Part I
The United States Constitution places the military services firmly under civilian control, yet a 1999 study found that "Nearly half of the [civilian] mass (47%) express doubt about the safety and security of civilian control" in America (Harbaugh, 2001, p 36). The study was an indication of the growing tension between civilian and military leaders that followed the end of the Cold War. While the terrorist attacks of 9/11 and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq have led to an easing of the civil-military gap in the first decade of the 21st century, war weariness and changes in American politics could potentially widen the gap again in the coming years. Examining the civil-military gap, the differences in values between society and the military, the expectations civilians have of the military, the role of the military in politics, the perceptions of a "macho," "techno-centric" military, and the actual American way of war will inform us about the culture of both American society and of its military.
Several gaps in perspectives and values exist between the military and society at large. Naturally, some of these gaps are known and expected because the military has both a unique nature and function. Still, in Don M. Snider's opinion, not all of the differences between society and the military are functional or desirable (Snider, 2000, p. 39). Snider, a retired Army officer, points to a 1999 study that found that underneath surface expressions of mutual respect and confidence, "military and civilian leaders view each other's culture negatively and hold strong negative stereotypes of the other." Military leaders believe that the adoption of some of the military's customs and values could restore a broken down American society, but while civilian leaders are also concerned about a moral decline, they do not believe that there is a role for the military in reforming society. (2000, p. 39).
Too often, some in uniform have failed to live up to the supposedly superior values of the military. Scandals such as the harassment of women at a Tailhook convention, or of female recruits by male drill sergeants during boot camp, have given the impression that the military does not share some of the better values of the society it protects. Admiral Stanley Arthur, who commanded U.S. naval forces during the 1991 Persian Gulf War, has said that "Today the armed forces are no longer representative of the people they serve. More and more, enlisted [men and women] as well as officers are beginning to feel that they are special, better than the society they serve. This is not healthy in an armed force serving a democracy" (Foster, 2000, p. 83). Yet, as Gregory D. Foster notes, while some members of the military have "talked the talk" they have failed "in incident after incident, to walk the walk" (2000, p. 83).
The gap between society and the military creates fertile ground for tension. While some events of this first decade of the 21st century, with the war against terrorists, may have eased what some in the late 1990s considered to be a crisis in civil-military relations, other events such as an increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, with calls for immediate withdrawal, probably did not help. A civil-military crisis can occur anytime the military becomes alienated from society (Foster, 2000, p. 83). Nothing will alienate the military faster from society than the perception among those who serve on the front lines that they do not have the support of civilians back home.
Society has a right to expect certain things from its military. "The most obvious expectation of the military by society," writes Foster, "is operational competence - the ability of the military to fulfill its mission by accomplishing all assigned tasks" (2000, p. 82). Another expectation by civilians is that the advice military leaders give to civilian leaders be the best possible professional judgment and not just what is best for their individual branch of the service. Civilians also expect the military to be politically neutral and socially responsible. George Washington put it best when he said, "When we assumed the soldier, we did not lay aside the citizen." Foster adds that "Those in uniform should be professional citizen-soldiers whose first allegiance must be to the society they represent and serve, not to the institution to which they belong."
As noted earlier, there was a 1999 study which found that almost half of Americans worried about a military takeover. Lieutenant Kenneth E. Harbaugh acknowledges that "Contempt for societal values - and the resultant disdain for civilian authority - is seen by some as the first step toward a garrison state." (2001, p. 36). The Navy lieutenant then pointed to examples of blatant disrespect such as an Air Force general bashing a sitting president and crew members of an aircraft carrier heckling the same commander-in-chief during a visit. But fears that this disrespect may lead to militarism are misplaced. "Feelings of moral superiority are one thing," writes Harbaugh, "but our military would never challenge the democratic ideal."
The U.S. military is absolutely committed to the principle of civilian control. Those who serve in uniform take an oath to defend to Constitution, which places the military under the control of civilian leaders. Even the most intemperate officer would have trouble going against the Constitution, or finding many others who would go along with him, because any inclination for a military takeover has been thoroughly drummed out of the U.S. officer corps (Harbaugh, 2001, p. 36). "We are sworn to obey the lawful orders of the President," writes Harbaugh. "Ultimately, we answer to the American public through him."
While the military is expected to give sound, professional advice to the nation's civilian leaders, Snider points to a study which suggests that a majority of senior officers believe it is proper to engage in public discussion of military policy (2000, p. 40). Additionally, a majority of officers believe that they should be able to insist on setting rules of engagement, developing exit strategies, establishing clear military goals, and selecting the type of forces to be used in any given scenario. In one case, criticism is leveled at General Colin Powell and his strong opposition to allowing gays to serve openly in the military. Ironically, one of Powell's successors as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Richard Meyers, would be criticized for showing too much deference to the secretary of defense in press conferences after the U.S. invasion of Iraq.

