Affiliation:
1. U.S. Air Force Academy, CO, USA
2. Royal Danish Defence College, Forsvarsakademiet, Kobenhavn, Denmark
Abstract
Sociologists and political scientists have long fretted over the dangers that a politicized military poses to democracy. In recent times, however, civil–military relations experts in the United States accepted retired or indeed still serving generals and admirals in high-ranking political posts. Despite customary revulsion from scholars, the sudden waivers are an indicator that military participation in momentous national security decisions is inherently political without necessarily being partisan, including when civilian authority defers to a largely autonomous sphere for objective military expertise. Military politics is actually critical for healthy civil–military collaboration, when done prudently and moderately. Janowitz and Huntington, founders of the modern study of civil–military relations, understood the U.S. military’s inevitable invitation to political influence. Here, we elaborate on two neglected dimensions, implicit in their projects, of military politics under objective civilian control based on classical virtues of civic republicanism: Aristotle’s practical wisdom and Machiavelli’s virtú.
Subject
Safety Research,Social Sciences (miscellaneous),Sociology and Political Science
Cited by
7 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献
1. Disentangling the US military's climate change paradox: An institutional approach;Sociology Compass;2023-07-17
2. No Right to Be Wrong: What Americans Think about Civil-Military Relations;Perspectives on Politics;2021-03-11
3. Biographies;Reconsidering American Civil-Military Relations;2021-02-04
4. Foreword;Reconsidering American Civil-Military Relations;2021-02-04
5. Copyright Page;Reconsidering American Civil-Military Relations;2021-02-04