US Army War College Press (USAWC)

Echevarria, Antulio J., II

From the Editor

Farwell, James P.

Countering Russian Meddling in US Political Processes

The “America First” approach to foreign policy seems to call into question the value of institutions like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and the European Union (EU). However, in a more competitive and uncertain strategic environment, NATO and the EU remain vital to promoting U.S. interests.https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1391/thumbnail.jp

Hillison, Joel R., Dr.

English

The Relevance of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the United States in the 21st Century

Kaura, Vinay

India-US Relations: From Distant Partners to an Alliance

Savage, Patrick J.

The Conventionality of Russia\u27s Unconventional Warfare

Garner, Thomas N.

The US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters 
Volume 48 
Number 4 Parameters Winter 2018-2019 Article 3 
Winter 12-1-2018 
Civil-Military Relations and Today's Policy Environment 
Thomas N. Garner 
Follow this and additional works at: https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters 
 Part of the Defense and Security Studies Commons, Military History Commons, Military, War, and 
Peace Commons, and the National Security Law Commons 
Recommended Citation 
Thomas N. Garner, "Civil-Military Relations and Today's Policy Environment," Parameters 48, no. 4 (2018), 
https://press.armywarcollege.edu/parameters/vol48/iss4/3 
This Article is brought to you for free and open access by USAWC Press. It has been accepted for inclusion in The 
US Army War College Quarterly: Parameters by an authorized editor of USAWC Press. 
Special commentary
Civil-Military Relations and 
Today’s Policy Environment
Thomas N. Garner
©2019 Thomas N. Garner
MAJ Thomas N. “Nate” 
Garner, an armor officer, 
currently serves as a 
strategic planner for the 
Joint Chiefs of  Staff. He 
has a masters of  public 
policy from Georgetown 
University, was a 
University of  North 
Carolina Institute for 
Defense and Business 
Strategic Studies fellow, 
and taught American 
Politics, Policy, and 
Strategy at the United 
States Military Academy.
The 67th Annual Student Conference on US Affairs conducted at the United States Military Academy brought college students together from all over the country to discuss a variety of  
issues related to confronting inequality. While this event usually drives 
robust debate, the table on civil-military relations arguably had the most 
interesting outcome. These participants discussed whether the military 
should be representative of  society as a driver of  trust and legitimacy.1 
The table of  seven males and ten females, from 17 different colleges, 
came to a conclusion that dealt more with the military’s relationship to, 
than its representation of, society.
The students framed the civil-military relationship on the factors 
of trust and legitimacy and identified three issues facing civil-military 
relations: inadequate handling of veterans’ affairs, ineffectiveness of 
sexual assault policy and prevention, and military outreach to American 
society. The first two topics are representative of some of the major 
military news stories in the media at the time, and the third is a topic 
that should not be taken lightly. While the first two conclusions inform 
the issue, the recommendation truly reinforces an emerging rift in US 
civil-military relations that the military is responsible for closing.
Civil-Military Relations
Alexis de Tocqueville once assessed Americans as having an 
“irritable patriotism,” trapped somewhere between the “instinctive 
patriotism” that comes from an affection for one’s birthplace and 
from civic action in a republic. This irritable patriotism led Americans, 
in Tocqueville’s eyes, to be both ardently defensive and reverently 
questioning of the country in which they lived and the institutions 
they served. He concluded a more enduring form of patriotism results 
when citizens gain knowledge of and engage with their government, 
something he saw in Americans at even the lowest classes.2
Americans are undoubtedly proud of their nation’s military. In fact, 
91 percent of participants in a 2011 survey “felt proud of the soldiers 
1      This commentary is based on Thomas N. Garner, “The Military as a Mirror: Should the 
Military Be Representative of  American Society?,” in Confronting Inequality: Wealth, Rights, and Power, 
ed. Hugh Liebert, Thomas Sherlock, and Cole Pinheiro (Hudson NY: Sloan, 2016).
2      Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America: An Annotated Text Backgrounds Interpretations, ed. 
Isaac Kramnick (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2007), 197–99.
6        Parameters 48(4) Winter 2018–19
who have served in the military in the post 9/11 era.” 3 But this pride may 
not resemble what Tocqueville called instinctive patriotism, patriotism 
based on civic action, or reflective patriotism. There is reason to worry 
that Americans are proud of their military not because of involvement 
with it or reflection about what makes it good, but simply because 
it is theirs.
The past decade has elicited a patriotism that more closely reflects 
Tocqueville’s ideation of instinctive patriotism, meaning a stable society 
is based on institutions passed down from previous generations, and 
often left unquestioned.4 In this fashion, the instinctive, or reflexive, 
patriotism of the past decade-plus has led to an emerging rift in US 
civil-military relations that is the military’s responsibility to close.5 
Truthfully, this rift is not a matter of policy, and yet, it is almost entirely 
the military’s fault.
Before Samuel Huntington wrote The Soldier and the State, the majority 
of civil-military thought had centered on the fear of a military coup d’etat.6 
Authoritative writers such as Tocqueville and Montesquieu informed 
and fortified America’s founders to take caution in their constitutional 
structures against the ills of a standing army. Huntington, on the other 
hand, informed the current civil-military debate by defining the “role of 
the military in society . . . in terms of ‘civilian control.’ ” 7
Scholars such as Peter D. Feaver have explored the relationship 
between military and civilian institutions as a principal-agent problem: 
a relationship in which one side (the civilian) attempts to get another 
(the military) to carry out its will, while making use of the military’s 
own expert knowledge.8 Morris Janowitz, like Feaver, views the military 
as an instrument of national security policy. For Janowitz, the military’s 
relationship to the civilian government resembles that of a pressure group 
that “is not a voluntary association, acting on the organs of government; 
on the contrary, it is an organ of government, seeking to develop new 
techniques for intervening in domestic politics.” 9
But a more recent rift assumes a different character. Since 2011, 
many articles and polls have shown that American society (71 percent 
of the public) and the US military (84 percent of veterans) are coming 
no closer to developing a shared understanding of each other or the 
3      Bruce Drake, “On Memorial Day, Public Pride in Veterans, But at a Distance,” Pew Research 
Center, May 24, 2013.
4      Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 196.
5      James Fallows, “The Tragedy of  the American Military,” Atlantic, January/February 2015.
6      Richard H. Kohn, “Building Trust: Civil-Military Behaviors for Effective National Security,” 
in American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, eds. Suzanne C. Nielsen and 
Don. M. Snider (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 2009), 264–89.
7     Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of  Civil-Military Relations 
(Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1957), 80.
8      Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question 
of  Civilian Control,” Armed Forces and Society 23, no. 2 (Winter 1996): 170.
9      Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (New York: Free Press, 
1971), 369.
Special commentary Garner        7
military’s problems.10 The current rift does not ignore the relationship 
and the challenges associated with Huntington’s definition of civilian 
control, rather the rift is an extension of this civil-military relationship 
to the society that the military serves.
Military Responsibility
By accepting the overwhelming trust and legitimacy bestowed on 
it without adequate self-criticism, the military has abdicated its voice 
in the national dialogue. In large part, the silence, associated with a 
professional ethos of humility, which is prevalent in large portions of the 
service, widens the rift between servicemembers and the civilians they 
serve, which has allowed the rift to exist in the first place. The problem 
is not trust, the military’s pride in itself, or civilian’s pride in the military. 
The problem is that civilian trust in the military institution is becoming 
meaningless because of the public’s lack of understanding of the mili- 
tary and the military’s acceptance of that trust as confirmation of its 
efforts. Therefore, the onus is on the military to be far more critical of 
itself than the public.
The danger, however, is that transparency may reveal “all the dark 
secrets” to the public, sacrificing a bit of civilian trust. But it would also 
give the military an opportunity to justify, or self-actualize, the trust by 
adequately earning it instead of merely receiving it. Unlike Tocqueville’s 
fear of democratic armies, where officers separate themselves from the 
society, it can be assumed the soldiers of today want to return to society 
after service in much the same fashion expressed by George Washington 
in 1775: “When we assumed the soldier, we did not [lay aside the] citizen, 
and we shall most sincerely rejoice . . . to return to our private stations.” 11 
The real hope is the society and the soldier are not so unfamiliar to one 
another that there is no longer any meaningful connection.
This particular civil-military rift is the military’s to close because 
of the concept of the military profession’s responsibility to society 
enumerated by Huntington.12 As Richard Kohn states, the “profession 
is intrinsically values-based, creating the necessary bond of trust 
between the professional and the nation served.” 13 Huntington suggests 
this bond arises not from the military’s representation of society but 
from the nature of the profession itself. Professions are trusted when 
they demonstrate expertise and responsibility. But “ultimately it is the 
military that must make the relationship work.” 14
To make that relationship work and create the necessary bond 
of trust, the military should connect with the American public by 
10      “War and Sacrifice in the Post-9/11 Era: Executive Summary,” Pew Research Center, 
October 5, 2011; Mark Thompson, “An Army Apart: The Widening Military-Civilian Gap,” Time, 
November 10, 2011; and Drake, “On Memorial Day.”
11      George Washington, “Address to the New York Provincial Congress” (speech, New York, 
June 26, 1775).
12      Huntington, Soldier and the State, 8–10.
13      Suzanne Nielsen, “The Army Officer as Servant and Professional,” in The Future of  the Army 
Profession, eds. Don M. Snider and Lloyd J. Matthews (New York: McGraw Hill, 2005), 168.
14      Kohn, “Building Trust,” 287.
8        Parameters 48(4) Winter 2018–19
conducting outreach, discussing shared values, and engaging in public 
discussions. Actions as simple as moving into and becoming involved 
with the community or thinking, discussing, and writing critically about 
successes and issues associated with service could be what bridges the 
gap. The majority of service members can work alongside public affairs 
officers who develop coherent strategic messaging anyone in the service 
can use to educate the public about efforts that might include such topics 
as gender integration or day-to-day activities at the small unit level.
Civilian Blame
The professional ethos of humility prevalent in large portions of 
the service prevents the military from closing the gap. Kohn instead 
blames careerism, or “the pressure to conform, to stay silent, to go 
along, or to do what advances one’s career.” 15 Whether the motivation 
is conceptualized as humble altruism or selfish ambition, the problem 
remains the same; the majority of the professional force cannot remain 
silent. To do so would be an abdication of one’s responsibility to educate 
and to inform the society that he or she serves. Authors such as David 
Barno and Nora Bensahel place the blame on “civilians [who] have a 
responsibility to understand their military and have an essential role in 
decisions to commit it to battle—regardless of how removed they may 
be from personal participation or connection to our warriors.” 16
While this is certainly applicable to civilian political leadership of 
America’s military, the assessment is unfair for the civilian population 
at large. After all, the military has moved far from the original 
democratic warnings and separated itself from society on limited-
access installations complete with walls, guards, retail stores, schools, 
and churches. Barno and Bensahel go on to condemn the society at large: 
“Wearing yellow ribbons and saying ‘thank you for your service’ are 
simply no substitute for active engagement with U.S. military personnel 
and the political decisions to send them into harms way.” 17
The perspective of civilian responsibility for the rift is hard to shake. 
Michael J. Sandel reinforces, “military service, like jury duty, is a civic 
responsibility” that expresses and deepens democratic citizenship. He 
argues that “turning military service into a commodity—a task we 
hire people to perform—corrupts the civic ideals that should govern 
it. . . . It allows us to abdicate a civic duty.” 18 He further contends choice 
in legitimacy for a military rests in the idea of civic responsibility that 
is closer to Kohn’s careerism or to Janowitz’s military pressure group 
than to an ethos of humility. The gap may well be a failure in civic 
responsibility on the part of the citizen. But that possibility does not 
relinquish or excuse the military from responsibility.
15      Kohn, “Building Trust,” 277.
16      David Barno and Nora Bensahel, “When the Yellow Ribbons Fade: Reconnecting Our 
Soldiers and Citizens,” War on the Rocks, July 14, 2015.
17      Barno and Bensahel, “When the Yellow Ribbons Fade.”
18      Michael J. Sandel, Justice: What’s the Right Thing To Do? (New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and 
Giroux, 2009), 86.
Special commentary Garner        9
Modern concepts of military professionalism—whether they be from 
Huntington, Feaver, Nielsen, or even Kohn—maintain the military must 
ultimately make the civilian relationship work “just as doctors do with 
their patients, lawyers with their clients, teachers with their students, and 
all professionals with those they serve.” 19 The military owes society what 
it wants—military outreach. By passing up opportunities to educate the 
civilian population on its current challenges and successes, the military 
abdicates its voice and its responsibility.
19      Kohn, “Building Trust,” 287.



Not a member yet

From the Editor

Countering Russian Meddling in US Political Processes

The Relevance of the European Union and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization for the United States in the 21st Century

India-US Relations: From Distant Partners to an Alliance

The Conventionality of Russia\u27s Unconventional Warfare

Civil-Military Relations and Today\u27s Policy Environment

2018 – 2020 Key Strategic Issues List

US Landpower and an Indo-American Alliance

Commentary and Reply

Book Reviews

3,524

3,570