A Widening Gap between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976-96

International Security

Volumn 23, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 5-42

  Holsti, Ole R ^a  

^a DUKE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 0040839740     PISSN: 01622889     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2307/2539337     Document Type: Review

References (69)

1. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, "The Civil-Military Problématique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control," Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178.
2. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, "The Civil-Military Problématique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control," Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178.
3. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, "The Civil-Military Problématique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control," Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178.
4. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, "The Civil-Military Problématique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control," Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178.
5. Louis Smith, American Democracy and Military Power: A Study of Civil Control of the Military Power in the United States (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951); Arthur A. Ekirch, Jr., The Civilian and the Military (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1957); and Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Military Portrait (Glencoe, Ill.: Free Press, 1960). The latter two books have tended to set the terms of subsequent debate on civilian-military relations. For a discussion of their impact and limitations, see Peter D. Feaver, "The Civil-Military Problématique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control," Armed Forces and Society, Vol. 23, No. 2 (Winter 1996), pp. 149-178.
6. Dwight D. Elsenhower, "Farewell Radio and Television Address to the American People," January 17, 1961. Public Papers of the Presidents: Dwight D. Eisenhower, 1960-1961 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1961), pp. 1035-1039.
7. This literature is far too extensive to list here. Recent publications that blame the failures in Vietnam on the Johnson administration and the military, respectively, include: H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies Tliat Led to Vietnam (New York: HarperCollins, 1997); and Robert Buzzanco, Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
8. This literature is far too extensive to list here. Recent publications that blame the failures in Vietnam on the Johnson administration and the military, respectively, include: H.R. McMaster, Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies Tliat Led to Vietnam (New York: HarperCollins, 1997); and Robert Buzzanco, Masters of War: Military Dissent and Politics in the Vietnam Era (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1997).
9. George Gallup, Jr., The Gallup Poll: Public Opinion 1993 (Wilmington, Del.: Scholarly Resources, 1994), p. 241.
10. Michael C. Desch, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment (Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, forthcoming).
11. Federal military forces have been used for dealing with civil disturbances, racial disorders, labor unrest, and other domestic problems since the early days of the republic. Excellent overviews may be found in Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disturbances, 1787-1878 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1989); and Clayton D. Laurie and Ronald H. Cole, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877-1945 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1997).
12. Federal military forces have been used for dealing with civil disturbances, racial disorders, labor unrest, and other domestic problems since the early days of the republic. Excellent overviews may be found in Robert W. Coakley, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disturbances, 1787-1878 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1989); and Clayton D. Laurie and Ronald H. Cole, The Role of Federal Military Forces in Domestic Disorders, 1877-1945 (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Army Center of Military History, 1997).
13. On April 18, 1998, ABC News reported that in the aftermath of the Oklahoma City bombing, the armed forces rather than local law-enforcement authorities have received the lion's share of funding for antiterrorist training. On May 21, 1998, the House of Representatives approved an amendment to the defense bill authorizing the military to patrol U.S. borders against drug smuggling and illegal immigration.
14. Colonel Michael Wyly quoted in Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps: Sixty-one Men Came to Parris Island to Become Marines, Not All of Them Made It (New York: Scribner, 1997), p. 294, as part of a broader discussion of one school of military thinking about civilian society.
15. Thomas E. Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," Atlantic Monthly, July 1997, pp. 67-78, quotation at p. 66; and Ricks, Making the Corps. Others who have made significant contributions to the "third wave" of civilian-military studies include Deborah Avent, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver, and Richard Kohn.
16. Thomas E. Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," Atlantic Monthly, July 1997, pp. 67-78, quotation at p. 66; and Ricks, Making the Corps. Others who have made significant contributions to the "third wave" of civilian-military studies include Deborah Avent, Michael Desch, Peter Feaver, and Richard Kohn.
17. Although this article is primarily concerned with the second of Ricks's points, the evidence from the surveys discussed in the next section supports his thesis that a declining proportion of civilian leaders have had any military experience. Fifty-nine percent of the civilians taking part in the 1980 survey reported having served in the armed forces; by 1996 the figure had fallen to 45 percent.
18. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
19. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
20. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
21. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
22. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
23. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
24. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
25. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
26. For surveys that include military officers, see, for example, Janowitz, Professional Soldier; Douglas Kinnard, "Vietnam Reconsidered: An Attitudinal Survey of U.S. Army General Officers," Public Opinion Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 4 (Winter 1975), pp. 445-456; Cheryl Koopman, Robert Jervis, and Jack Snyder, "American Elite Views of Relations with the Soviet Union," Journal of Social Issues, Vol. 45, No. 2 (Summer 1989), pp. 119-138; Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis, "Theory-Driven versus Data-Driven Assessment in a Crisis," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Vol. 34, No. 4 (December 1990), pp. 694-722; Bruce M. Russett and Elizabeth C. Hanson, Interest and Ideology: The Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Businessmen (San Francisco, Calif.: W.H. Freeman, 1975); and Sam C. Sarkesian, John Allen Williams, and Fred B. Bryant, Soldiers, Society, and National Security (Boulder, Colo.: Lynne Rienner, 1995). Generally, these have been one-time studies, excluding the possibility of trend analyses. The Koopman, Snyder, and Jervis surveys included 79 military officers among the 604 respondents, but neither of the cited articles reports analyses based on occupation. Some important surveys of American elites have excluded military officers. None of the six Chicago Council on Foreign Relations surveys included the military in their leadership samples. See John Rielly, American Public Opinion and U.S. Foreign Policy, 1975 (Chicago: Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 1975) and similarly titled monographs published in 1979, 1983, 1987, 1991, and 1995. Another study, America's Place in the World: An Investigation of the Attitudes of American Opinion Leaders and the American Public about International Affairs (Los Angeles, Calif.: Times Mirror Center for The People and The Press, 1993), included 137 foreign affairs and defense "influentials" by sampling the membership of the Council on Foreign Relations and the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS). This sampling design would include few if any military officers. A1997 survey by the Pew Research Center for The People and The Press, America's Place in the World, also used the IISS membership list for its "security" sample.
27. For more detailed descriptions of the FPLP samples and questionnaires, see Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau, American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdaum of Consensus (Boston: Allen and Umvin, 1984), appendixes A and B; and Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), chap. 4.
28. For more detailed descriptions of the FPLP samples and questionnaires, see Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau, American Leadership in World Affairs: Vietnam and the Breakdaum of Consensus (Boston: Allen and Umvin, 1984), appendixes A and B; and Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1996), chap. 4.
29. Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," p. 72.
30. Janowitz, Professional Soldier, p. 237; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," p. 72.
31. Janowitz, Professional Soldier, p. 237; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," p. 72.
32. Huntington, The Soldier and the State, p. 79.
33. The cutting points for the five generational groups in Tables 3 and 4 are based on two premises. First, it was assumed that World War II, the Korean War, and the Vietnam War provided significant benchmarks that can affect thinking about world affairs; note, for example, the many analyses that contrast the beliefs of the "Munich generation" with those of the "Vietnam generation." The second premise was that late adolescence and early adulthood are especially important years in the formation and development of political beliefs, not the least because these years in the life cycle encompass for many the beginning of eligibility for military service. For further theoretical and empirical details, see Holsti and Rosenau, American Leadership in World Affairs, pp. 153-163.
34. See, for example, Richard Kohn, "Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations," National Interest, No. 35 (Spring 1994), pp. 3-17; and Colin Powell, John Lehman, William Odom, Samuel Huntington, and Richard Kohn, "Exchange on Civil-Military Relations," National Interest, No. 36 (Summer 1994), pp. 23-31.
35. See, for example, Richard Kohn, "Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations," National Interest, No. 35 (Spring 1994), pp. 3-17; and Colin Powell, John Lehman, William Odom, Samuel Huntington, and Richard Kohn, "Exchange on Civil-Military Relations," National Interest, No. 36 (Summer 1994), pp. 23-31.
36. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990); Wittkopf, "What the Public Really Thinks about Foreign Policy," Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronald H. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers: American Public Opinion and National Security (New York: Lexington Books, 1992); and William O. Chittick, Keith R. Billingsley, and Rick Travis, "A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (September 1995), pp. 313-331. For a somewhat similar multidimensional way of categorizing approaches to U.S. post-Cold War strategy, see Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5-53.
37. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990); Wittkopf, "What the Public Really Thinks about Foreign Policy," Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronald H. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers: American Public Opinion and National Security (New York: Lexington Books, 1992); and William O. Chittick, Keith R. Billingsley, and Rick Travis, "A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (September 1995), pp. 313-331. For a somewhat similar multidimensional way of categorizing approaches to U.S. post-Cold War strategy, see Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5-53.
38. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990); Wittkopf, "What the Public Really Thinks about Foreign Policy," Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronald H. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers: American Public Opinion and National Security (New York: Lexington Books, 1992); and William O. Chittick, Keith R. Billingsley, and Rick Travis, "A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (September 1995), pp. 313-331. For a somewhat similar multidimensional way of categorizing approaches to U.S. post-Cold War strategy, see Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5-53.
39. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990); Wittkopf, "What the Public Really Thinks about Foreign Policy," Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronald H. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers: American Public Opinion and National Security (New York: Lexington Books, 1992); and William O. Chittick, Keith R. Billingsley, and Rick Travis, "A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (September 1995), pp. 313-331. For a somewhat similar multidimensional way of categorizing approaches to U.S. post-Cold War strategy, see Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5-53.
40. Eugene R. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism: Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy (Durham, N.C.: Duke University Press, 1990); Wittkopf, "What the Public Really Thinks about Foreign Policy," Washington Quarterly, Vol. 19, No. 2 (Summer 1996), pp. 91-106; Ronald H. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers: American Public Opinion and National Security (New York: Lexington Books, 1992); and William O. Chittick, Keith R. Billingsley, and Rick Travis, "A Three-Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs," International Studies Quarterly, Vol. 39, No. 3 (September 1995), pp. 313-331. For a somewhat similar multidimensional way of categorizing approaches to U.S. post-Cold War strategy, see Barry R. Posen and Andrew L. Ross, "Competing Visions for U.S. Grand Strategy," International Security, Vol. 21, No. 3 (Winter 1996/97), pp. 5-53.
41. Wittkopf, Faces of Internationalism.
42. Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau, "The Structure of Foreign Policy Beliefs among American Opinion Leaders - After the Cold War," Millennium, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer 1993), pp. 235-278; Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, chap. 4; and Holsti, "Continuity and Change in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Opinion Leaders," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28-31, 1997.
43. Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau, "The Structure of Foreign Policy Beliefs among American Opinion Leaders - After the Cold War," Millennium, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer 1993), pp. 235-278; Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, chap. 4; and Holsti, "Continuity and Change in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Opinion Leaders," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28-31, 1997.
44. Ole R. Holsti and James N. Rosenau, "The Structure of Foreign Policy Beliefs among American Opinion Leaders - After the Cold War," Millennium, Vol. 22, No. 2 (Summer 1993), pp. 235-278; Holsti, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, chap. 4; and Holsti, "Continuity and Change in the Domestic and Foreign Policy Beliefs of American Opinion Leaders," paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Washington, D.C., August 28-31, 1997.
45. For the MI scale, correlations among the items have ranged between .26 and .45, and the reliability coefficients (alpha) have exceeded the conventional requirement of .70, ranging between .71 and .76. The corresponding figures for the CI scale are correlations (.33 to .40) and alpha (.77 to .81).
46. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers; and Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis, "A Three- Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs."
47. Hinckley, People, Polls, and Policy-Makers; and Chittick, Billingsley, and Travis, "A Three- Dimensional Model of American Foreign Policy Beliefs."
48. Correlations for the items in the multilateral-unilateral scale ranged between .10 and .62. Alpha was .81.
49. Patrick Buchanan, "America First - and Second, and Third," National Interest, No. 19 (Spring 1990), pp. 77-92.
50. Huntington, The Soldier and the State; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society."
51. Huntington, The Soldier and the State; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society."
52. The correlations among responses to the items on the economic issues scale were uniformly positive, between .28 and .34, in all four surveys. Alpha ranged between .70 and .75. The comparable figures for the social issues scale were slightly higher, with correlations between .33 and .38, and alpha coefficients of .74 to .78.
53. The correlation (phi) between placement in the domestic issues scheme and ideological self-identification was .77.
54. This question is drawn for the General Social Survey conducted annually by the National Opinion Research Center.
55. This item has appeared in all six FPLP surveys. Without exception, the military officers were significantly more inclined than the civilians to express higher trust in the government than in the press.
56. It might be argued that a more relevant analysis would have restricted the comparison of military officers to civilian government officials rather than to the larger samples that included leaders in such organizations as business, labor unions, the media, academia, health care, law, churches, and the like. Had the foregoing analyses been limited to three of the FPLP subsamples - the military, public officials, and State Department and Foreign Service officers - the results would have revealed somewhat larger civilian-military gaps, in part because the subsamples would have excluded from the civilians another group of leaders who are overwhelmingly conservative Republicans - business executives. More specifically, when compared to the entire sample of civilians, respondents from the State Department and Foreign Service officers subsample in 1996 tended to be somewhat more Democratic, slightly less conservative, quite similar on the MI-CI scheme, and more liberal and populist on the domestic issues classification scheme. Compared to all civilians taking part in the 1996 survey, respondents in the public officials subsample (which included leaders at the state and federal levels) tended to be slightly more Democratic, slightly less conservative, and quite similar on the MI-CI and domestic issues classification schemes.
57. Peter Feaver of Duke University and Richard Kohn of the University of North Carolina are principal investigators for the TISS project, but more than a dozen scholars at other institutions are also involved. Further information is available at http://www.duke.edu/web/poli/ tiss_civil_mil/cm.html.
58. See, for example, Janowitz, The Professional Soldier.
59. For examples, see Kohn, "Out of Control"; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society."
60. For examples, see Kohn, "Out of Control"; and Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society."
61. Huntington, The Soldier and the State.
62. An analysis of these trends may be found in Peter D. Feaver, "Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations," unpublished ms., Duke University, 1998. Trends on these issues are discussed in detail by William G. Mayer, The Changing American Mind (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992).
63. An analysis of these trends may be found in Peter D. Feaver, "Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations," unpublished ms., Duke University, 1998. Trends on these issues are discussed in detail by William G. Mayer, The Changing American Mind (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992).
64. Ricks is among those supporting a return of the draft, but he recognizes that it is "unlikely in the foreseeable future." Making the Corps, p. 296.
65. John L. Byron, "The Sailor and the State," Naval Institute Proceeding, Vol. 124, No. 5 (May 1998), pp. 30-33. The author is a retired U.S. naval captain. The nature and costs of military benefit programs are also discussed by Thomas E. Ricks, "The Great Society in Camouflage," Atlantic Monthly, December 1996, pp. 24-38.
66. John L. Byron, "The Sailor and the State," Naval Institute Proceeding, Vol. 124, No. 5 (May 1998), pp. 30-33. The author is a retired U.S. naval captain. The nature and costs of military benefit programs are also discussed by Thomas E. Ricks, "The Great Society in Camouflage," Atlantic Monthly, December 1996, pp. 24-38.
67. Opponents would include members of the Huntington school of thought on the proper role of the military.
68. According to a U.S. Air Force colonel, "Many officers privately expressed delight" that as a result of the controversy over gays in the military, the Reserve Officers Training Corps program is producing "fewer officers from the more liberal campuses to challenge (the Air Force officers') increasingly right-wing philosophy." Quoted in Ricks, "The Widening Gap between the Military and Society," p. 72.
69. In a response described as "typical" by Sarkesian, Williams, and Bryant, a military officer stated: "I had one professor that I guess could loosely be referred to as a Marxist historian. By the second year he would invite my wife and me over to dinner and show me his Sandinista revolutionary posters and the next week I would have him over to my house for dinner and we would go down to my den where I had a eight-inch howitzer that said, 'Peace through firepower.' . . . Many of the graduate students that were in the program we still correspond with. Many of them are far left but we found being able to sit down and talk with each other that not all military officers were war mongers." Quoted in Soldiers, Society, and National Security, pp. 169, 77-78.