The basic question, without reference to the here and now, has been asked throughout the ages. As Elliot Cohen observes in his book, Supreme Command , it goes as far back as 168bc when speaker Consul Lucius Aemilius addressed his audience on the resumption of war with Macedonia: “I am not, fellow-citizens, one who believes that no advice may be given to leaders... Generals should receive advice, in the first place from the experts who are both specially skilled in military matters and have learned from experience; secondly, from those who are on the scene of action, who see the terrain, the enemy...”. In order to answer this question the author will look at three factors before drawing a conclusion. The first will be to look at the theory of civil-military relations, highlighting some examples from recent history of how those theories have been put into practice. The second will be to look at how the character of conflict has evolved, the definition of modern British conflict and the difference between hard and soft power. The third factor will be to consider the effects of globalisation, mass media and the weight of public opinion on the decisions made about future conflicts by our politicians and military leaders.
Theory. The term ‘civil-military relations’ is often used to describe the relationship between civil society and its associated military force, moreover the fundamental basis upon which the civilian authority exercises control over its military organization. It is generally accepted that ‘civilian control of the military is preferable to military control of the state’ and although there are states that do not conform to this norm, they tend to be less developed countries that have succumb to military interven...
... middle of paper ...
..., SJ. “Soft, Hard or Smart? What is the right choice for Obama?”. Defence Research Paper, JSCSC, 2008/2009.
Petersen, MJ. “To what extent is public opinion and its management key to success in contemporary operations?”. Defence Research Paper, JSCSC, 2008/2009.
Cohen, Elliot A. “Civil-military Relations”. Foreign Policy Research Institute. www.fpri.org/americavulnerable/06.CivilMilitaryRelations.Cohen.pdf
Web Pages
Wikipedia. “Civil-military Relations.” Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil-military_relations (accessed 13 Feb 14).
Wkipedia. “2003 Invasion of Iraq”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2003_Invasion_of_Iraq (accessed 14 Feb 14).
Wikipedia. “Modern Warfare”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_warfare (accessed 14 Feb 14).
Wikipedia “Soft Power”. Wikipedia. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power (accessed 15 Feb 14).
Shalikashvili, J.M. (n.d.). Shape, Respond, Prepare Now -- A Military Strategy for a New Era. National Military Strategy. Retrieved September 14, 2004, from http://www.dtic.mil/jcs/nms/index.html#Top
Verba, Sidney, Richard A. Brody, Edwin B. Parker, Norman H. Nie, Nelson W. Polsby, Paul Ekman, and Gordon S. Black. "Public Opinion and the War in Vietnam." The American Political Science Review 61, no. 2 (1967): 317-333. http://www.jstor.org.ezproxy.rollins.edu:2048/stable/1953248 (accessed March 4, 2014).
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
... two conflicts one fact can be seen very clearly. That is the fact that the military is best suited for conducting wars. Politicians are not. It is not the place of politicians to be involved in the decision making procedure in regards to war or military strategy. The White House has significant control in military matters. That control should be used to help the military in achieving its goals as it was in the Gulf War where George Bush said specifically to let the military do its job. The only alternative to this is to use political influence in the same way that it was used in Vietnam. References Wittman, Sandra M. "Chronology of the Vietnam War." Vietnam: Yesterday and Today Oakton Community College. Skokie, Illinois. 16 May 1996: n.p. United States, Joint Resolution of Congress H. J. RES 1145. Aug. 7, 1964. Department of State Bulletin 24 Aug. 1965.
the role of the state and also from the perspective of how the decision to fight impacts the
Snider, D. M. (2008). Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions. Carlisle Barracks, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
The military is tasked with the duty and responsibility of protecting the nation from external attacks and managing any attacks that may happen. Over the years, countries across the world have engaged in conflicts originating from differences in policies and invasion of privacy and unfair treatment of citizens in foreign countries. In...
Lott Jr., John R.. At the Brink: Will Obama Push Us Over The Edge?. Washington DC: Regnery
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
“A prince, therefore, must not…take anything as his profession but war…” these are the words of Nicollo Machiavelli and which he exclaims very clearly in his philosophies, that a good ruler must be great at the art war to succeed. One of the ways M shows his outlook on war, is by explaining how important it is to bear arms at all times and to never be without a weapon, for weapons are the tools of war and if used correctly and intelligently you will prevail over all during times of war. Secondly, M explains that a necessary induced order, unity, and fealty to the leader of a nation by projected and incited fear of that leader or leadership is the only way a leader can be looked can be respected by his own military. Moreover, with the respect of that military, a leader must have a good knowing of his home terrain in order to plan both offensive and defensive actions, and also to know history of great past leaders bouts with other countries, for this knowledge gai...
In modern military theory, the highest level is the strategic level, in which activities at the strategic level focus directly on policy objectives, both during peace and warfare. In the study of modern military strategy, there is a distinction between military strategy and national strategy, in which the former is the use of military objective to secure political objectives and the latter coordinates and concentrates all the elements of national...
Emizet, Kisangani N. F. . (2000). Explaining the Rise and Fall of Military Regimes: Civil-Military Relations in the Congo. Armed Forces & Society. 26 (2), p203-227.
Flannagan, Michael. "Foreign Policy Better with Obama than Bush" The Lantern - Ohio State University. College Publisher Network, 25 Oct. 2011. Web. 17 Nov. 2011. .
Weber, Smith, Allan, Collins, Morgan and Entshami.2002. Foreign Policy in a transformed world. United Kingdom: Pearson Education Limited.
In order to answer the question concerning the formation of states, it is necessary to clarify what constitutes a state; the Oxford English Dictionary defines a state as ‘a nation or territory considered as an organized political community under one government’. There are a number of ways and processes in which to analyse what state formation is, why they have formed and the way in which this has occurred. State emergence can be traced back to the creation of territorial boundaries in medieval Europe, such as the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, and its transition to a modern state can be attributed to the introduction of gunpowder in war (Hague & Harrop, 2010: 64). The formations of states have also been influenced by the growth of bureaucracy, administration and organisations. There are different theories as to the reason why states form, a certain few of which can be divided into the categories of rationalist, culturalist and structuralist perspectives. In this essay, these perspectives shall enter the debate in trying to justify the reason for state formation and the way in which it occurs. The most prominent feature in the formation of states appears to be the prevention and engagement of a state in war and its following consequences.