Civil–military relations: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added
Citation bot (talk | contribs)
Add: s2cid, authors 1-1. Removed parameters. Some additions/deletions were parameter name changes. | Use this bot. Report bugs. | Suggested by Abductive | #UCB_webform 45/3550
Helheimrr (talk | contribs)
Line 19:
The ramifications of the [[Cold War]], specifically the American decision to maintain a large [[standing army]] for the first time in its history, led to concerns about whether such a large military structure could be effectively maintained by a liberal democracy. [[Samuel P. Huntington]] and [[Morris Janowitz]] published the seminal books on the subject which effectively brought civil-military relations into [[academia]], particularly in [[political science]] and [[sociology]].<ref name="Samuel P. Huntington 1957">Samuel P. Huntington. 1957. ''The Soldier and the State; the Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations''. Cambridge: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.</ref><ref name="Morris Janowitz 1960">Morris Janowitz. 1960. ''The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait''. Glencoe, Illinois: Free Press.</ref>
 
Despite the peculiarly American impetus for Huntington's and Janowitz's writing, their theoretical arguments have been used in the study of other national civil-military studies. For example, Ayesha Ray used the ideas of Huntington in her book about Indian civil-military relations.<ref>Ayesha Ray. 2013. ''The Soldier and the State in India: Nuclear Weapons, Counterinsurgency, and the Transformation of Indian Civil-Military Relations.'' London: Sage Publications.</ref> In ''The Man on Horseback'', [[Samuel E. Finer]] countered some of Huntington's arguments and assumptionassumptions and offered a look into the civil-military relationships in the [[Least Developed Countries|under-developed world]]. Finer observed that many governments do not have the administrative skills to efficiently govern, whichthus may openopening opportunities for military intervention—opportunities that are not as likely in more developed countries.<ref>Samuel E. Finer. 1988. ''The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics''. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press.</ref>
 
The increased incidence of military [[coups d'état]] since World War II, particularly in the 1960s and 1970s, brought about a growing interest in academic and journalistic circles in studying the nature of such [[coups]]. Political upheaval in Africa led to military take-overs in [[Dahomey]], [[Togo]], [[Republic of the Congo|Congo]], and [[Uganda]], to mention just a few.<ref>Samuel Decalo. 1976. ''Coups and Army Rule in Africa: Studies in Military Style''. New Haven: Yale University Press.</ref> Political unrest in South America, which involved military coups in [[Bolivia]] (189 military coups in its first 169 years of existence), [[Chile]], [[Argentina]], [[Brazil]], [[Paraguay]], [[Peru]], and [[Uruguay]], was largely a result of forces attempting to stem the increasing influence of left-wing and communist led uprisings.<ref>Charles F. Andrain. 1994. ''Comparative Political Systems: Policy Performance and Social Change''. Armonk, New York: M. E. Sharpe.</ref> The 2006 military coup in [[Thailand]] engendered continued interest in this area.<ref>Mark Beeson. 2008. "Civil-Military Relations in Indonesia and the Philippines: Will the Thai Coup Prove Contagious?" ''[http://afs.sagepub.com/cgi/reprint/34/3/474 Armed Forces & Society]''. 34(3): 474–490.</ref>