Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

American Civil-Military Relations

  • Chapter
The Soldier Vote

  • 211 Accesses

Abstract

The basic question underlying this book is: How have military personnel been treated when it comes to permitting them to vote, especially if they were in the field or otherwise deployed away from their home precincts? Related to that is the question of the relationship between Americans and their armed forces. The unevenness of that relationship speaks much to how elected officials have decided to resolve the issue of whether to grant service personnel the right to vote in absentia.

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
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
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. Samuel P. Huntington. 1957. The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press;

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  3. Peter D. Feaver. 1996a. “The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control.” Armed Forces and Societ. 23(2): 149–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Peter D. Feaver. 1996b. “An American Crisis in Civilian Control and Civil-Military Relations?” The Tocqueville Revie. 17(1): 159–182.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Max Farrand. 1911. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. 4 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press 1:465.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Robert A. Pollard. 1985. Economic Security and the Origins of the Cold War, 1945–1950. New York: Columbia University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  7. John W. Chambers. 1987. To Raise an Army: The Draft Comes to Modern America. New York: Free Press;

    Google Scholar 

  8. George Q. Flynn. 2000. The Draft, 1940–1973. Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A classic among the warnings about militarization of society is Pearl S. Buck. 1949. “New Evidence of the Militarization of America.” National Council against Conscription. Other writing along the same line includes Fred J. Cook. 1962. The Warfare State. New York: Macmillan;

    Google Scholar 

  10. Irving Louis Horowitz. 1963. The War Game. New York: Ballentine Books;

    Google Scholar 

  11. Tristram Coffin. 1964. The Passion of the Hawks. New York: Macmillan;

    Google Scholar 

  12. John Swomley. 1964. The Military Establishment. Boston, MA: Beacon Press;

    Google Scholar 

  13. Erwin Knoll and Judith Nies McFadden. 1969. American Militarism 1970. New York: Viking Press;

    Google Scholar 

  14. and M. Vincent Hayes. 1973. “Is the Military Taking Over?” New Priorities: A Magazine for Activist. 1(4). London: Gordon and Breach, Science Publishers, Ltd.

    Google Scholar 

  15. C. Wright Mills. 1956. The Power Elite. Oxford: Oxford University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  16. C. Wright Mills. 1958. The Causes of World War III. New York: Simon and Schuster, Inc.

    Google Scholar 

  17. William T. R. Fox. 1961. “Representativeness and Efficiency: Dual Problem of Civil-Military Relations” Political Science Quarterl. 76(3): 354–366;

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. M. Vincent Hayes. 1973. “Is the Military Taking Over?”;

    Google Scholar 

  19. Peter Karsten. 1971. “ROTC, MyLai and the Volunteer Army.” Foreign Polic. 6 (Spring): 135–160.

    Google Scholar 

  20. Huntington. 1957. Soldier and the Stat., viii.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Huntington. 1957. Soldier and the Stat., 79, 92;

    Google Scholar 

  22. Feaver. 1996a. “Civil-Military Problematique,”159.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Feaver. 1996a. “Civil-Military Problematique.”

    Google Scholar 

  24. Huntington. 1957. Soldier and the Stat., 457.

    Google Scholar 

  25. Gene Lyons. 1961. “The New Civil-Military Relations.” American Political Science Revie. 55(1);

    Google Scholar 

  26. Irving Louis Horowitz. 1963. War Game.;

    Google Scholar 

  27. Harold Wool. 1968. The Military Specialist. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins Press;

    Google Scholar 

  28. Erwin Knoll and Judith Nies McFadden, eds. 1969. American Militarism 1970. New York: Viking Press;

    Google Scholar 

  29. M. Vincent Hayes. 1973. “Is the Military Taking Over?”

    Google Scholar 

  30. Morris Janowitz. 1960. Professional Soldie.;

    Google Scholar 

  31. Feaver. 1996a. “Civil-Military Problematique.”

    Google Scholar 

  32. Carl von Clausewitz. 1989. On War. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  33. Harry G. Summers. 1984. On Strategy: A Critical Analysis of the Vietnam War. New York: Dell Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  34. H. R. McMaster. 1997. Dereliction of Duty: Johnson, McNamara, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the Lies That Led to Vietnam. New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  35. Peter D. Feaver. 1996a. “Civil-Military Problematique.”

    Google Scholar 

  36. Peter D. Feaver. 2003. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  37. Peter D. Feaver. 1998. “Crisis as Shirking: An Agency Theory Explanation of the Souring of American Civil-Military Relations.” Armed Forces and Societ. 24(3): 407–434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. Feaver. 2003. Armed Servant.;

    Book  Google Scholar 

  39. Mackubin Thomas Owens. 2003. “Civilian Rumsfeld: Overseeing the Military.” National Review Online. http://www.nationalreview.com/owens/owens071703.asp. Accessed March 29, 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  40. Feaver, Peter D. 1998. “Crisis as Shirking.”

    Google Scholar 

  41. Alfred Vagts. 1937. A History of Militarism: A Romance and Realities of a Profession. New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 11–15.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Louis Smith. 1951. American Democracy and Military Power. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  43. Lindsay Cohn. 1999. “The Evolution of the Civil-Military ‘Gap’ Debate.” Paper prepared for the TISS project on the gap between the military and civilian society. http://tiss-nc.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/Cohn_Evolution-of-Gap-Debate-1999.pdf. Accessed March 2, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  44. Charles William Maynes. 1998. “The Perils of (and for) an Imperial America.” Foreign Polic. 111(Summer): 36–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. David Tarr and Peter Roman. 1998. “The Military Is Still in Close Contact with Civilians.” Biloxi Sun Herald. October 19.

    Google Scholar 

  46. C. J. Chivers. 1999. “Military Fights an Imaginary Rift With the Public.” USA Today. September 14, 17.

    Google Scholar 

  47. See Mark J. Eitelberg and Roger G. Little. 1995. “Influential Elites and the American Military after the Cold War” in U.S. Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transitio., ed. Donald M. Snider and Miranda A. Carlton-Carew. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  48. Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard H. Kohn. 1997. “Grand Army of the Republicans: Has the U.S. Military Become a Partisan Force?” The New Republi. 217 (23–28) Dec): 22 ff;

    Google Scholar 

  49. Maynes. 1998. “Imperial America.”

    Google Scholar 

  50. Donald K. Muchow. 1995. “A Preliminary Analysis of American Values of Life and Community.” JSCOPE 95. Available at http://isme.tamu.edu/JSCOPE 95/ruchow 95.html.

    Google Scholar 

  51. Fred Tasker. 1990. “Who Are Today’s Soldiers—and Why?” The Seattle Time., F1, September 27;

    Google Scholar 

  52. Martin Binkin. 1993. Who Will Fight the Next War. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  53. Judith Hicks Stiehm. 1996. “The Civilian Mind.” in It’s Our Military, Too. Ed. Judith Hicks Stiehm. Philadephia: Temple University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  54. Don M. Snider and Miranda A. Carlton-Carew, eds. 1995. U.S. Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transition. Washington DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  55. George Will. 1997. “Lott, and Others, Need to Butt Out.” The Plain Deale., 5F, May 25;

    Google Scholar 

  56. Richard Danzig. 1999. The Big Three: Our Greatest Security Risks and How to Address Them. New York: Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University.

    Google Scholar 

  57. Elizabeth Kier. 1999. “Discrimination and Military Cohesion: An Organizational Perspective,” in Beyond Zero Tolerance: Discrimination in Military Cultur., ed. Mary Fainsod Katzenstein and Judith Reppy. New York: Alexshan Books.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Cohn. 1999. “Civil-Military ‘Gap’ Debate.”

    Google Scholar 

  59. Peter Maslowski. 1990. “Army Values and American Values” Military Revie., April 1990: 11–22;

    Google Scholar 

  60. Bacevich and Kohn. 1997. “Grand Army”;

    Google Scholar 

  61. Chivers. 1999. “Military Fights” 17;

    Google Scholar 

  62. Peter D. Feaver. 1999. “Civil-Military Relations.” Annual Review of Political Scienc. 2: 211–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. J. F. McIsaac & N. Verdugo. 1995. “Civil-Military Relations: A Domestic Perspective,” in U.S. Civil-Military Relations in Crisis of Transition. Ed. D. M. Snider and M. A. Carlton-Carew. Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, 21–33.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Eitelberg and Little. 1995. “Influential Elites”;

    Google Scholar 

  65. Otto Kreisher. 1997. “Culture Gap: A review of Making the Corps.” San Diego Union-Tribun., November 23;

    Google Scholar 

  66. Harry Levins. 1996. “They Paid for Peace with Courage; But Now, Veterans’ Ranks Slowly Dwindle.” St. Louis Post-Dispatc., 1B, November 10;

    Google Scholar 

  67. Stephen M. Duncan 1997. Citizen Warriors: America’s National Guard and Reserve Forces & the Politics of National Security. Novato, CA: Presidio Press.

    Google Scholar 

  68. Sam Sarkesian with John Allen Williams and Fred B. Bryant. 1995. Soldiers, Society, and National Security. London: Lynne Rienner Publishers;

    Google Scholar 

  69. David R. Segal. 1995. “U.S. Civil-Military Relations in the Twenty-First Century: A Sociologist’s View.” in U.S. Civil-Military Relations: In Crisis or Transition. ed. Don M. Snider and Miranda A. Carlton-Carew. Washington, DC: The Center for Strategic and International Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  70. Otto Kreisher. 1997. “Culture Gap: A Review of Mak ing the Corps.” San Diego Union-Tribun., 23 November;

    Google Scholar 

  71. Anna Simons. 1997. “In Your Face: The Making of a Marine: A Review of Making the Corps.” The Christian Science Monitor, December 15.

    Google Scholar 

  72. Richard H. Kohn. 1974. “The All-Volunteer Army: Too High a Price?” Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institut. 100 (3/853): 35–42;

    Google Scholar 

  73. Andrew J. Bacevich and Richard H. Kohn. 1997. “Grand Army.”

    Google Scholar 

  74. Cohn. 1999. “Civil-Military ‘Gap’ Debate;

    Google Scholar 

  75. Elizabeth Kier. 1999. “Discrimination and Military Cohesian.”

    Google Scholar 

  76. Curtis L. Gilroy. 1995. “Civil-Military Operations and the Military Mission: Differences between Military and Influential Elites,” U.S. Civil-Military Relation., ed. Snider and Carlton-Carew. Washington DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies;

    Google Scholar 

  77. Sarkesian, Williams, and Bryant. 1995. Soldiers, Societ.;

    Google Scholar 

  78. Harry Levins. 1996. “Veterans’ Ranks Slowly Dwindle”;

    Google Scholar 

  79. Michael Williams. 1998. Civil-Military Relations and Peacekeeping. Adelphi Paper 321. International Institute for Strategic Studies. New York: Oxford University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  80. Danzig. 1999. The Big Thre.;

    Google Scholar 

  81. Henry H. Shelton. 1998. “The American Military Is Still in Close Contact with Civilians.” Biloxi Sun Herald. October 19.

    Google Scholar 

  82. Duncan. 1997. Citizen Warrior.;

    Google Scholar 

  83. Bacevich and Kohn. 1997. “Grand Army”;

    Google Scholar 

  84. Charles William Maynes. 1998. “Imperial America.”;

    Google Scholar 

  85. Thomas Ricks. 1998. “Is American Military Professionalism Declining?” Proceedings of the U.S. Naval Institut., July 1998;

    Google Scholar 

  86. Charles Moskos, John Allen Williams, and David R. Segal. 2000. The Postmodern Military: Armed Forces after the Cold War. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  87. Joseph S. Nye. 1996. “Epilogue: The Liberal Tradition,” in Civil-Military Relations and Democrac., ed. Larry Diamond and Marc F. Plattner. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  88. Shelton. 1998. “American Military”;

    Google Scholar 

  89. Michael Williams. 1998. Civil-Military Relation.;

    Google Scholar 

  90. Stephan Rosenfeld. 1999. “Ready for the Last War.” Washington Post. January 15, 29.

    Google Scholar 

  91. Thomas E. Ricks. 1997b. Making the Corps. New York: Scribner;

    Google Scholar 

  92. Anna Simons. 1997. “In Your Face.”;

    Google Scholar 

  93. Charles Moskos. 1999. “Short-Term Soldiers.” The Washington Post. A19, March 8;

    Google Scholar 

  94. Charles Rangel. 2006a. “Rangel Reintroduces Draft Bill.” Press release, Office of Congressman Charles Rangel, 15th District New York. http://votesmart.org/public-statement/154650/rangel-reintroduces-draft-bill#.VQL5RfnF_u0. Accessed March 13, 2015;

    Google Scholar 

  95. Kate Philips. 2009. “National Service Corps Bill Clears Senate Hurdle.” New York Times. March 23. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/03/23/national-service-corps-bill-clears-senate-hurdle/ Accessed March 13, 2015;

    Google Scholar 

  96. Flagg K. Youngblood. 2007. “Dodging Rangel’s Draft.” New York Post. February 17. http://nypost.com/2007/02/17/dodging-rangels-draft/.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, Eds. 2001. Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security. Cambridge: MIT Press;

    Google Scholar 

  98. Peter D. Feaver. 2011. “The Right to Be Right: Civil Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision.” International Securit. 35 (4): 87–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  99. Barry Rubin and Thomas A. Keany. 2001. Armed Forces in the Middle East: Politics and Strategy. New York: Routledge;

    Google Scholar 

  100. Barbara A. Bicksler, Curtis L. Gilroy, and John T. Warner, eds. 2004. The All-Volunteer Force: Thirty Years of Service. Washington, DC: Brassey’s;

    Google Scholar 

  101. Allan D. English. 2004. Understanding Military Culture: A Canadian Perspective. Montreal: McGill-Queen’s University Press;

    Google Scholar 

  102. Christopher Patrick Gibson. 2008. Securing the State: Reforming the National Security Decisionmaking Process at the Civil-Military Nexus. Burlington, V T: Ashgate Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Authors
  1. Donald S. Inbody
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 Donald S. Inbody

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Inbody, D.S. (2016). American Civil-Military Relations. In: The Soldier Vote. Palgrave Macmillan, New York. https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137519207_8

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation