Dereliction of Duty Redux?: Post-Iraq American Civil-Military Relations

Hoffman, Frank G.

doi:10.1016/j.orbis.2008.01.004

Cited by 8 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In his declaration of the end of the (Iraq war) on 31 August 2010, Obama declared the responsibility of the United States for the stability and leadership of the world through American influence throughout the world. This influence is not confined to the armed forces, preferably it includes diplomacy, economic power, and the power of the US model as well (Hoffman, 2008).…”

Section: International Stability From the Arab Spring Revolutions To mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, this change does not in any way mean a full return to the situation that prevailed before the Iraq war, which is practically the critical moment in which the USA's situation declined from being a controlling state responsible for maintaining order and stability to an imperial power willing to change the rules of the game (Hoffman, 2008).…”

Section: International Stability From the Arab Spring Revolutions To mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The Realism of the American Political System in Achieving International Stability: The Middle East as a Model (2003-2020)

Alarqan

2020

HSSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Purpose of the study: This research seeks to analyze the nature of American realism in achieving international stability in the Middle East. Methodology: This research adopted the logical, historical, and decision-making approaches to measure the extent of its impact on the structure of the international, regional system. Main Findings: Based on the nature of the international strategic situation, the American administration is required to change its approach in maintaining its interests through the use of realism in its traditional and modern concept and its contemporary lines of thought that reflect the American political thought at the external level in dealing with the changes and events taking place in the structure of the regional system in the Middle East. Applications of this study: This research is scientifically and practically significant since it: Contributes to enriching the theoretical aspect of the academic studies on developments in the reality of the American administration and its use of this model in achieving international stability in the Middle East region. Novelty/Originality of this study: This research completely discussed the perceptions about the tracks of the American administration and the extent of use of realism in achieving international stability, especially in the Middle East region. As well as define the realist conditions, means, methods, and tools adopted by the American administration in strengthening the power theory to achieve international stability and enhancing its position in the Middle East.

show abstract

Section: International Stability From the Arab Spring Revolutions To mentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: International Stability From the Arab Spring Revolutions To mentioning

confidence: 99%

The Realism of the American Political System in Achieving International Stability: The Middle East as a Model (2003-2020)

Alarqan

2020

HSSR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Episodic spikes in friction from military dissent meant there was a distinct possibility that civilians were wrong and senior officers were protesting to help the country while straining to maintain their professional subordination. If civilians kept winning these types of disputes, if they were wrong too often because they refused to genuinely listen or permit themselves to be persuaded by best military advice, the friction, then, did not indicate healthy civil–military relations—or sound national security decision-making (Desch, 2007; Hoffman, 2008).…”

Section: Civilian Supremacists Versus Principled Patriotsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Virtues of Military Politics

Coletta

Crosbie

2019

Armed Forces & Society

View full text Add to dashboard 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.

show abstract

“…The Huntingtonian objective control model puts the emphasis on civilians providing the military with high-level direction on strategy but allowing it a larger degree of independence in the planning and conduct of military operations (Desch, 2007; Herspring, 2008; Huntington, 1957; Yingling, 2007). By contrast, the “civilian supremacist school,” a prominent subset of the civil–military scholarship surprisingly absent from Travis’s article, advocates for a more intensive yet “unequal” dialogue between civilian and military leaders, with the civilian’s preferences taking precedence over those of the military even on issues below the level of general strategy (Cohen, 2002; Feaver, 2009; Hoffman, 2008; Kohn, 2002). The approach offered by Travis would seem to split the difference between the two schools, by circumcising the objective control to certain kinds of conflicts, while proposing an alternative model of closer iterative civil–military dialogue (pragmatic control) for others.…”

Section: Is “Pragmatic Control” Actually Pragmatic and Practical?mentioning

confidence: 99%

Pragmatism and Practicality: Rethinking U.S. Civil–Military Relations Models for a Turbulent Era

Popescu

2018

Armed Forces & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In his recent article Saving Samuel Huntington and the Need for Pragmatic Civil–Military Relations, Travis proposes a model of civil–military relations based on “pragmatic civilian control.” This model has three main shortcomings. First, it does not adequately answer the question of “professional supremacy” versus “civilian supremacy” in making crucial decisions during wartime. Second, the distinctions between “wars of choice” and “wars of necessity,” and about the “kind of war” being fought, key theoretical variables mentioned by the author, are hard to judge objectively. And third, the new model would likely exacerbate rather than diminish the problem of military leaders getting involved in political and even partisan controversies; this is particularly problematic, given the unusual situation of many military leaders in the Trump administration occupying civilian positions of authority. If it is to be of practical use to policy makers, future scholarship on pragmatism and civil–military relations must address these weaknesses.

show abstract

Dereliction of Duty Redux?: Post-Iraq American Civil-Military Relations

Cited by 8 publications

References 0 publications

The Realism of the American Political System in Achieving International Stability: The Middle East as a Model (2003-2020)

The Realism of the American Political System in Achieving International Stability: The Middle East as a Model (2003-2020)

The Virtues of Military Politics

Pragmatism and Practicality: Rethinking U.S. Civil–Military Relations Models for a Turbulent Era

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About