Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations

Samuel Huntington's writings have always been incisive and animated by a spirit of the author's stupendous labor and a burning desire to project a true perspective of topics. The Soldier and the State is no exception. Every human society and for that matter every human civilization have evolved round this single issue of striking a balance between the civilian and the miltary sector and hence the debate rages round key political thoughts like liberalism and realism. This age old riddle is diificult to solve and the lone super power of the new millennium is still searching for an answer to this on a national and international level: whither hard power or soft power? Huntington's account of civilian and military history is studded with hard facts and comprehensive research works and this makes the book so interesting. He has picked up a topic that he felt from the core of his heart worth discussing. On a deeper level the issue strikes right into the heart of the American political thought. This is also dealt with in the opening chapter of the undersigned's book : Tracing the Eagle's Orbit. Professor Huntington is an institution by himself and this topic and this book is a must read for everybody. This would magnetically draw the reader to finish the pages of the book with bated breath and is sure to impact the reader's knowledge on political processes since the dawn of human history. Gautam Maitra Author of 'Tracing the Eagle's Orbit: Illuminating Insights into Major US Foreign policies since Independence.'

For anyone interested in military research, this is a must have ... or must have access to. This book (as well as Janowitz: Professional Soldier) continues to be heavily referenced in the literature. It is definately a theory based book - not an easy read at times.

At the time of its original publication in 1957, Samuel Huntington's The Soldier and the State reflected a new age in American history--the Cold War era. Huntington, a young Harvard professor of government, focused on policy problems concerning civilian direction of the military under the terms of the Cold War. Basically, he contended that traditional American liberalism was outdated and in fact had begun to pose a national security danger. Until this era, the absence of an overt military threat to American security allowed for a policy of civilian control of the military compatible with liberal democratic values. Traditionally, liberal solutions to domestic problems had likewise been applied to military problems, frequently resulting in failure.Huntington offered a theoretical framework for modern civil-military relations. He insisted that liberalism was fundamentally opposed to the proper military ethic; the application of subjective civilian control over the military actually aimed at weakening military professionalism, which was viewed as a threat to democracy, liberalism, and American values. The Cold War, though, required America to keep a large national army during peace time; the army could not return to its traditionally subordinate role. There was perpetual tension between the demands of national security and the values of American liberalism: either American security must be compromised or the influence of liberalism weakened. Only a conservative environment allowed for equilibrium between political influence and the military professionalism that ensured national security. This balance could only be achieved, Huntington argued, by objective civilian control of the military. By maintaining independent spheres of power, with no fusion of civil and military control, national security goals could be maximized with a minimum sacrifice of social values. Objective civilian control allowed for the proper growth of military professionalism while keeping the military a subordinate tool of state policy. The fulcrum of civil-military relations was the relation of the officer corps to the state.Huntington was successful in presenting the military as inherently conservative and unwarlike. The military prepared for war but never sought such engagement. Huntington encapsulated the premise of the military mindset as conservative realism. This mindset "holds that war is the instrument of politics, that the military are the servants of the statesman, and that civilian control is essential to military professionalism." This military ethic contrasted with the stereotype of the military as dangerously warlike. A weakness of the book is Huntington's description of military trends between the Civil War and the Great War. Huntington argued that the officer corps remained isolated during this period, allowing it to develop a professionalism free of civilian interference. This isolation theory has been largely disproved by pointing to the mili

Incisive and remarkably relevant. Huntington delves into the role of the military in shaping and protecting a society. A MUST read for anyone who is in, or deals with the military.

Though growing dated in many ways, Huntington's 1950's history of the development of US civil-military relations is extremely instructive to both civilian and military readers alike. Huntington uses a comparisons with the German and Japanese pre-WWII experiences to contrast the American, as well as to develop his own theory as to what the ideal form of civil-military relations should be. Huntington's book should be a must-read, even in its dated form, for anyone who could possibly exercise political influence that could result in military action.