Do Civil-Military Relations (CMR) constitute a partnership?

According to Feaver (2003), CMR is clearly not a partnership. Instead it is a hierarchical relationship, involving strategic interaction, in which civilians hire the military to protect their society from enemies. Hence, according to Feaver (2003), CMR is just one variety of a common employer-employee relationship, which is called the principal-agent framework by the economists. This type of a relationship carries a number of challenging problems for the participants, and, as a result, is characterized by strategic interaction. For example, the employer wants to hire a diligent worker. However, every not-so-diligent worker wants to get hired, and hence will go to great lengths to present himself as being very diligent, during the selection process. Also, every employer wants to get the most amount of work for the least amount of pay, out of his/her employee; while every employee wants to be paid the largest amount of money for doing the least amount of work. Hence, the interests of the civilian employer and the military employee are in direct opposition. This leads to both sides constantly attempting to fool one another; while simultaneously demanding more from each other, and attempting to force each other to keep all promises (Feaver, 2003).      

On the other hand, Bland (1999) apparently believes that CMR is a partnership. In fact, according to him, civilian leaders and military officers share responsibility for the civilian control of the military. Specifically, both groups of leaders are responsible and accountable for their respective aspects of civilian control over the military. Bland (1999) supports this idea by asserting that empirical evidence on CMR demonstrates that military experts, not only direct military operations and provide technical advice to civilian leaders; but they also assist civilian leaders in controlling the armed forces. Moreover, even in mature liberal democracies, military leaders are expected to engage in joint decision-making with civilian leaders, regarding national defense and the use of armed forces (Bland, 1999).

At least when it comes to the CMR in the modern United States, I am inclined to side with Bland (1999), rather than Feaver (2003), because I agree with Mills (1956). Mills sees three dominant sources of power over the modern US: the political order, the military order, and the economy (dominated by several hundred huge, interrelated corporations). And according to him, the decisions taken by the US military, both rest upon and have a serious effect on the political life of the US and its economy. Moreover, Mills (1956) argues that American generals and admirals hold positions of decisive political and economic relevance, and have many interests in common with the political leaders of the visible government and the corporate rich. All of this suggests that CMR is an egalitarian, collaborative relationship between the military and the two types of civilian leaders.

References

Bland, D. L. (1999). “A Unified Theory of Civil-Military Relations.” Armed Forces and Society, 26(1): 7-26.

Feaver, P. (2003). Armed Servants (pp. 54-117). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.