Content deleted Content added
Schwinnspeed (talk | contribs) added globalize template |
m Removed POV |
||
Line 5:
'''Civil–military relations''' ('''Civ-Mil''' or '''CMR''') describes the relationship between [[military]] organizations and [[civil society]], military organizations and other government [[bureaucracies]], and leaders and the military.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Brooks|first=Risa A.|date=2019|title=Integrating the Civil–Military Relations Subfield|url=https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/10.1146/annurev-polisci-060518-025407|journal=Annual Review of Political Science|language=en|volume=22|issue=1|pages=379–398|doi=10.1146/annurev-polisci-060518-025407|issn=1094-2939|doi-access=free}}</ref> CMR incorporates a diverse, often normative field, which moves within and across [[management]], [[social science]] and [[policy]] scales.<ref>Shields, Patricia, (2015) "Civil Military Relations" in ''Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Third edition'' Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.1081/E-EPAP3-120052814</ref> More narrowly, it describes the relationship between the civil authority of a given society and its military authority. "The goal of any [[State (polity)|state]] is to harness military professional power to serve vital [[national security]] interests, while guarding against the [[Abuse of power|misuse of power]] that can threaten the well-being of its people."<ref>Pion-Berlin D., Dudley D. (2020) Civil-Military Relations: What Is the State of the Field. In: Sookermany A. (eds) Handbook of Military Sciences. p. 1. Springer, Cham {{doi|10.1007/978-3-030-02866-4_37-1}}</ref> Studies of civil-military relations often rest on a normative assumption that it is preferable to have the ultimate [[command responsibility|responsibility]] for a country's [[military strategy|strategic]] decision-making to lie in the hands of the [[civilian]] political leadership (i.e. [[civilian control of the military]]) rather than a military (a [[military dictatorship]]).
A paradox lies at the center of traditional civil-military relations theory. The military, an institution designed to protect the polity, must also be strong enough to threaten the society it serves. A military take-over or [[coup]] is
The principal problem they examine, however, is [[empirical]]: to explain how civilian control over the military is established and maintained.<ref>James Burk. 2002. "Theories of Democratic Civil-Military Relations." ''[http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/29/1/7 Armed Forces & Society]''. 29(1): 7–29.</ref><ref>Herspring, Dale. 2005. The Pentagon and the Presidency: Civil-Military Relations from FDR to George W. Bush (Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas) {{ISBN|0700613552}}</ref> In the broader sense it examines the ways society and military intersect or interact and includes topics such as the integration of [[veteran]]s into society, methods used to [[Military recruitment|recruit]] and retain service members, and the fairness and efficacy of these systems, the integration of minorities, women, and the [[LGBT]] community into the military, the behavior and consequences of [[Private military company|private contractors]], the role of culture in military organizations, voting behavior of soldiers and veterans, and the gaps in policy preferences between civilians and soldiers.<ref>Shields, Patricia, (2015) "Civil Military Relations" in ''Encyclopedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Third edition'' Taylor and Francis DOI: 10.1081/E-EPAP3-120052814 https://www.academia.edu/31740598/Civil-Military_Relations</ref>
| |||