Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T17:41:40.267Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Identity of the U.S. Military: Comments on “An N of 1”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2004

Ole R. Holsti
Affiliation:
Ole R. Holsti is George V. Allen Professor of International Affairs at Duke University ([email protected])

Extract

Political scientist Russell A. Burgos has written an interesting and timely account of his intellectual journey from a “systemically inclined neorealist” to a “leaning constructivist” as a consequence of his active duty service with the U.S. Army in Iraq. In doing so, he offers some astute observations on several of the most important and enduring issues in American foreign and defense policy that are of interest to all international relations scholars. Rather than attempting to comment on the full range of his observations, this essay will focus on one of these—what Captain Burgos calls “the identity of the army in a ‘neo-imperial’ age”—with a view to assessing and bringing to bear some systematic evidence on his observations that the army has become staunchly Republican and conservative and that it sees itself as “separate from and superior to society at large.”Ole R. Holsti's latest book, Public Opinion and American Foreign Policy, revised edition, was published this year.

Type
PERSPECTIVES
Copyright
© 2004 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Bacevich, Andrew, and Richard H. Kohn. 1997. Grand Army of the Republicans: Has the U.S. military become a partisan force? New Republic. December 8, 2225.Google Scholar
Fallows, James. 2004. Blind into Baghdad. Atlantic Monthly 293 (January–February): 5274.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R. 1998/99. A widening gap between the U.S. military and civilian society? Some evidence, 1976–96. International Security 23 (Winter): 544.Google Scholar
Holsti, Ole R. 2001. Of chasms and convergences: Attitudes and beliefs of civilians and military elites at the start of a new millennium.” In Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security, ed. Peter D. Feaver and Richard H. Kohn, 1599. Cambridge: MIT Press.
King, David C., and Zachary Karabell. 2003. The generation of trust: How the U.S. military has regained the public's confidence since Vietnam. Washington, DC: AEI Press.
Kohut, Andrew. 1999. The “gap flap” news release. Washington, DC: Pew Research Center for the People and the Press.
Marshall, S. L. A. 1980. The soldier's load and the mobility of a nation. Quantico, VA: Marine Corps Association, 1980.
Matthews, Lloyd I. 1999. Ethics, Military. In The Oxford companion to American military history, ed. John Whiteclay Chambers II. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999.
Ricks, Thomas E. 1997a. The widening gap between the military and society. Atlantic Monthly 280 (July): 6678.Google Scholar
Ricks, Thomas E. 1997b. Making the corps. New York: Scribners.
Trowbridge, Gordon. 2003. 2003 Military Poll—We asked. You answered. Army Times, December.Google Scholar