Does The Military-Civilian Divide Really Matter?

Book Review, NationalJournal.com

When Bill Clinton and, later, to a lesser extent, George W. Bush were questioned about their efforts to avoid Vietnam, the underlying pretext was that a president must understand the culture and capabilities of the military he commands. And while the politics may not have always been pretty, the point is a valid one.

The military is a radically different institution from those found in civilian America, and the number of politicians with military experience has dropped sharply in recent years. Is there a growing divide between the U.S. military and the country it protects? And if so, what are the policy implications?

In "Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security," editors Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn attempt to answer those questions with statistical research. Starting with detailed surveys of military officers, civilian leaders and the general public, Feaver and Kohn then turn to a wide range of experts to tease meaning out of the numbers.

The authors conclude that the alleged gap is in many ways overstated. By most measures, they argue, the military is very much in tune with civilian America -- it is the political elite that far more often holds views that could be described as outside the mainstream.

That is not to say that no gap exists, however. Military personnel describe themselves as more conservative and Republican than do their civilian counterparts, and the military's Republican-to-Democrat ratio has nearly doubled since the 1970s. The authors cite a wide range of causes -- such as the popularity of military service in the increasingly Republican South -- but warn that the historically apolitical military's increasing partisanship (regardless of the party chosen) is a trend that should be watched carefully.

The book also explores other potential contributors to the divide, including the Vietnam War, military policies on gender and sexuality, the increasing segregation of soldiers from civilians and the end of the draft. Readers will find no absolute answers, but there is more than enough data and analysis from which to draw one's own conclusions.

The key question, of course, is whether a civilian-military disconnect matters. Might there even be advantages in the difference?

To the contrary, "Soldiers and Civilians" argues that the dwindling pool of military veterans in politics may well contribute to a "high rate of military involvement in conflicts in the coming years." Feaver and Kohn note that the number of elected veterans has had a "profound effect on the use of force in U.S. foreign policy... at least as far back as 1816."

So while the gap does not risk "an immediate emergency," the authors and editors argue that this divide, "if left unaddressed... might well harm the national security of the United States."

Just something to think about as defense and security become a cornerstone of Campaign 2002.

Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security
Edited by Peter D. Feaver & Richard H. Kohn
ISBN 0-262-56142-5
MIT Press
545 pp.