Jump to content

Talk:Civil control of the military

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Trackratte (talk | contribs) at 12:14, 18 March 2024 (Trackratte moved page Talk:Civilian control of the military to Talk:Civil control of the military: Civil control most common term across countries not just US-focused, and also a component of Civil-Military relations (named civil not civilian).). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Rough draft

Well, I've just given a basic explanation of the standard American doctrine for why one should have civilian control of one's military, and how it works here. But I'm sleepy, and it's off the top of my head. So it could use some improvement and some different perspectives. I just wanted to at least plant the seed of an article for what I think is an important topic. -- Beland 07:01, 1 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Liberal Theory

I added this section directly from the civil-military relations article. While certainly written from an American point of view, the Federalist Papers do present a theoretical argument for much of the civilian control of the military argument. Inbody (talk) 23:34, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion

I made some initial changes, and a lot of notes for future topics that I intend to expand upon. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 02:16, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Awesome! I'm glad someone so articulate stumbled across my seed. If you happen to have any references to good books or articles on the topic, or know where the Samual Adams quote comes from, those tidbits would be quite helpful for curious readers. (And probably a lot easier for you to come up with than most of the rest of us.) -- Beland 01:24, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Possible references/sources/quotables

Some quick links to refer back to when I get the chance, have yet to fully digest or (that's mucky censorship!!!) , so I haven't added them to the article yet:

Books -- I don't have access to an English-language library where I'm living now, but if anyone can track down these titles (product of a quick bit of Amazon searching), they might be useful for incorporation into this article:

  • Samuel P. Huntington - Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations ISBN 0674817362
  • The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics ISBN 0765809222
  • Armed Servants : Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations ISBN 0674017617
  • Civilian Control of the Military : The Changing Security Environment ISBN 0801860598
  • Modernizing China's Military : Progress, Problems, and Prospects ISBN 0520242386 -- my copy of this is currently en route via surface mail, IIRC it probably has something to add on civilian control issues in China... I really need to find more non-US sources, does anyone have any ideas?
I have the Huntington book, unfortunately in storage, but I remember it fairly well. A contemporary work would be Morris Janowitz's The Professional Soldier. A more recent book dealing with the control of the military in general is Ken Grossman's On Killing.
There's a whole area to be discussed about control, by the ulema, of those in lesser jihad.Howard C. Berkowitz 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
references not coming out correctly I'm not sure what I'm doing wrong, but the "notes" seem to be conflicting with numbered references. Howard C. Berkowitz 02:21, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A new entry for Civil-military relations has just been posted that has most of the references above. That page links to this one.

Inbody (talk) 18:05, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking feedback!

I think this is approaching a point where I can reasonably submit it to peer review. But before I do, if anyone out there happens to be watching or reading this, is there anything blatantly missing? There are lots of potential illustrative examples, as I've noted in the next, but expanding on all of these would result in a rather heavily lopsided American article, since that's mostly all the examples I know. I'd like to keep it reasonably broad, so maybe those details would be better placed in a separate Civilian control in the United States article. In any case, please comment on possible improvements of this article, and I will see about a peer review at some point in the future. — MC MasterChef :: Leave a tip — 23:52, 14 November 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Current Events?

I have added a "Current events" section with a subsection on the United States. Specifically, I added text regarding criticism of Rumsfeld. I would be happy to receive feedback. More than anything, I think this section can be greatly expanded. However, moving it to a separate page all together is also possible. Chart123 22:48, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

{{Globalize}}

I have added the {{Globalize}} tag to the article. Simply put, it is too US-centric at the moment. Hope this doesn't upset anyone; just thought you all ought to know. Batmanand | Talk 00:11, 16 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree.
Quite right, too. StalinsLoveChild 14:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would counter that point by noting that, having recently spent an entire evening reading much of the content on the Maoist Internationalist Movement (MIM) website, I got a certain similar vibe while reading this entry. One needs to be very careful not to let their politics shine through when editing. Not that anyone has crossed that line quite yet, but if I sensed a little something just as a casual and curious reader of such topics, a more astute political junkie may be tweaked by it enough to make an edit, which may lead to needless animosity among editors. I'm not the lest bit bothered by it, because it's neutral enough for me, I'm just sharing my gut feeling--it's got a mild odor. Clearly, the writings of Mao are a valuable addition to this page, I'm merely suggesting that to keep the tone neutral, even to the point of being robotic, is always best regarding these issues, methinks. Of course this is very difficult to do with one's own writing, but I suppose that's what Wikis are for.

Fair use rationale for Image:Little red book.png

Image:Little red book.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:14, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Globalize/USA Template removal

BetacommandBot a bot operated by Δ (A.k.A. Betacommand which has been blocked for one year) has been blocked indefinitely. And that was last comment in two years. So I removed the following template:
Please feel free to undo... motivating, if possible, your decision.
Thanks.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Reference in-text No. problems

It seems this article includes two sets of reference type, e.g.

{ { ref |Taylor2 } }

and

<ref>Peter D. Feaver. 1996. "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces & Society. 23(2): 149–78.</ref>

They are creating two sets of reference No. in the article, and the footnote looks terrible... Should I unify them?

Zhenzhengyou (talk) 10:04, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Zhenzhengyou: I've unified to references to all use <ref>. Some of them should probably be upgraded to use {{Cite}} and derived templates ({{Cite book}} or {{Cite journal}} etc) at some point in the future, but that isn't as important. Rchard2scout (talk) 10:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Civilian control of the military. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:39, 8 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Checked, looks good. Rchard2scout (talk) 18:17, 11 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Nuclear weapons in the U.S.

The text "Nuclear weapons in the U.S. are controlled by the civilian United States Department of Energy, not by the Department of Defense." is inaccurate. The Department of Energy is responsible for the development, design, assembly, and disassembly of nuclear weapons, and the creation and stockpiling of their component materials. The Department of Defense is responsible for their depot-level stockpiling and for their attachment to DoD controlled weapon systems. An interesting question would be which Department has legal title to the weapons when they are in DoD control? It may be that the weapons remain the property of the DoE. Does anyone know? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tfdavisatsnetnet (talk • contribs) 21:36, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Information added from Civilian oversight

I just added information that came from a student project but was added to a different article -- see: Talk:Civilian oversight of law enforcement#Wiki Education assignment: International and Comparative Public Management BCorr|Брайен 14:56, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Civil_control_of_the_military&oldid=1214349180"