Readings Newsletter
Become a Readings Member to make your shopping experience even easier.
Sign in or sign up for free!
You’re not far away from qualifying for FREE standard shipping within Australia
You’ve qualified for FREE standard shipping within Australia
The cart is loading…
This study seeks to understand the influence of U.S. military reform on U.S. civil-military relations functioning within a zone of cooperation or conflict between political and military realms during times of war. It seeks to demonstrate how various efforts at organizational military reform have influenced the structural relations between the president and his senior military leaders, and how these structural reforms were not always designed to prevent civil-military relations from functioning in the zone of conflict. The conflict that structural reforms cannot prevent is typically based on policy differences between a president and his senior military commanders during times of war. The conflict is inherent in the nature of war as a political instrument. It often leads to the removal of the senior military commander due to a disconnect between the political objectives the president desires, and the military strategy designed to achieve those objectives. The national security structure established by reform does not guarantee cooperation, nor has it consistently prevented conflict in civil-military relations. Although military reform establishes the framework for key actors to function, it has not always been able to overcome the personalities of the individuals involved, or ensure policy agreements between the president and his senior military commander. The study uses a comparative case study methodology based on secondary sources to analyze the influence of national security structure on civil-military relations in the United States. It begins by outlining a broad theory of civil-military relations, and goes on to explain the national security structure at the time of three particular conflicts, the Civil War, the Korean War, and the Kosovo War. The three case studies selected for review are the Calhoun reform influences on President Abraham Lincoln and Major General George B. McClellan, the Root reform and National Security Act of 1947 influences on President H
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.
$9.00 standard shipping within Australia
FREE standard shipping within Australia for orders over $100.00
Express & International shipping calculated at checkout
This study seeks to understand the influence of U.S. military reform on U.S. civil-military relations functioning within a zone of cooperation or conflict between political and military realms during times of war. It seeks to demonstrate how various efforts at organizational military reform have influenced the structural relations between the president and his senior military leaders, and how these structural reforms were not always designed to prevent civil-military relations from functioning in the zone of conflict. The conflict that structural reforms cannot prevent is typically based on policy differences between a president and his senior military commanders during times of war. The conflict is inherent in the nature of war as a political instrument. It often leads to the removal of the senior military commander due to a disconnect between the political objectives the president desires, and the military strategy designed to achieve those objectives. The national security structure established by reform does not guarantee cooperation, nor has it consistently prevented conflict in civil-military relations. Although military reform establishes the framework for key actors to function, it has not always been able to overcome the personalities of the individuals involved, or ensure policy agreements between the president and his senior military commander. The study uses a comparative case study methodology based on secondary sources to analyze the influence of national security structure on civil-military relations in the United States. It begins by outlining a broad theory of civil-military relations, and goes on to explain the national security structure at the time of three particular conflicts, the Civil War, the Korean War, and the Kosovo War. The three case studies selected for review are the Calhoun reform influences on President Abraham Lincoln and Major General George B. McClellan, the Root reform and National Security Act of 1947 influences on President H
This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.
This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.
As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.