Civil-Military Relations During Coalition Operations in the Balkans
Abstract
A tradition of tension exists in the United States between political and military leaders. Scholars assert this tension is natural given the opposing operational imperatives between political and military leaders. In the world of political leaders and diplomats, their instruments of statecraft tend to focus on diplomacy, consensus building, flexibility, and negotiations to attain political objectives. Conversely, the military leaders, acting with a mandate from political leaders, focus on efficient mission accomplishment through the use of lethal force to achieve political goals. At face value, the two simple, if somewhat stereotyped, descriptions should not pose problems for either American political or military leaders. The political leaders decide when and where military force is necessary to attain or support their overall political strategy. It would seem, therefore, that the unambiguous nature of military force serves as an effective counterbalance to the more ambiguous world of politics. Alas, the dilemma becomes clear when theory meets practice in the real world. In practice, tension between political and military leaders occurs both during peacetime and in war. In wartime, though, the consequences of such tension often appear greater because the application of military force poses an immediate threat to lives. This tension is not unique to the United States. In fact, Eliot Cohen, recognized historian and military analyst explained, "Civil-military relationship in a democracy is almost invariably difficult, setting up as it does opposing values, powerful institutions with great resources, and inevitable tensions between military professionals and statesmen.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- May 01, 2001
- Accession Number
- ADA441514
Entities
People
- Yulin G. Whitehead
Organizations
- National War College