2016). Kori Schake on Civil-Military Relations. YouTube.
New International Version. (2011). Biblica.
Nix, D. E. (2012). American Civil-Military Relations: Samuel P. Huntington and the Political Dimensions of Military Professionalism. Naval War College Review, 65(2).
Paterson, P. (2022). Civil-Military Relations: Guidelines in politically charged societies. The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters, 52(1), 5–20.