This review is being written in a short window of time in which the rulers of Saudi Arabia, whose success, so far, has been contingent on the opposite of liberal policies (they previously granted religious authorities who were considered the most conservative element within Arabian society a veto power over anything the government might do) are hoping that an American victory in Iraq might allow all American troops to be removed from Saudi Arabia, so that democracy might be granted to the people of Saudi Arabia (at a time when the average age is 15 years old) without fear that the anti-American views of Arabian young people will be the dominating political force determining the shape of the parties who will soon be able to demand more control than their government has ever been able to apply to society. As the situation in Venezuela at the moment illustrates, fights over how much oil is being pumped, and who ought to benefit from the economic miracle that oil provides, can do strange things in a nation with a democracy that attempts to let a majority of the people rule.
Huntington considers America an exception to such class considerations. Though not specifically concerned with the role of Blacks in American society, he assumes that their politics has been entirely liberal in nature. "No nascent group ever developed a radical ideology challenging the established order: it was always too quickly assimilated into that order. . . . Radicalism and conservatism were equally superfluous. Incipient and established groups both adhered to liberalism." (p. 145). The few attempts to establish conservative values in American history were mainly ignored by a society that was exuberantly growing in spite of any ideology which might attempt to exercise some form of control. The early part of the twentieth century had produced few instances in which policy had needed an exit strategy, and any attempt to find one in the index of THE SOLDIER AND THE STATE leads to the following entries:
Expertise, a characteristic of a profession, 8-9; of officership, 11-14
Extirpation, U.S. policy of, 155-156
Even page 154 has a bit on professionalism. As Woodrow Wilson said during World War I, "America has always boasted that she could find men to do anything. She is the prize amateur nation in the world. Germany is the prize professional nation in the world. Now, when it comes to doing new things and doing them well, I will back the amateur against the professional every time." The lure of popularity in a liberal society can easily produce this result. "In domestic politics each liberal group tends to identify the military with its own particular enemies. Without any recognized function in a liberal society and standing outside the ideological consensus, the military have been a universal target group." (p. 154). Extirpation is the name given to such a policy in this book. "Liberalism's injunction to the military has in effect been: conform or die. On the one hand, American liberalism has supported the virtual elimination of all institutions of violence and thus has attempted to do away with the problem of civil-military relations entirely. This is a policy of extirpation. On the other hand, when it has been necessary to maintain armed force, American liberalism has insisted upon a rigorous subjective civilian control, the refashioning of the military institutions along liberal lines so that they lose their peculiarly military characteristics. This is a policy of transmutation." (p. 155). There are no entries in the index for hyperbolic topics like sex, soldiers, or swearing, so there is little opportunity in this book for the ideas which strike me most, considering the unique psychic characteristics of the transmutation of the typical swinging Richard into a short-term ...assassin at Waco, Texas on April 19, 1993, or less notoriously, of any Naval doctor who kept a copy of the Kennedy autopsy photographs at Bethesda Naval Hospital in the ten years after this book first appeared, but I'm convinced that such ideas are within the realm of what is considered conservative in this book. Some people are sick of this kind of thing, and keep projecting its insanity on me, of all people, who tries to keep tying everything to the new direction of American society. I wonder if this makes us the entertainment capital of the world, or what?
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 military's involvement in putting down labor strikes, relations between officers and the business community, etc. This defect should not detract from the importance of this book as a virgin exploration into a comprehensive history of the American military tradition. With its conservative thesis, it remains in my mind the seminal work on civil-military relations.