Search icone
Search and publish your papers

The relationship between the military and civilian leadership in the United States

Or download with : a doc exchange

About the author

General public

About the document

Published date
documents in English
case study
6 pages
General public
0 times
Validated by
0 Comment
Rate this document
  1. Introduction
  2. Are United States policy makers too optimistic about the effectiveness of military power?
  3. How does the use of Drones in counter-terrorism fit with US traditions about the use of military power?
  4. How effective are drones as an element of counter-terrorism policy and US foreign policy objectives more generally?
  5. Conclusion

The civil-military leadership involves the interaction between the uniformed military and the civilians. Attitudes and actions of both civilians and military shape this relationship (Leonard, par. 1). -America has had tension between the military (both in the office and retired) and the civilian leadership. This has not, however, presented any civil control aspects on the military-civil relationship -The country has amended many laws governing how uniformed military leaders present their problems instead of resigning in protest. Options presented for this issue are not discussed in the open forum -Many Americans are concerned about how to prepare for war without destroying the virtues, qualities and principles that are set to save military-civilian relationship (Michael, 7) -Citizens expected to be involved in the country's internal affairs

[...] Print. Surname 7 Jim Garamone. Why civilian control of the military. Washington: American Forces Press Service. Retrieved from: Print. Leonard Wong. Civil military relations in a post-9/11 world. United States: Strategic studies institute. Retrieved from: Erich Freiberger. Just war theory and ethics of drone warfare. E-international relations. Retrieved from: Stefan Wolff. Drone warfare: effectiveness or counter-productive? [...]

[...] Birmingham: University of Birmingham. Retrieved from: Barry Kolodkin. Combatting Terrorism in 2010. US foreign policy. Retrieved from: Barry R. explaining military effectiveness: Political intervention and battlefield performance. Massachusetts: Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Retrieved from: 1721.1 /68942 Michael J. A cross of Iron. United States: Cambridge University Press. [...]

[...] Enemies do not welcome a give and take conventional diplomacy. Negotiations are, therefore, pointless and use of force remains the only option. Surname 4 The military is allowed to vote, but not take any party affiliations. After election, the military should forget its party affiliations and follow the orders of civilian leaders in power regardless of party (Jim, par. 25). It shows that the policy makers are confident in the military. How does the use of Drones in counter-terrorism fit with US traditions about the use of military power? [...]

Similar documents you may be interested in reading.

The political theory of totalitarianism and its relationship to terrorism:A discussion on the...

 Politics & international   |  Political science   |  Presentation   |  07/28/2008   |   .doc   |   7 pages

The United States in World War II: a difficult position towards France. The shaping of modern...

 History & geography   |  Modern history   |  Presentation   |  09/29/2010   |   .doc   |   8 pages

Top sold for political science

A critical review of Downs, A. (1957) 'An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy',...

 Politics & international   |  Political science   |  Case study   |  07/23/2013   |   .doc   |   3 pages

How did the rise of mass production transform the role of the United States in the international...

 Politics & international   |  Political science   |  Term papers   |  05/03/2011   |   .doc   |   4 pages