Huntington Revisited: Is Conservative Realism Still Essential for the Military Ethic PDF Download

Author:
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 22

Get Book Here

Book Description
One of the most widely accepted truisms about the military concerns its supposed preference for a conservative perspective. More specifically, on national security matters the military professional is assumed to espouse a conservative, realist viewpoint. Samuel P. Huntington has provided perhaps the classical exposition of this viewpoint in his work The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (as illustrated in the quotation above). Furthermore, Huntington has developed what appears to be a powerful argument as to why conservative realism should be considered a fundamental component of the professional ethic of the military officer. I disagree with Huntington's position linking the military to conservative realism on national security matters. In this paper I will demonstrate that Huntington is mistaken in assuming that conservative realism is the only rational mindset for the military professional, especially in the world of the 21st century. A diversity of factors from globalization to failing states to technological advances, as epitomized by the "Revolution in Military Affairs," increasingly suggests that this type of mindset is often inappropriate. In the worst case, a conservative realist approach may ultimately endanger rather than protect the security of the state. For example, realism's preoccupation with the state blinds it to the importance of nonstate actors and transnational or asymmetrical threats, which may actually pose the greater danger to national security. At the least, realism may not inculcate the mindset necessary to actively seize opportunities for engagement and cooperation that may enhance the security of the state, in light of its near-exclusive focus on threats. Mounting evidence attesting to the existence of the democratic peace thesis (essentially, the notion that democracies do not go to war with one another) may imply that the U.S. should actively engage other states to promote democracy.