1996/01/01 by Peter D. Feaver · 6 citations
Social Sciences · #European and Russian Geopolitical Military Strategies #Military History and Strategy #Military and Defense Studies
paper · doi:10.1177/0095327x9602300203
openalex publication_date 1996/01/01 · openalex created_date 2025/10/10 · openalex updated_date 2026/07/28
The alleged crisis in American civil-military relations has revived a long-standing theoretical debate about the determinants of civilian control. So far, the debate has followed lines of analysis laid by the original dispute between Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz. Viewed from a post-Cold War perspective, however, neither model is attractive. In this article, I define the basic problematique both the Huntingtonian and Janowitzean theories attempt to explain: how to reconcile a military strong enough to do anything the civilians ask them to with a military subordinate enough to do only what civilians authorize them to do. Next I critically evaluate and call into question the continued validity of key propositions of each theory and especially their reliance on "professionalism." The article concludes with a brief summary of the criteria that should guide the development of a new theory of civilian control.