Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Struggling For Relevance

  • Chapter
The American Military After 9/11

Part of the book series: The Day that Changed Everything? ((911))

  • 78 Accesses

Abstract

THE STUDY OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS HAS INTERESTED THINKERS in several disciplines, including political science, sociology, and history. Different writers have defined the problem of civil-military relations in different ways, but it ultimately boils down to what Peter Feaver called the “civil-military problematique.”1 The problematique is a tradeoff between military effectiveness and military subordination. The military is a violent institution designed by society to protect itself; the dilemma arises because society needs a military strong enough to provide protection but not so strong that it will violate its trust and bring violence to the society it is supposed to protect. Deborah Avant has called this the balance between efficiency and accountability.2

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Notes

  1. Peter D. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control,” Armed Forces & Society 23, no. 2 (Winter 1996): 149–78.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Deborah Avant, “Conflicting Indicators of ‘Crisis’ in American Civil-Military Relations,” Armed Forces & Society 24, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 375–88.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Alfred Vagts, A History of Militarism: A Romance and Realities of the Profession (New York: Norton, 1937). Note that the author published revisions of his work in 1967 (Free Press) and 1981 (Greenwood). See also Harold D. Lasswell, “The Garrison State,” American Journal of Sociology 46 (January 1941): 455–68.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Harold D. Lasswell, National Security and Individual Freedom (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1950); C. Wright Mills, The Power Elite (New York: Oxford University Press, 1956); J. G. Kerwin, Civil-Military Relationships in American Life (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1948); Walter Millis, with eds. Harvey C. Mansfield and Harold Stein, Arms and the State: Civil-Military Elements in National Policy (New York: Twentieth Century Fund, 1958).

    Google Scholar 

  5. Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University, 1957).

    Google Scholar 

  6. Samuel P. Huntington, “The Soldier and the State in the 1970s,” in Civil-Military Relations, eds. Andrew W. Goodpaster and Samuel P. Huntington, 5–28, see 11–13 (Washington, DC: American Enterprise Institute, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  7. Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (Glencoe, IL: Free Press, 1960).

    Google Scholar 

  8. Jerald G. Bachman, John D. Blair, and David R. Segal, The All-Volunteer Force: A Study of Ideology in the Military (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1977); Charles C. Moskos, Jr., The American Enlisted Man: The Rank and File in Today’s Military (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1970); Charles C. Moskos, Jr., ed., Public Opinion and the Military Establishment (Beverly Hills: SAGE, 1971); Charles C. Moskos, Jr., “From Institution to Occupation: Trends in the Military Organization,” Armed Forces & Society 4, no.1 (1977): 41–50; Sam C. Sarkesian, The Professional Army Officer in a Changing Society (Chicago: Nelson-Hall, 1975); David R. Segal, “Civil-Military Relations in the Mass Public,” Armed Forces & Society 1 (1975): 215–29.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Richard H. Kohn, “Out of Control: The Crisis in Civil-Military Relations,” National Interest 35 (Spring 1994): 3–17.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Peter D. Feaver, Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2003); Peter D. Feaver, “Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil-Military Relations,” Armed Forces & Society 24, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 407–34.

    Google Scholar 

  11. Michael C. Desch, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1999); Michael C. Desch, “Soldiers, States, and Structures: The End of the Cold War and Weakening U.S. Civilian Control,” Armed Forces & Society 24, no. 3 (Spring 1998): 389–406.

    Google Scholar 

  12. Nicole E. Jaeger, “Maybe Soldiers Have Rights After All!” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 87, no. 3 (1997): 895–931.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Scribner, 1997); Ole R. Holsti, “A Widening Gap Between the U.S. Military and Civilian Society? Some Evidence, 1976–96,” International Security 23, no. 3 (Winter 1998–99): 5–42; Peter Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control,” Armed Forces & Society 23, no. 2 (Winter 1996): 149–78; William T. Bianco and Jamie Markham, “Vanishing Veterans: The Decline in Military Experience in the U.S. House,” in Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap andAmerican National Security, eds. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, 275–88 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Quoted in Ricks, Making the Corps, 291.

    Google Scholar 

  15. James Burk, “The Military’s Presence in American Society, 1950–2000,” in Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security, eds. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, 247–74 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  16. Robert L. Maginnis, “Filling the Ranks,” policy paper for the Military Readiness Project (Washington, DC: Family Research Council, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  17. Don M. Snider, John A. Nagl, and Tony Pfaff, Army Professionalism, the Military Ethic, and Officership in the 21st Century (Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, December 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  18. Charles C. Moskos, “Short-Term Soldiers,” Washington Post (March 8, 1999): A19.

    Google Scholar 

  19. Barbara McGann, “We’re Recruiting Another Great Generation,” United States Naval Institute Proceedings 125, no. 4 (April 1999): 6–8.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Beth J. Asch, Rebecca M. Kilburn, and Jacob A. Klerman, Attracting College-Bound Youth Into the Military: Toward the Development of New Recruiting Policy Options (MR-984-OSD) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  21. General Accounting Office, Military Personnel: Services Need to Assess Efforts to Meet Recruiting Goals and Cut Attrition (GAO/NSIAD-00–146) (Washington, DC: GAO, June 2000), see 3, 6, and 29.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Lola M. Zook, Soldier Selection: Past, Present, and Future (ARI-SR-28) (Alexandria, VA: United States Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1996); Keith B. Hauk and Greg H. Parlier, “Recruiting: Crisis and Cures,” Military Review 80, no. 3 (May/June 2000): 73–80.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Bruce R. Orvis, Narayan Sastry, and Laurie L. McDonald, Military Recruiting Outlook: Recent Trends in Enlistment Propensity and Conversion of Potential Enlisted Supply (MR-677-A/OSD) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1996); Carole Oken and Beth J. Asch, Encouraging Recruiter Achievement: A Recent History of Military Recruiter Incentive Programs (MR-845-OSD/A) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1997); Beth J. Asch and Bruce R. Orvis, Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications (MR-549-A/OSD) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1994).

    Google Scholar 

  24. David Segal, Organizational Designs for the Future Army (ARI Special Report 20) (Alexandria, VA: U.S. Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  25. Andrew Bacevich, “Who Will Serve?” Wilson Quarterly 22, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 80–91.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Michael Murray and Laurie L. McDonald, Recent Recruiting Trends and Their Implications for Models of Enlistment Supply (MR-847-OSD/A) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1999), 12.

    Google Scholar 

  27. Jerald G. Bachman, Lee Sigelman, and Greg Diamond, “Self-selection, Socialization, and Distinctive Military Values: Attitudes of High School Seniors,” Armed Forces & Society 13, no. 2 (Winter 1987): 169–87, see 169–70; John Hillen, “Must Military Culture Reform?” Parameters 29, no. 3 (Autumn 1999): 9–23.

    Google Scholar 

  28. General John Shalikashvili, quoted in “Fewer Vets in Political Posts,” Navy Times (January 11, 1999); Thomas E. Ricks, Making the Corps (New York: Scribner, 1997), 274.

    Google Scholar 

  29. John Hillen, “They’ll Leave the Farm Once They’ve Seen Parris,” American Enterprise (May/June 1998): 82–83.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Charles J. Dunlap, Jr., “The Origins of the American Military Coup of 2012,” Parameters (Winter 1992–93): 5.

    Google Scholar 

  31. James Burk, “Thinking Through the End of the Cold War,” in The Adaptive Military: Armed Forces in a Turbulent World, ed. James Burk, 25–48 (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998), 45.

    Google Scholar 

  32. Krista E. Wiegard and David L. Paletz, “The Elite Media and the Military-Civilian Culture Gap,” Armed Forces & Society 27, no. 2 (Winter, 2001): 183–204.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Charles C. Moskos and James Burk, “The Postmodern Military,” in The Adaptive Military: Armed Forces in a Turbulent World, ed. James Burk (New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction, 1998), 163–82.

    Google Scholar 

  34. Bacevich, “Who Will Serve?” 89.

    Google Scholar 

  35. James Kitfield, “Standing Apart,” National Journal (June 13, 1998): 1350–58.

    Google Scholar 

  36. Martha Bayles, “Portraits of Mars,” Wilson Quarterly 27, no. 3 (Summer 2003): 12–19.

    Google Scholar 

  37. Howard Harper, “The Military and Society: Reaching and Reflecting Audiences in Fiction and Film,” Armed Forces & Society 27, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 231–48.

    Google Scholar 

  38. Howard Harper, “Reaching and Reflecting Audiences in Fiction and Film,” unpublished paper prepared for the Triangle Institute for Security Studies Project “Bridging the Gap: Assuring Military Effectiveness When Military Culture Diverges from Civilian Society,” (July 1999), 58. (A later version of this paper was published in Armed Forces & Society as cited above, but the quotation cited here was omitted from that version of the manuscript.)

    Google Scholar 

  39. See Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky, Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (New York: Pantheon, 1988).

    Google Scholar 

  40. Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (New York: Free Press, 1960); Morris Janowitz, The Last Half-Century (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 237–40.

    Google Scholar 

  41. William G. Mayer, The Changing American Mind (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  42. Peter Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique.”

    Google Scholar 

  43. Ole R. Holsti, “Of Chasms and Convergences: Attitudes and Beliefs of Civilian Elites at the Start of a New Millenium,” in Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security, eds. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, 15–100 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  44. Ibid.

    Google Scholar 

  45. William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: American Society at the End of the 20th Century (New York: Broadway Books, 1999). See also Francis Fukuyama, “The Great Disruption,” Atlantic Monthly 283, no. 5 (May 1999): 55–73; Robert Hughes, Culture of Complaint (New York: Warner Books, 1993); Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah (New York: HarperCollins, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  46. David Segal, “Personnel,” in J. Kruzel, ed., American Defense Annual: 1986–1987 (Lexington: D.C. Heath, 1986), 139–52.

    Google Scholar 

  47. Dave Moniz, “Why Teens Balk at Joining Military,” Christian Science Monitor 25 (February 1999): 1.

    Google Scholar 

  48. Christopher Dandeker, “A Farewell to Arms? The Military and the Nation-State in a Changing World,” in The Adaptive Military: Armed Forces in a Turbulent World, ed. James Burk, 139–62, see 143 (New Brunswick: Transaction, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  49. Melvin L. Kohn and Carmi Schooler, Work and Personality: An Inquiry into the Impact of Social Stratification (Norwood: Ablex, 1983).

    Google Scholar 

  50. Jacques Van Doom, “The Decline of the Mass Army in the West: General Reflections,” Armed Forces & Society 1, no. 2 (Winter 1975): 147–57, see 149.

    Google Scholar 

  51. See Russell F. Weigley, “The Soldier, the Statesman, and the Military Historian: The Annual George C. Marshall Lecture in Military History,” Journal of Military History 63 (October 1999): 807–22.

    Google Scholar 

  52. John Lehman, “An Exchange on Civil-Military Relations,” National Interest 36 (Summer 1994): 23–25, see 24.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Elliot Abrams and Andrew J. Bacevich, “A Symposium on Citizenship and Military Service,” Parameters 31, no. 2 (Summer 2001): 18–22, see 19.

    Google Scholar 

  54. David Segal, Peter Freedman-Doan, Jerald G. Bachman, and Patrick M. O’Malley, “Attitudes of Entry-Level Military Personnel: Pro-Military and Politically Mainstreamed,” in Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security, eds. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, 163–212 (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  55. Charles C. Moskos, “The Marketplace All-Volunteer Force,” in The All Volunteer Force after a Decade, eds. William Bowman, Roger Little, and G. Thomas Sicilla (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey’s, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  56. Mackubin Thomas Owens, “American Society and the Military: Is There a Gap?” Providence Journal (March 27, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  57. See, for example, Mady Wechsler Segal and Amanda Faith Hansen, “Value Rationales in Policy Debates on Women in the Military: A Content Analysis of Congressional Testimony, 1941–1985,” Social Science Quarterly 73 (June 1992): 296–309; Jean Ebbert and Marie-Beth Hall, Crossed Currents: Navy Women from WWI to Tailhook (Washington, DC: Brassey’s, 1993); Margaret C. Harrell and Laura L. Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (MR-896-OSD) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  58. Nicole E. Jaeger, “Maybe Soldiers Have Rights After All!”

    Google Scholar 

  59. Huntington, The Soldier and the State.

    Google Scholar 

  60. Feaver, “The Civil-Military Problematique.”

    Google Scholar 

  61. Edgar H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership (New York: Jossey-Bass, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  62. Edgar H. Schein, “Organizational Culture,” American Psychologist 45, no. 2 (February 1990): 109–19, see 111.

    Google Scholar 

  63. Bernard M. Bass and Bruce J. Avolio, “Transformational Leadership and Organizational Culture,” Public Administration Quarterly 17, no. 1 (1993): 112–19, see 113.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, eds., Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  65. Williamson Murray, “Does Military Culture Matter?” Orbis 43, no. 1 (Winter 1999): 27–42, see 28.

    Google Scholar 

  66. See Department of the Army, Field Manual 1: The Army (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, June 14, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  67. James Kitfield, Prodigal Soldiers (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1995); John C. Bahnsen and Robert W. Cone, “Defining the American Warrior Leader,” Parameters 20 (December 1990): 24–28.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Mimi Finch, “Women in Combat: One Commissioner Reports,” Minerva 12, no. 1 (Spring 1994): 1–12, see 1.

    Google Scholar 

  69. John Keegan, A History of Warfare (New York: Knopf, 1993), 76.

    Google Scholar 

  70. Judith G. Oakley, “Gender-based Barriers to Senior Management Positions: Understanding the Scarcity of Female CEOs,” Journal of Business Ethics 27, no. 4 (2000): 321–34.

    Google Scholar 

  71. Kathy Ferguson, The Feminist Case Against Bureaucracy (Philadelphia: Temple University Press, 1984)

    Google Scholar 

  72. J. Wishnia, “Pacifism and Feminism in Historical Perspective,” in Genes and Gender: On Peace, Wars, and Gender, ed. A. E. Hunter (New York: Feminist Press at the City University of New York, 1991).

    Google Scholar 

  73. Robert B. Edgerton, Warrior Women: The Amazons of Dahomey and the Nature of War (Boulder, CO: Westview, 2000).

    Google Scholar 

  74. Jeane Holm, Women in the Military: An Unfinished Revolution (Novato, CA: Presidio, 1992); Kate Muir, Arms and the Woman (London: Sinclair-Stevenson, 1992); Patricia Schroeder, Testimony Before the Military Personnel and Compensation Subcommittee and the Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armed Services, House of Representatives (Washington, DC, July 29–30, 1992); David R. Segal, Presentation on Military Sociology (West Point, NY: November 19, 1999).

    Google Scholar 

  75. Holm, Women in the Military.

    Google Scholar 

  76. Martha A. Marsden, “The Continuing Debate: Women Soldiers in the U.S. Army,” in Life in the Rank and File, eds. David R. Segal and H. Wallace Sinaiko, 58–78 (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey, 1986).

    Google Scholar 

  77. Martin Binkin and Shirley J. Bach, Women and the Military (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  78. Mady Weschler Segal, David R. Segal, Jerald G. Bachman, Peter Freedman-Doan, and Patrick M. O’Malley, “Gender and the Propensity to Enlist in the U.S. Military,” Gender Issues 16, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 65–87, see 69.

    Google Scholar 

  79. Michael D. Matthews and Charles N. Weaver, “Demographic and Attitudinal Correlates of Women’s Role in the Military,” Proceedings, Psychology in the Department of Defense, 12th Symposium (USAFA TR 90–1) (Colorado Springs, CO: United States Air Force Academy, April 1990).

    Google Scholar 

  80. James Webb, “The War on Military Culture,” Weekly Standard (January 29, 1997): 17–22.

    Google Scholar 

  81. Mady W. Segal, Toward a Theory of Women in the Armed Forces: Applications to the Future, paper delivered at the meetings of the Research Committee on Armed Forces and Conflict Resolution of the International Sociological Association, Valparaiso, Chile (August 27–31, 1992); David R. Segal and Mady W. Segal, “Female Combatants in Canada: An Update,” Defense Analysis 5, no. 4 (December 1989): 372–73; S. C. Stanley and Mady W. Segal, “Women in the Armed Forces,” in International Military and Defense Encyclopedia (Washington, DC: Pergamon-Brassey, 1993), 2449–55.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Mady W. Segal, “Women’s Military Roles Cross-Nationally,” Gender & Society 9, no. 6 (December 1995): 757–75.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Lory M. Fenner, “Either You Need These Women or You Do Not: Informing the Debate on Military Service and Citizenship,” Gender Issues 16, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 5–32; Sarah E. Lister, “Gender and the CivilMilitary Gap,” United States Naval Institute Proceedings 126, no. 1 (January 2000): 50–54.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Jana L. Pershing, “Gender Disparities in Enforcing the Honor Concept at the U.S. Naval Academy,” Armed Forces & Society 27, no. 3 (Spring 2001): 419–42; Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation (New York: Basic Books, 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  85. John W. Bodnar, “How Long Does It Take to Change a Culture? Integration at the U.S. Naval Academy,” Armed Forces & Society 25, no. 2 (Winter 1999): 289–306; Charles C. Moskos and John S. Butler, All That We Can Be: Black Leadership and Racial Integration the Army Way (New York: Basic Books, 1996).

    Google Scholar 

  86. Paul T. Bartone and Robert F. Priest, Sex Differences in Hardiness and Health Among West Point Cadets, paper presented at the Thirteenth Annual Convention of the American Psychological Society, Toronto, Canada (June 13–17, 2001).

    Google Scholar 

  87. Salvatore R. Maddi and Suzanne C. Kobasa, Hardy Executive: Health Under Stress (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1984).

    Google Scholar 

  88. Robert F. Priest, Report on the 1998 USMA Gender Climate Survey: Men and Women (98–003) (West Point, NY: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, August 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  89. Ann R. Fisher and Glen E. Good, “Gender, Self, and Others: Perceptions of the Campus Environment,” Journal of Counseling Psychology 41, no. 3 (July 1994): 343–55.

    Google Scholar 

  90. Linda Bird Francke, Ground Zero: The Gender Wars in the Military (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  91. William L. O’Neill, “Sex Scandals in the Gender-Integrated Military,” Gender Issues 16, no. 1/2 (Winter 1998): 64–85.

    Google Scholar 

  92. Lois B. DeFleur and David Gillman, “Cadet Beliefs, Attitudes, and Interactions During the Early Phases of Sex Integration,” Youth and Society 10 (December 1978): 165–90; Robert F. Priest, Howard T. Prince, and Alan G. Vitters, “Performance and Attitudes in the First Coed Class at West Point,” Youth and Society 10 (December 1978): 205–24

    Google Scholar 

  93. Robert F. Priest, Howard T. Prince, T. Rhone and Alan G. Vitters, Differences Between Characteristics of Men and Women: New Cadets, Class of 1980 (77–010) (West Point, NY: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, March 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  94. Robert F. Priest and J. W. Houston, New Cadets and Other College Freshmen, Class of 1980 (West Point: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, March 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  95. J. W. Houston, New Cadets and Other College Freshmen, Class of 1981 (78–010) (West Point, NY: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, March 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  96. Margaret Harrell and Laura Miller, New Opportunities for Military Women: Effects upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale (MR-896-OSD) (Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  97. Stephanie Gutmann, “Sex and the Soldier,” New Republic (February 24, 1997): 18–22, see 18.

    Google Scholar 

  98. Martin Binkin, Who Will Fight the Next War? The Changing Face of the American Military (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1993).

    Google Scholar 

  99. Judith Hicks Stiehm, “Army Opinions about Women in the Army,” Gender Issues 16, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 88–98, see 88.

    Google Scholar 

  100. Cynthia Nantais and Martha Lee Nantais, “Women in the United States Military: Protectors or Protected? The Case of Prisoner of War Melissa Rathbun-Nealy,” Journal of Gender Studies 8, no. 2 (July 1999): 181–91.

    Google Scholar 

  101. Michael D. Matthews, “Women in the Military: Comparison of Attitudes and Knowledge of Service Academy Cadets Versus Private College Students,” Proceedings, Thirteenth Symposium of Psychology in the Department of Defense (USAFA TR 92–2) (Colorado Springs, CO: United States Air Force Academy, April 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Don M. Snider, Robert F. Priest, and Felisa Lewis, “The Civilian-Military Gap and Professional Military Education at the Precommissioning Level,” Armed Forces & Society 27, no. 2 (Winter 2001): 249–72.

    Google Scholar 

  103. Jerry C. Scarpate and Mary Anne O’Neill, Evaluation of Gender Integration at Recruit Training Command, Orlando Naval Training Center, Orlando, Florida (Patrick Air Force Base: Defense Equal Opportunity Management Institute, Division of Policy Planning Research, 1992).

    Google Scholar 

  104. Jacqueline A. Mottern, David A. Foster, Elizabeth J. Brady, and Joanne Marshall-Mies Gender Integration of Basic Combat Training Study (ARI Study Report 97–01) (Alexandria, VA: US Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, 1997), 4.

    Google Scholar 

  105. Ibid., v, viii, ix, 27, 30.

    Google Scholar 

  106. Robert M. Bray, Carol S. Camlin, John A. Fairbank, George H. Dunteman, Sara C. Wheeless, “The Effects of Stress on Job Functioning of Military Men and Women,” Armed Forces & Society 27, no. 3 (Spring 2001): 397–417.

    Google Scholar 

  107. Binkin, Who Will Fight the Next War?

    Google Scholar 

  108. Schroeder, Testimony, 73.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Laura L. Miller, “Feminism and the Exclusion of Army Women from Combat,” Gender Issues 16, no. 3 (Summer 1998): 33–64.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Mady W. Segal, “The Argument for Female Combatants,” in Female Soldiers: Combatants or Noncombatants? ed. N. L. Goldman, 271 (Westport, CT: Greenwood, 1982).

    Google Scholar 

  111. Binkin, Who Will Fight the Next War? 30.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces, Report to the President (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, November 15, 1992), 9.

    Google Scholar 

  113. Ibid., 13.

    Google Scholar 

  114. Everett Harman, Peter Frykman, Christopher Palmer, Eric Lammi, and Katy Reynolds, Effects of a Specifically Designed Physical Conditioning Program on the Load Carriage and Lifting Performance of Female Soldiers (T98–1) (Natick, MA: U.S. Army Research Institute of Environmental Medicine, November 1997).

    Google Scholar 

  115. Laura Fraser, “Don’t Eat, Don’t Tell,” Self (October 1999): 200–203; T. D. Lauder and C. S. Campbell, “Abnormal Eating Behaviors in Female Reserve Officer Training Corps Cadets,” Military Medicine 166, no. 3 (March 2001): 264–68; A. F. McNulty, “Prevalence and Contributing Factors of Eating Disorder Behaviors in Active Duty Service Women in the Army, Navy, Air Force, and Marines,” Military Medicine 166, no. 1 (January 2001): 53–73.

    Google Scholar 

  116. J. A. Peterson and D. M. Howal, Project 60: A Comparison of Two Types of Physical Training Programs on the Performance of 16–18 Year-old Women (West Point, NY: Office of Physical Education, May 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  117. United States Military Academy, Operations Plan 75–1: Admission of Women Cadets (West Point, NY: author, 1975), A-II-1.

    Google Scholar 

  118. Alan G. Vitters and Nora Scott Kinzer, Report of the Admission of Women to the United States Military Academy (Project Athena I) (West Point, NY: United States Military Academy, September 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Robert W. Stauffer, Project Summertime (West Point, NY: United States Military Academy, March 1976).

    Google Scholar 

  120. Alan G. Vitters, Report of the Admission of Women to the United States Military Academy (Project Athena II) (West Point, NY: United States Military Academy, June 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  121. William P. Burke, Robert F. Priest, and Jodi Craigie, Evaluation of Cadet Field Training 1997 (98–001) (West Point: Office of Institutional Research, March 1998); Robert F. Priest, Interviews with Men and Women Yearlings, Class of 1992 (West Point: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, 1989).

    Google Scholar 

  122. Robert F. Priest, The Intergroup Contact Hypothesis as Applied to Women at West Point (77–015) (West Point, NY: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, June 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  123. Patrick Toffler, Testimony, United States v. Virginia Military Institute, et al, United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, Roanoke Division, (April 8, 1991), 539.

    Google Scholar 

  124. Robert W. Rice, Lisa S. Richet, and Alan G. Vitters, The Impact of Male and Female Leaders on the Group Performance, Morale, and Perceptions of West Point Cadets (ARI Technical Report 404) (Alexandria, VA: Army Research Institute for the Behavioral and Social Sciences, October 1977).

    Google Scholar 

  125. Robert W. Rice, L.W. Bender, and Alan G. Vitters, “Leader Sex, Follower Attitudes Toward Women, and Leader Effectiveness: A Laboratory Experiment,” Organizational Behavior and Human Performance 25 (February 1980): 46–78; Rice, Richet, and Vitters, The Impact of Male and Female Leaders.

    Google Scholar 

  126. Martin M. Chemers, C. B. Watson, and S. T. May, “Dispositional Affect and Leadership Effectiveness: A Comparison of Self-Esteem, Optimism, and Efficacy,” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 26, no. 3 (March 2000): 267–77.

    Google Scholar 

  127. J. Adams, Report of the Admission of Women to the United States Military Academy (Project Athena IV) (West Point, NY: United States Military Academy, June 1980).

    Google Scholar 

  128. Victor H. Vroom, Work and Motivation (New York: Wiley French, 1964); John R. P. French, Jr. and Bertram Raven, “The Bases of Social Power,” in Studies in Social Power, ed. D. Cartwright, 150–67 (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Institute for Social Research, 1959); Toni Falbo, “Multidimensional Scaling of Power Strategies,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 35 (1977): 537–47.

    Google Scholar 

  129. Rosabeth Moss Kanter, Men and Women of the Corporation; Kay Deaux, The Behavior of Women and Men (New York: Wadsworth, 1978).

    Google Scholar 

  130. J. Adams, Howard T. Prince, Robert F. Priest, and R. W. Rice, “Personality Characteristics of Male and Female Leaders at the U.S. Military Academy,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology 8, no. 1 (1980): 99–105.

    Google Scholar 

  131. Andre H. Sayles, On Diversity (Army Issues Paper 1) (Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College Strategic Studies Institute, 1998).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Rosemary C. Salomone, “The VMI Case: Affirmation of Equal Educational Opportunity for Women,” Trial 32, no. 10 (October 1996): 67–70.

    Google Scholar 

  133. Robert F. Priest, Content of Cadet Comments on the Integration of Women (77–017) (West Point, NY: Office of the Director of Institutional Research, August 1977).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Matthew J. Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2008 Matthew J. Morgan

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Morgan, M.J. (2008). Struggling For Relevance. In: The American Military After 9/11. The Day that Changed Everything?. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230610156_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation