Global Journal of Interdisciplinary Social Sciences

Short Note on Relations Involved in Civil Military

Frederik Jacob^* Department of Social Science, Watson Institute for International Studies, Ohio University, Providence, Ohio, USA
^*Correspondence: Frederik Jacob, Department of Social Science, Watson Institute for International Studies, Ohio University, Providence, Ohio, USA, Email:

Received: 03-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. GJISS-22-11; Editor assigned: 05-Jan-2022, Pre QC No. GJISS-22-11; Reviewed: 19-Jan-2022, QC No. GJISS-22-11; Revised: 24-Jan-2022, Manuscript No. GJISS-22-11; Published: 31-Jan-2022, DOI: 10.35248/2319-8834/22.11.011

Description

Civil military relations are a concept that encompasses the entire range of interactions between the military and civilian society at every level. Studying civil military relations is therefore an immensely rich subfield of sociology, political science, and multidisciplinary security and military studies. However, the research in political science has typically taken a more keen focus on the structures, processes, and outcomes of the interrelations between the political system on the one hand and the armed forces on the other. Military effectiveness is not generally agreed on definition of military effectiveness nor do general measures of an effective military exist. As Nielsen states, “Since the features of effective armed forces will vary with factors such as the resources they have, the targets they must exploit and other aspects of their environments. The effectiveness of military means can only be assessing in relation to the political ends that this means are to serve”.

Our understanding and operationalization of military effectiveness is based on works by Bruneau and collaborators Bruneau 2006; Bruneau and Trinkunas 2006, Bruneau and Matei in 2008 who note that military effectiveness is as much about “arrangement” as about actual “action.” Military effectiveness means that the military understands its role and mission and is efficient of transforming political guidance into effective action. It is able to successfully use allocated resources in developing military capabilities and is trained and ready to fulfill the roles and missions that the political echelon decide to allocate to the Armed Military. Finally, an effective military is a military “that is capable of conducting operations within the expected or assigned time frame and with accessible resources, as well as successfully maintaining military goals with minimum losses”.

Therefore, we must be practical about what is required for security measures to be effective, our ability to measure it and how to explain success or failure. While there are perhaps cases in which functionalize in achieving roles and missions can be demonstrated, bruneau and matei argue that generally, effectiveness is best determined by whether a state is prepared to fulfill any or all of the six roles enumerated below. Under these circumstances, three basic attributes can be employed to measure the military’s effectiveness in fulfilling its role and task. Only if all three attributes are in place can the military be expected to fulfill any or all of its targets and roles. Civilian control there is no treaty on what exactly civilian control over the military entails nor is there a generally agreed on definition of military efficacy or how these topics should be measured. However, in recent years, scholars have advanced conceptions that share two fundamental assumptions. First, civilian control is about the political power of the military relative to the nonmilitary political. Second, is related to political military relations can be understood as a continuum ranging from full civilian control to complete military supremacy over the political system. In this sense, civilian control is a particular form of distribution of power to make political decisions in which civilian leaders either democratically elected or autocratically selected have the control to decide on national politics and their execution. While civilians may envoy the implementation of certain policies to the military, the latter has no decision making power outside of those areas specifically defined by governments. In contrast, if a government is support to a military that retains the right to intervene when it perceives a crisis, a regime is in fact under military tutelage croissant, kuehn, chambers, and wolf 2010 croissant and kuehn 2017. Finally, in this book the term military control is reserved for situations in which the military commands government, either through collegial bodies representing the officer corps.

Both achieved a certain degree of civilian oversight and authority, but the military still relish a significant degree of autonomy from the civilian institutions. And in recent years, the militaries in these two countries seem to have even gained Global political power. Because of the extencive troubles with transnational terrorism, cross border crime, and conflicts in neighboring countries.