The sources of military dissent: Why and how the US military contests civilian decisions about the use of force

IF 2.5 Q1 INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS European Journal of International Security Pub Date : 2021-11-24 DOI:10.1017/eis.2021.34
Risa A. Brooks, Peter M. Erickson
{"title":"The sources of military dissent: Why and how the US military contests civilian decisions about the use of force","authors":"Risa A. Brooks, Peter M. Erickson","doi":"10.1017/eis.2021.34","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract How do militaries push back when they oppose civilian initiatives? This article analyses the sources and character of military dissent, focusing on the United States. It details the sources of military preferences over policy and strategy outcomes, emphasising the interplay of role conceptions with other material and ideational factors. It then presents a repertoire of means – tactics of dissent – through which military leaders can exert pressure, constraining and shaping civilians’ decision-making calculus and the implementation of policy and strategy choices. Empirically, it traces military dissent in the 1990s-era humanitarian interventions; the US's ‘War on Drugs’ beginning in the 1980s; and the Afghanistan surge debate in 2009. In so doing, the article contributes to a broader research programme on military dissent across regime types. It also expands scholars’ understandings of preference formation within militaries and illuminates the various pathways through which military dissent operates and potentially undermines civilian control.","PeriodicalId":44394,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of International Security","volume":"7 1","pages":"38 - 57"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-11-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of International Security","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/eis.2021.34","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Abstract How do militaries push back when they oppose civilian initiatives? This article analyses the sources and character of military dissent, focusing on the United States. It details the sources of military preferences over policy and strategy outcomes, emphasising the interplay of role conceptions with other material and ideational factors. It then presents a repertoire of means – tactics of dissent – through which military leaders can exert pressure, constraining and shaping civilians’ decision-making calculus and the implementation of policy and strategy choices. Empirically, it traces military dissent in the 1990s-era humanitarian interventions; the US's ‘War on Drugs’ beginning in the 1980s; and the Afghanistan surge debate in 2009. In so doing, the article contributes to a broader research programme on military dissent across regime types. It also expands scholars’ understandings of preference formation within militaries and illuminates the various pathways through which military dissent operates and potentially undermines civilian control.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
军事异议的来源:美国军方为什么以及如何质疑有关使用武力的民事决定
摘要当军队反对民间倡议时,他们是如何反击的?本文以美国为研究对象,分析了军事异议的来源和性质。它详细说明了军事偏好对政策和战略结果的来源,强调了角色概念与其他物质和概念因素的相互作用。然后,它提出了一系列手段——异议策略——军事领导人可以通过这些手段施加压力,约束和塑造平民的决策计算以及政策和战略选择的实施。从经验上讲,它追溯了20世纪90年代人道主义干预中的军事异议;20世纪80年代开始的美国“禁毒战争”;以及2009年关于阿富汗增兵的辩论。通过这样做,这篇文章为一个更广泛的研究项目做出了贡献,该项目涉及不同政权类型的军事异议。它还扩展了学者们对军队内部偏好形成的理解,并阐明了军事异见活动和潜在破坏文官控制的各种途径。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.60%
发文量
30
期刊最新文献
Transcending the fog of war? US military ‘AI’, vision, and the emergent post-scopic regime Anything you can do [I can do better]: Exploring women’s agency and gendered protection in state militaries Timing bombs and the temporal dynamics of Iranian nuclear security Cyberbiosecurity in the new normal: Cyberbio risks, pre-emptive security, and the global governance of bioinformation The military-strategic rationality of hybrid warfare: Everyday total defence under strategic non-peace in the case of Sweden
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1