U.S. military attitudes toward post-Cold War missions

Armed Forces and Society

Volumn 27, Issue 1, 2000, Pages 37-56

  Avant, Deborah ^a   Lebovic, James ^b  

^a Political Science   (United States)

^b NONE

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0034549421     PISSN: 0095327X     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/0095327X0002700104     Document Type: Article

References (50)

1. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
2. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
3. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
4. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
5. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
6. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
7. For general attitudes, see Morris Janowitz , The Professional Soldier (New York: Free Press, 1960) and "Civic Consciousness and Military Performance," in Civic Education and the Military, ed. Morris Janowitz and Steven Wesbrook (Beverly Hills: Sage, 1983); Charles Moskos, "UN Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 1 (Fall 1974):388-401. For performance, see Douglas Blaufarb, The Counterinsurgency Era: US Doctrine and Performance, 1950 to the Present (New York: Free Press, 1977); Andrew Krepinevich, The Army in Vietnam (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press, 1985). For data on the attitudes of soldiers serving in Vietnam, see Peter Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam" (Ph.D. diss., Princeton University, 1979). Only the Marines accepted low-level tasks, at least in Vietnam. See Deborah Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change: Armies in Peripheral Wars (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1994).
8. There is a strong conventional wisdom that U.S. military organizations prefer conventional, high intensity missions to low intensity ones. See Russell Weigley, The American Way of War: A History of US Military Strategy and Policy (New York: Macmillan, 1973).
9. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
10. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
11. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
12. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
13. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
14. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
15. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
16. Just a sample includes: Charles Brown and Charles Moskos, "The American Volunteer Soldier: Will He Fight?" Military Review 56 (1976): 8-17; William C. Cockerham and Lawrence E. Cohen, "Volunteering for foreign combat missions," Pacific Sociological Review, 24 (1981): 329-354; Ronald R Halverson and Paul D. Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Fall 1996): 1-96; Laura Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping: The Case of Preventative Diplomacy Operations in Macedonia," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997): 415-450; Laura Miller and Charles Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors? Race, Gender, and Combat Status in Operation Restore Hope," Armed Forces & Society 21 (Summer 1995): 615-638; Charles Moskos, " The American Enlisted Man in the All-Volunteer Army," in David Segal and H Wallace Sinaiko, eds., Life in the Rank and File (New York: Pergamon-Brassey's, 1986): 35-57; David R. Segal, Jessie J. Harris, Joseph M. Rothberg, and David H. Marlowe, "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers," Armed Forces & Society 10 (Summer 1984): 487-506; David R. Segal and Ronald B. Tiggle, "Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers Toward Military Missions in the Post-Cold War World," Armed Forces & Society 23 (Spring 1997):373-390.
17. See Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State (New York: Vintage, 1957).
18. See Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1984); Jack Snyder, Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984).
19. See Barry Posen, The Sources of Military Doctrine: France, Britain, and Germany Between the World Wars (Ithaca, Cornell University Press, 1984); Jack Snyder, Ideology of the Offensive: Military Decision Making and the Disasters of 1914 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1984).
20. Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change; Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
21. Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change; Elizabeth Kier, Imagining War: French and British Military Doctrine Between the Wars (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1997).
22. Avant, Political Institutions and Military Change. This perspective is more prominent in analyses of domestic organizations in American politics
23. See, particularly, Halverson and Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy." Laura Miller and Charles Moskos also argue that public support for Operation Restore Hope contributed to soldiers' enthusiasm for the mission. Miller and Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors?"
24. See, particularly, Halverson and Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy." Laura Miller and Charles Moskos also argue that public support for Operation Restore Hope contributed to soldiers' enthusiasm for the mission. Miller and Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors?"
25. See, particularly, Halverson and Bliese, "Determinants of Soldier Support for Operation Uphold Democracy." Laura Miller and Charles Moskos also argue that public support for Operation Restore Hope contributed to soldiers' enthusiasm for the mission. Miller and Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors?"
26. See Carl Builder, The Masks of War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). For a statement of the importance of organizational culture for thinking about different tasks, see Jeffrey Legro, Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995).
27. See Carl Builder, The Masks of War (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989). For a statement of the importance of organizational culture for thinking about different tasks, see Jeffrey Legro, Cooperation under Fire: Anglo-German Restraint During World War II (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1995).
28. Halverson and Bliese, "Determinants of Support for Operation Uphold Democracy"; Miller and Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors?"
29. Halverson and Bliese, "Determinants of Support for Operation Uphold Democracy"; Miller and Moskos, "Humanitarians or Warriors?"
30. David Segal and Barbara Foley Meeker, "Peacekeeping, Warfighting, and Professionalism: Attitude Organization and Change among Combat Soldiers on Constabulary Duty," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 13 (Fall 1985):167-181.
31. Dawkins, "The US Army and the 'Other' War in Vietnam."
32. The Armed Forces Staff College at Norfolk is a joint PME institution. Because they did not yield a consistently different perspective, we folded the responses from Norfolk into their respective services for this analysis.
33. When composing the survey, we neglected to distinguish between the appropriateness of high and low intensity regional war, though we did distinguish between the two when asking about future threats. Nevertheless, we assume that service members associate regional war with the most demanding, high intensity mission because the question about the appropriateness of participating in regional war directly follows the question about participating in general war and precedes separate questions about participating in counterinsurgency and peace enforcement missions. In addition, because service members express strong approval for preparing for both general and regional war but much less enthusiasm for various low-intensity missions.
34. In a survey of active duty and reserve soldiers, David Segal et al., found that while both groups accepted peacekeeping norms, neither believed peacekeeping was appropriate military work. See David Segal, Brian Reed and David Rohall, "Constabulatory Attitudes of National Guard and Regular Soldiers in the U.S. Army," Armed Forces & Society 24 (Summer 1998): 535-548.
35. The variation in service member responses is consistently greater for less preferred missions: the full-sample standard deviations for the drug interdiction (1.22) and peacekeeping missions (1.10) are higher than those for any other missions (certainly exceeding the .59 recorded for general war preparedness.
36. Since the 10-year danger is more inclusive than the 5-year danger, service members rate 10-year threats as more dangerous than the corresponding 5-year threats. Nevertheless, service members perceive a significantly increased danger from emerging powers in the 5 to 10-year threat range: they rate it as the 7th most serious 5-year threat but the 5th most serious 10-year threat.
37. Deborah Avant and James Lebovic, "Bureaucratic Beliefs: Threat, Mission, and the U.S. Military in the Post-Cold War" (Paper presented at the 1999 annual convention of the International Studies Association, Washington, DC, Feb. 16-20).
38. Interestingly, while clear high and low intensity dimensions emerge in all the analyses, the factor scores derived for the various mission and threat dimensions are virtually uncorrelated, supporting the descriptive finding that respondents partition their thinking about appropriate missions and threat.
39. Segal and Tiggle ("Attitudes of Citizen Soldiers") find that reserve volunteers stationed in the Sinai MFO made similar distinctions between high intensity (conventional, biological, chemical, and nuclear) and low intensity (humanitarian, peacekeeping, and restoration of domestic order) missions. Our survey focused on the level of violence rather than the weaponry involved and therefore did not distinguish between conventional war and biological, chemical, and nuclear wars.
40. Deborah Avant, "Are the Reluctant Warriors Out of Control? Why the US Military is Averse to Responding to Post-Cold War Low-Level Threats" Security Studies 6 (Winter 1996/97): 51-90.
41. Richard Kohn, "Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations," The National Interest, 35 (Spring 1994).
42. Nevertheless, the responses of different service branches differ, sometimes considerably, when assessing by how much and on what the president, Congress, and public disagree.
43. The tensions began soon after President Clinton took office and attempted to remove the ban on gays serving in the military, but they have continued in a number of policy arenas. For a summary of these problems, see "Who's in Charge of the Military," New York Times, 26 January 1993. For an analysis of the particular tensions and why they arose, see Peter Feaver, "Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil-Military Relations," Armed Forces & Society 24 (Spring 1998): 407-434.
44. The tensions began soon after President Clinton took office and attempted to remove the ban on gays serving in the military, but they have continued in a number of policy arenas. For a summary of these problems, see "Who's in Charge of the Military," New York Times, 26 January 1993. For an analysis of the particular tensions and why they arose, see Peter Feaver, "Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil-Military Relations," Armed Forces & Society 24 (Spring 1998): 407-434.
45. One variable that has received attention in other studies is gender, and we do find some gender differences among our respondents. Our female respondents found the high intensity missions less appropriate than their male counterparts. They also were more enthusiastic about drug interdiction and sanctions enforcement. (The differences in means between the male and female samples were significant at the .05 level in a one-tailed test.) Though females showed mildly greater support for the other new missions, the differences between the male and female samples were not statistically significant. We should note that the overwhelming majority of our female respondents were from the Air Force.
46. Segal and Meeker, "Peacekeeping, Warfighting, and Professionalism."
47. Others have found a similar relationship between combat status and resistance to some new missions, such as peacekeeping. See Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping?" David Segal, et al., also document the general belief that combat status leads to resistance to peacekeeping tasks, though they find that combat personnel performed these tasks relatively well in the Sinai. See David Segal, et al., "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers." In another analysis, Meeker and Segal find that participation in peacekeeping contributes to more nuanced judgments of low-intensity conflict situations among military personnel. See Barbara Foley Meeker and David Segal, "Soldiers' Perceptions of Conflict Likelihood: The Effects of Doctrine and Experience," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 15 (Spring 1987):105-115.
48. Others have found a similar relationship between combat status and resistance to some new missions, such as peacekeeping. See Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping?" David Segal, et al., also document the general belief that combat status leads to resistance to peacekeeping tasks, though they find that combat personnel performed these tasks relatively well in the Sinai. See David Segal, et al., "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers." In another analysis, Meeker and Segal find that participation in peacekeeping contributes to more nuanced judgments of low-intensity conflict situations among military personnel. See Barbara Foley Meeker and David Segal, "Soldiers' Perceptions of Conflict Likelihood: The Effects of Doctrine and Experience," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 15 (Spring 1987):105-115.
49. Others have found a similar relationship between combat status and resistance to some new missions, such as peacekeeping. See Miller, "Do Soldiers Hate Peacekeeping?" David Segal, et al., also document the general belief that combat status leads to resistance to peacekeeping tasks, though they find that combat personnel performed these tasks relatively well in the Sinai. See David Segal, et al., "Paratroopers as Peacekeepers." In another analysis, Meeker and Segal find that participation in peacekeeping contributes to more nuanced judgments of low-intensity conflict situations among military personnel. See Barbara Foley Meeker and David Segal, "Soldiers' Perceptions of Conflict Likelihood: The Effects of Doctrine and Experience," Journal of Political and Military Sociology 15 (Spring 1987):105-115.
50. See G. John Ikenberry, David Lake and Stephen Haggard, The State and American Foreign Economic Policy (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1988).