Altering the Balance between Civilian and Military Power for Contemporary Strategies
In the modern era, the relationship between the U.S. military, government, and society has undergone significant changes, primarily due to advancements in technology, the emergence of new domains, and the rapidly evolving information environment. This transformation has reshaped military capabilities, influenced policy approaches, and altered civil-military interactions in profound ways.
One of the key effects of these changes is the increased integration of advanced information technology into military logistics, operations, and weapon systems. This shift has heightened the military's reliance on private sector partners for system support and necessitated the continuous updating and maintenance of complex software-enabled systems, blurring the lines between acquisition and sustainment.
Another significant development is the U.S. government's active positioning of the Department of Defense (DoD) at the forefront of Artificial Intelligence (AI) research and deployment. Initiatives like the 2025 America's AI Action Plan involve embedding AI curriculum in military education, establishing ethical frameworks, and fostering public-private partnerships to mitigate AI risks such as deepfakes.
The use of military forces domestically, particularly the National Guard, reflects tension between federal and state authorities as well as society's expectations. Legal frameworks like the Posse Comitatus Act limit the military's law enforcement role domestically unless specific acts are invoked. Recent events surrounding civil unrest have intensified debates about appropriate military involvement in society, showcasing increased scrutiny and complexity in the military-society relationship.
The prevailing national security consensus has emphasized military dominance as a core element of U.S. global leadership and domestic identity, leading to a more interventionist foreign policy and a cultural self-image centered on military power. This has influenced the relationship between government decision-making, military action, and public perception, aligning military strategy closely with political goals and societal values.
However, this evolving landscape also presents challenges. The military faces a sexual assault crisis that threatens the entire premise of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Domestic extremist groups in the United States seek to undermine democratic processes and encourage political violence. Cyber capabilities threaten not only military targets but also civilian infrastructure and intellectual property, while space assets can be held hostage by foreign anti-satellite capabilities, affecting GPS used by both military and civilians, and the global banking and investment system.
Moreover, the eroding civilian control, partisanship, extremism, recruiting challenges, and more have drawn notice from the broader national security community. The current hyperpartisan and polarized domestic environment means that military leaders today must walk an increasingly fine line to avoid becoming involved in domestic political fights. The insurrection on January 6 further polarized the force, as military leaders struggle with how to frame and address the events when some veterans openly express sympathy for those who stormed the Capitol building.
In this series, we recognise the need for new thinking about civil-military relations in the United States and offer solutions and ways ahead to ensure a healthy civil-military relationship that supports good strategy in the 21st century. The military's evolving technological edge supports broader government policy aims but also raises questions about transparency, governance, and civil-military boundaries in American society. Healthy civil-military relations and trust between civilian society and the U.S. military are critical to successfully navigating the coming tensions and legitimately maintaining the military's obligations to defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.
This article is part of a series called "Rethinking Civ-Mil" that discusses expert commentary on civil-military relations in the United States. The civil-military norms of respecting civilian control of the military and internalizing professional military ethics, including a nonpartisan identity, are eroding. These actions privilege military voices above those belonging to other citizens, potentially hindering the development of a holistic and balanced national strategy. Modern challenges that blur the lines between military and civilian targets require political and military leaders to work in close consultation and significant levels of trust.
During the 2020 presidential election, retired military officers increasingly endorsed political candidates. The Trump and Biden campaigns both advertised endorsement lists that heavily featured retired military members. The current hyperpartisan and polarized domestic environment also means that military leaders today must walk an increasingly fine line to avoid becoming involved in domestic political fights. The lack of trust between the public and political elite will reduce the government's ability to engage in iterative strategy making, particularly as military operations have far-reaching effects.
Right-wing militia groups actively recruit members from the military's ranks. The insurrection on January 6 revealed the presence of organized domestic actors that pose a threat to US democracy and national security. During the midterm elections last November, the number of congressional candidates who touted their military service expanded dramatically.
In conclusion, the military's evolving technological edge supports broader government policy aims but also raises questions about transparency, governance, and civil-military boundaries in American society. Modern warfare will require strategists to understand and account for the vulnerabilities introduced by domains and technologies that affect both civilian and military power. The military faces a sexual assault crisis that threatens the entire premise of the Uniformed Code of Military Justice. Domestic threats to democratic political processes require intense coordination between civilian law enforcement and National Guard leaders.
President Trump's administration saw military leaders routinely seeking to mitigate presidential directives and messaging that threatened alliance relationships. These challenges underscore the need for a reevaluation of civil-military relations in the United States and a commitment to maintaining a healthy civil-military relationship that supports good strategy in the 21st century.
- In the contemporary era, advancements in technology and the emergence of new domains have significantly altered civil-military relations, influencing defense policy, military education, and military operations.
- The U.S. government's focus on Artificial Intelligence (AI) research and deployment within the Department of Defense (DoD) is a key development, involving the integration of AI curriculum into military education and fostering ethical frameworks.
- Domestic use of military forces, particularly the National Guard, is a reflection of the tension between federal and state authorities, showcasing increased scrutiny and complexity in the military-society relationship.
- The national security consensus has led to a more interventionist foreign policy, aligning military strategy closely with political goals and societal values, but also presents challenges such as the sexual assault crisis and the threat of domestic extremist groups.
- The military's technological edge raises questions about transparency, governance, and civil-military boundaries in American society, as well as recruiting challenges and the eroding civilian control.
- Modern warfare requires strategists to understand and account for the vulnerabilities introduced by domains and technologies that affect both civilian and military power.
- Domestic threats to democratic political processes require intense coordination between civilian law enforcement and National Guard leaders, and the current hyperpartisan domestic environment means that military leaders must navigate a fine line to avoid political involvement.
