The debate over proper civil-military relationships began while America was still a collection of British colonies. The relationship was the subject of intense and acrimonious debate during the framing of the Constitution and periodically the debate reemerges. The authors feel the relationship exists on two levels. The first is focused on specific issues and key individuals and is transitory in nature. The second level deals with the enduring questions with essential values. At the latter level individuals merely represent the issues. Two questions are addressed in this study: What is the appropriate level of involvement of the military in national security policymaking? and, within that context, with what or whom does an officer's ultimate loyalty lie? Most Americans agree that the objective is a competent, professional military able to contribute to national security policymaking but not to dominate it, but there is no consensus on the changes that the evolution of the global security environment will bring, or on the risks of too much military involvement in policymaking. The issues that will shape the future, such as the changing nature of armed conflict and alterations in U.S. national security strategy, are clear, but their precise impact on civil-military relations is not. There is no crisis in American civil-military relations now, but what will happen in a decade or so when the psychological legacy of the Cold War fully fades and fundamental assumptions are again open to debate remains to be seen.

The debate over proper civil-military relationships began while America was still a collection of British colonies. The relationship was the subject of intense and acrimonious debate during the framing of the Constitution and periodically the debate reemerges. The authors feel the relationship exists on two levels. The first is focused on specific issues and key individuals and is transitory in nature. The second level deals with the enduring questions with essential values. At the latter level individuals merely represent the issues. Two questions are addressed in this study: What is the appropriate level of involvement of the military in national security policymaking? and, within that context, with what or whom does an officer's ultimate loyalty lie? Most Americans agree that the objective is a competent, professional military able to contribute to national security policymaking but not to dominate it, but there is no consensus on the changes that the evolution of the global security environment will bring, or on the risks of too much military involvement in policymaking. The issues that will shape the future, such as the changing nature of armed conflict and alterations in U.S. national security strategy, are clear, but their precise impact on civil-military relations is not. There is no crisis in American civil-military relations now, but what will happen in a decade or so when the psychological legacy of the Cold War fully fades and fundamental assumptions are again open to debate remains to be seen.

The debate over proper civil-military relationships began while America was still a collection of British colonies. The relationship was the subject of intense and acrimonious debate during the framing of the Constitution and periodically the debate reemerges. The author feel the relationship exists on two levels. The first is focused on specific issues and key individuals and is transitory in nature. The second level deals with the enduring questionswith essential values. At the latter level individuals merely represent the issues. Two questions are addressed in this study: What is the appropriate level of involvement of the military in national security policymaking? and Within that context, with what or whom does an officer's ultimate loyalty lie?Most Americans agree that the objective is a competent, professional military able to contribute to national security policymaking but not to dominate it, but there is no consensus on the changes that the evolution of the global security environment will bring, or on the risks of too much military involvement in policymaking.The issues that will shape the future such as the changing nature of armed conflict and alterations in U.S. national security strategy are clear, but their precise impact on civil-military relations is not. There is no crisis in American civil-military relations now, but what will happen in a decade or so when the psychological legacy of the Cold War fully fades and fundamental assumptions are again open to debate remains to be seen.

This book explores contemporary civil-military relations in the United States. Much of the canonical literature on civil-military relations was either written during or references the Cold War, while other major research focuses on the post-Cold War era, or the first decade of the twenty-first century. A great deal has changed since then. This book considers the implications for civil-military relations of many of these changes. Specifically, it focuses on factors such as breakdowns in democratic and civil-military norms and conventions; intensifying partisanship and deepening political divisions in American society; as well as new technology and the evolving character of armed conflict. Chapters are organized around the principal actors in civil-military relations, and the book includes sections on the military, civilian leadership, and the public. It explores the roles and obligations of each. The book also examines how changes in contemporary armed conflict influence civil-military relations. Chapters in this section examine the cyber domain, grey zone operations, asymmetric warfare and emerging technology. The book thus brings the study of civil-military relations into the contemporary era, in which new geopolitical realities and the changing character of armed conflict combine with domestic political tensions to test, if not potentially redefine, those relations.