PS430: DEMOCRACY AND THE MILITARY:
ISSUES IN U.S. CIVIL MILITARY RELATIONS
M/W, 130-320, Parrington 112
NOTE CHANGES BELOW DUE TO SNOW DAY
firstname.lastname@example.org; office hrs: Mon, 330-500, Gowen 129
Protecting a democracy from foreign threats can demand the creation of a powerful military. Yet the creation of a powerful military can undermine the democracy that the military is designed to protect. How do, and how should, democracies manage the relationship between the civilians and the military? In exploring civilian and military perspectives, this course addresses issues in U.S. civil-military relations such as the draft versus an all-volunteer force, and the “revolt of the generals” during the war in Iraq. The course also examines issues of race, gender, and sexual orientation in the military. We will focus on U.S. civil-military relations, but students can use their papers to explore civil-military relations in other democracies.
The articles & book chapters are on the website.
The books are on reserve at Odegaard and can be purchased at the University Bookstore:
- Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957.
- Sherie Mershon & Steven Schlossman, Foxholes and Color Lines: Desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998.
- Lorry Fenner & Marie deYoung, Women in Combat: Civic Duty or Military Liability?, Washington, D.C.: Georgetown University Press, 2001.
Daily reading of the New York Times is required. For the print version at the reduced college rate, stop by or call the By George Newsstand 206.543.4087. This rate also provides unlimited digital access. For digital subscriptions at the reduced college rate, see NYTimes.com/UWashington.
Two research proposals and a research paper (25%); two exams (25% each); and class participation (25%). Students are expected to come to class prepared to discuss the newspaper, readings, and discussion questions. They will also regularly give presentations on the readings.
Exams must be taken on the scheduled date. To avoid sanction for missed exams or late papers, students must submit a written note from a physician (or another recognized authority). Note penalties for late papers on the next page of the syllabus. Students must complete all requirements to pass the course.
Contact Disability Resources for Students: 448 Schmitz Hall, 543-8924 (voice), 543-8925 (TTY), 616-8379 (fax), email@example.com to request accommodation. With a letter from their office, we can easily arrange accommodations.
For additional departmental policies see: http://www.polisci.washington.edu/Dept_and_Univ_Policies.pdf
Syllabus is available here
Reading assignments are available here
Reading questions are available here
This course focuses on U.S. civil military relations but there are many issues that we do not discuss, and other democracies grapple with similar questions. The paper provides an opportunity to explore one of these additional issues. It can focus on the United States or other democracies.
Choosing a topic
You have lots of flexibility in choosing a topic. We will discuss it in class and I will often suggest topics. Here are some possible topics:
- Why did the Israeli Defense Forces quickly accept the open integration of gays and lesbians in the early 1990s while the U.S. military actively and successfully resisted this change in 1993?
- Compare the informal influence (Huntington’s term) of the British and U.S. military. Discuss the implications of these findings for civil military relations in each democracy.
- Does military service (combat and non combat) influence legislators’ voting records on the use of force and the defense budget?
- Compare President Lincoln’s conflict with General George McClennan with President Truman’s conflict with General Douglas MacArthur.
The paper assignment requires significant research (it is not an opinion piece). I encourage you to consult the Suzzallo reference librarians for help in locating sources. You can email Emily Keller (firstname.lastname@example.org), the political science librarian, for an appointment. She can introduce you to or refresh your knowledge of search engines and help you locate sources on your topic. You are expected to cite 10-12 sources; no more than 15% can be websites.
Your paper must be well written and carefully edited (and will be assessed on both content and style). An indispensable guide to writing is Strunk & White’s, Elements of Style. You can also consult the PoliSci Writing Center. http://depts.washington.edu/pswrite/ If you are uncertain about the meaning of plagiarism and how to avoid it, see http://depts.washington.edu/pswrite/plag.html
Papers should be 10-12 pages (2500–3000 words, not including bibliography). Put word count on first page. Include citations and a bibliography and consult stylebooks to insure that you use the correct format. http://guides.lib.washington.edu/content.php?pid=69943&sid=517698
Paper proposals should be emailed (using your UW email address) to the course listserve. Late proposals will not be accepted and will result in a .5 deduction from the paper grade.
- Paper proposal due by 2pm on Feb 7.
- Revised paper proposal due by 2pm on Feb 26.
- Final paper due by 9AM, March 15. Late papers lose .5 pts for each day, e.g. a 4.0 becomes a 3.5.
Wed, January 4: Introduction
Richard H. Kohn, “The Constitution & National Security: The Intent of the Framers,” in The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, edited by Richard H. Kohn, NYU Press, 1991.
Mon, January 9: The Rise of a Professional Military, Part 1: Samuel Huntington
*Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State, Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1957, pp. 7-97.
Wed, January 11: The Rise of a Professional Military, Part 2: Morris Janowitz
Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier, Free Press, 1971, pp. 3-74 (skim pp. 54-74), 417-40.
Peter Maass, “Professor Nagl’s War,” New York Times Magazine, Jan 11, 2004.
Mon, January 16: NO class: Martin Luther King, Jr. Day
Wed, January 18: The Cold War: Decisions about the Use of Force
(review Huntington, The Soldier & the State, pp. 59-70)
Richard Betts, Soldiers, Statesmen, & Cold War Crises, Harvard Univ. Press, 1977, 1-15, 96-138, 214-224.
Mon, January 23: Huntington’s Objective Control & Decisions about the Use of Force
(review Betts’s two forms of influence, direct and indirect)
Eliot Cohen, “The Unequal Dialogue: the theory & reality of civil-military relations,” in Soldiers &
Civilians: the civil-military gap, edited by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, MIT Press, 2001.
Bob Woodward, excerpts from “Military thwarted president seeking choice in Afghanistan,” Washington Post, Sept 27, 2010) and Rajiv Chandrasekaran, “Within Obama’s war cabinet, a looming battle over pace of Afghanistan drawdown,” Washington Post, March 30, 2011.
Robert Scales, “A war the Pentagon doesn’t want,” Washington Post, Sept 6, 2013; & David Barno, “U.S. war decisions rightfully belong to elected civilian leaders, not the military,” Washington Post, Sept 13, 2013.
Wed, January 25: U.S. Military Crises in the 1980s & 1990s: “Reluctant Warriors”?
Deborah Avant, “Are the Reluctant Warriors out of Control,” Security Studies (winter 1996/97): 51-90.
Kenneth J. Campbell, “Once Burned, Twice Cautious: Explaining the Weinberger-Powell Doctrine,” Armed Forces and Society (spring 1998): 357-374.
Mon, January 30: Military Service: the Draft or an All-Volunteer Force?
“The Debate,” and “Conscription in America,” from The Report of the President’s Commission on an All Volunteer Armed Force, Macmillan Company, 1970, pp. 11-19, 156-164.
William H. McNeill, “The Draft in the Light of History,” in The Draft: A Handbook of Facts and Alternatives, edited by Sol Tax, University of Chicago Press, 1967, pp. 117-121.
Edward M. Kennedy, “Inequities in the Draft,” New York Times, February 24, 1971.
Joseph A. Califano, Jr., “Doubts about an All-Volunteer Army,” reply by Roger T. Kelley, The New Republic (March 3, 1973); and Califano’s rejoinder, The New Republic (April 21, 1973).
John M. Swomley, “Why the Draft Should Go,” The Nation (July 11, 1969).
Thomas B. Curtis, “The Draft; Unjust and Unnecessary,” The Forensic Quarterly (May 1968).
Richard M. Nixon, “The All-Volunteer Armed Force,” in The Military Draft, edited by Martin Anderson, Stanford, Calif.: Hoover Institution Press, 1982, pp. 603-609.
Milton Friedman, “Why Not a Volunteer Army?” New Individualist (spring 1967): 3-9.
Charles B. Rangel, The US military is as unequal as America. Want a fair fight? Reinstate the draft, The Guardian, Sept 30, 2014.
David Barno, “A New Moral Compact: A military draft that could actually work,” Foreign Policy, Nov 9, 2012.
Wed, February 1: Post-Cold War: A Crisis in Civil-Military Relations?
Richard Kohn, “Out of Control,” The National Interest (spring 1994): 3-17.
Exchange on Civil Military Relations with Colin Powell, John Lehman, William Odom, Samuel Huntington and Richard Kohn, The National Interest (summer 1994): 23-31.
Edward Luttwak, “Washington’s Biggest Scandal,” Commentary (May 1994): 29-33.
Daniel Rabil, “Impeach my commander in chief,” Washington Times, November 9, 1998.
Lt. Cdr. Bryan McGrath, “Injecting the military into politics,” Washington Times, November 13, 1998.
Sharon K. Weiner, “Military Advice for Political Purpose,” in Mission Creep: the Militarization of U.S. Foreign Policy, edited by Gordon Adams and Shoon Murray, Georgetown University Press, 2014.
Mon, February 6: SNOW DAY
Wed, February 8: First exam.
Note location: Political Science Computer room, Smith 220
Mon, February 13: Small group discussion of research proposal
We will meet in Gowen 1b. Check your email for the time of your meeting.
Use your UW email to send your proposal to the course listserve by 2 pm on Feb 7 (the day prior to class). The proposal (150-250 words) is meant as a first-cut at a possible topic. It should be well-written but does not need to be well-developed. It should state your puzzle. Or, if uncertain what you want to research, briefly discuss two or three topics. Group members will read and discuss each other’s proposals.
Wed, February 15: Rumsfeld & Iraq: “The Revolt of the Generals”
Richard H. Kohn, “The Erosion of Civilian Control of the Military in the United States Today,” Naval War College Review (summer 2002): 9-37.
MacKubin Thomas Owens, “Rumsfeld, the Generals, and the State of U.S. Civil-military Relations,” Naval War College Review (autumn 2006).
Peter Spiegel, “President comes to the defense of Rumsfeld,” Los Angeles Times, April 15, 2006.
Scott Shane, “A Break with military tradition,” Star Tribune (Minneapolis) April 16, 2006.
Dean Godsen, “Why America’s generals are out for revenge,” Times (London), April 4, 2006.
E.J. Dionne, Jr. “Roots of the uprising,” Washington Post, April 18, 2006.
Max Boot, “A General disgrace,” Los Angeles Times, April 19, 2006.
Mon, February 20: No Class: Presidents’ Day
Wed, February 22: Civilians & the Military: A Dangerous and Widening Gap?
Thomas E. Ricks, “The Widening Gap between the U.S. Military and U.S. Society,” The Atlantic Monthly (July 1997): 66-78.
Ole R. Holsti, “Of Chasms & Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilians and Military Elites,” in Soldiers and Civilians: the civil-military gap & American national security, edited by Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, MIT Press, 2001, 15-63 & 90-99.
Diane H. Mazur, “The R.O.T.C. Myth,” NYT (Opinions) Oct 24, 2010.
Thomas E. Ricks, “Why We Should Get Rid of West Point,” Washington Post (Opinions) April 19, 2009.
Phillip Carter and David Barno, “Military bases are our most exclusive gated communities — and that hurts veterans, “ NYT (Opinions), Nov 8, 2013.
Mon, February 27: Small group discussion of research paper
Use your UW email to send your revised proposal to the class listserve by 2pm on Sunday, Feb 26 (the day prior to class). The proposal (250-350 words) should be well written and well developed. It should 1) specify your puzzle; 2) outline how you are addressing it; 3) survey the evidence you have found; and 4) list 10-12 sources that you have or will consult. Group members will read and discuss each proposal.
Wed, March 1: Democratic Values: Race in the U.S. Military, Part I
*Sherie Mershon and Steven Schlossman, Foxholes and Color Lines: Desegregating the U.S. Armed Forces, Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998, pp. 1-134.
Mon, March 6: Democratic Values: Open integration of gays & lesbians in the U.S. Military
Maj. Arthur J. Corbett, “Disband the Marine Corps,” Marine Corps Gazette (January 1993).
Lt. Col. Michael R. Lehnert, “The Homosexual Assault: A Clash of Values, Marine Corps Gazette (June 1993.
Capt Mark Cantrell, “No Place for Homosexuals,” Marine Corps Gazette (April 1993): 65-73.
Cmdr Eugene Gomulka, “Why No Gays,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (December 1992): 44-46.
Capt. J. F. Kelly, “A Right to Serve?” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (May 1993): 81-84.
Maj. W. DeCamp, “Standing Up for Truth,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (September 1993): 89-90.
Maj. M. Slater, “Losing the Next War,” U.S. Naval Institute Proceedings (November 1993): 46-49.
Merrill A. McPeak, “Don't Ask, Don't Tell, Don't Change,” New York Times, March 5, 2010.
Brent Staples, “Tinkering at the Margins of Anti-Gay Bigotry,” New York Times, November 8, 1999.
Aaron Belkin, “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell: Is the Gay Ban Based on Military Necessity?” Parameters: The U.S. Army War College Quarterly (summer 2003): 108-18.
Barry Goldwater, “Ban on Gays is Attempt to Stall the Inevitable,” Washington Post, January 6, 1999.
Alan K. Simpson, “Bigotry that hurts our military,” Washington Post, March 14, 2007.
Wed, March 8: Democratic Values: Women in Combat in the U.S. Military
*Lorry Fenner & Marie deYoung, Women in Combat: Civic Duty or Military Liability?, Georgetown University Press, 2001.
Lizette Alvarez, “G.I. Jane Stealthily Breaks the Combat Barrier, New York Times, August 16, 2009.
Mon, March 13, 230-420: Second exam.
Note location: PoliSci Computer room, Smith 220.
Wed, March 15, 9am: Research papers due.
Note instructions on length, format, & sources.
Submit hard copy to Gowen 129 (slip under the door) & email as attached file to email@example.com