Search

This response to Coletta's "Courage in the Service of Virtue: The Case of General Shinseki's Testimony before the Iraq War" argues that too much significance is attributed to Shinseki's remarks. The larger question is whether military leaders should speak up when their civilian leadership's plan is grossly inadequate. Second, the response considers questions about the middle levels of power. The authors suggest that the principal-agent argument is Shinseki's defense and the ultimate principals are the American public. Third, a table is offered as a means of comparing and contrasting the Huntington-Janowitz positions with new theoretical focuses. Fourth, the conclusion suggests that concerns touched on in the tables (the obligation to speak up, the public space, the implications of economic development, and the changing nature of warfare) overshadow the Shinseki issue and that social action theory and type construction methodology are of service in addressing civil-military relations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The concept of American empire has gained increasing popularity as a means of describing contemporary international relations. To the extent that an American imperial endeavor exists, this creates strain on the military, which, like the Roman legions of past millennia, is the ultimate means of enforcing an imperial will. There are several arguments that suggest the "empire of liberty" is a compelling description of America in the third millennium. This concept suggests a very active American military that may need to make adjustments due to the strain being placed upon it. Empire may not harm civil military relations, but only if the United States can militarily resource its ambitions. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]