Discovering the Fault Lines in American Civil–Military Relations

• Published date: 01 October 2018
• Date: 01 October 2018
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17728351
• Subject Matter: Essays

Essay

Discovering the Fault

Lines in American

Civil–Military Relations

Donald S. Travis

1

Abstract

This essay is in response to Thomas Crosbie and Meredith Kleykamp’s article that

investigates relationships between what they consider to be three fault lines in the

American military profession: ethical lapses, expertise, and identity. As they explore

the literature to contemplate how professionalism might help to prevent ethical

lapses, they also seek to reveal relationships between lapses, military expertise, and

identity. To enhance the relevance of their research, it is recommended that they

examine ethical lapses more broadly. Their core subject is American civil–military

relations, which is a complex, contentious, and often ambiguous topic. They can

mitigate the ambiguity by developing a clear problem statement and a set of research

assumptions. In addition, because not all lapses are treated the same, they can be

categorized to identify more serious lapses, which will allow for a focused exam-

ination of institutional responses to the lapses. Also, integrating other academic

approaches such as political science and history into their research will improve the

theoretical and explanatory power of their investigation. Adopting these and other

aspects of inquiry will support the testing of their six hypotheses and improve our

understanding of the military profession.

Keywords

professionalism, American politics and government, pluralism, civil–military

relations, U.S. national security

1

Carlisle, PA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Donald S. Travis, 89 E. Ridge St., Carlisle, PA 17013, USA.

Email: dontravis752@yahoo.com

Armed Forces & Society

2018, Vol. 44(4) 731-747

ªThe Author(s) 2017

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X17728351

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

“War in its fairest form implies a perpetual violation of humanity and justice ...”

1

—Edward Gibbon

Social scientists and historians have a track record of exposing ethical lapses in the

American military. Their insights are usually accompanied by stern warnings of the

potential ill effects of such lapses on military readiness and democracy (Fallows,

2015; Galbraith, 1969; Kohn, 2002; Luttwak, 1985; Mills, 1956/2000; Snider, 2008;

Tuchman, 1984). Determining the impacts of such lapses—whether they emerge

from a “chickenhawk” populace, narcissistic elected officials, arrogant military

careerists, or weaknesses in human nature—is a worthy effort if we take into account

the lethality and influence of America’s military around the world.

Thomas Crosbie and Meredith Kleykamp face a challenge that befalls many

social science researchers: explaining why their examination (three fault lines) is

relevant. Answering the “why” of their analysis, by developing an explicit problem

statement, would clarify the importance of their topic and help to establish firm

research assumptions. Such a statement and assumptions cannot function in the

pretense of a research laboratory. In the tradition of Huntington, Janowitz, Tuch-

man, and Galbraith, any examination of “fault lines” must employ real-world

considerations, practical wisdom, and scientific integrity. In addition, the

“scandals” cited in their essay do not account for all types of “ethical lapses.”

Categorizing lapses will help determine which lapses cause greater damage to

civil–military relations. Because all ethical lapses are not the same regarding their

effects, categorizing them to identify the more serious lapses will also enable them

to track institutional responses to the lapses. Finally, integrating other academic

disciplines into their research approach such as political science, economics, and

history might provide added theoretical relevance and explanatory power to their

investigation. For example, classifying social behaviors related to the struggle for

power can be supported by historical lessons. Getting these aspects of research on

solid footing can improve the testing of the six hypotheses and our understanding

of the military profession.

A critical aspect of their essay has to do with the very meaning and nature of

“professionalism.” Crosbie and Kleykamp use the concept as a “conceptual

framework,” yet their singular footnote indicates a subtle and justifiable frustration

over its purpose and meaning. “Professional” and professionalism are “loaded”

words;weigheddownbypretentionsandpreconceived or superficial meanings. If

professional lacks a coherent definition in the academies and war colleges, it might

be because the word evokes an elitist approach to whatever vocation is claiming its

moniker. Relating it to warfighting in a true democracy is problematic because the

security of a free state is supposed to be controlled by civilian authority and

touched by the people themselves. As the word connotes elitism, which is anti-

democratic, a balance between Woodrow Wilson’s call for a professional public

administrator (Wilson, 1887/1941) and the American soldier drawn from the com-

monweal is required. Up to now, it is the “common man,” with his and her

732 Armed Forces & Society 44(4)