Download eBook for Free

Full Document

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.

Summary Only

FormatFile SizeNotes
PDF file 0.1 MB

Use Adobe Acrobat Reader version 10 or higher for the best experience.


Purchase Print Copy

 Format Price
Add to Cart Paperback200 pages $28.00

What is the potential for a divergence in views among civilian and military elites (sometimes referred to as the civil-military gap) to undermine military effectiveness? The authors propose a five-stage analytical framework that encompasses the main areas where a civil-military gap might have an impact. Using an existing survey-based dataset (prepared and administered by the Triangle Institute for Security Studies) to inform this framework, they find a variety of differences among the military and civilian respondents. However, most of those differences disappeared when the authors focused on the attitudes that are pertinent to civilian control of the military and military effectiveness. The major exception to this pattern related to such military personnel policies as women in combat, the military’s policies with regard to sexual harassment, and whether gays should serve in the military. In contrast, most of the other measures of military effectiveness appear to be influenced more by views of the military threat facing the country and views of foreign policy — where all military officers and civilians share similar perspectives. Overall, concerns about a civil-military gap and possible erosion of the principle of civilian control of the military appear to be overstated.

Research conducted by

The research described in this report was sponsored by the United States Army and conducted by the RAND Arroyo Center.

This report is part of the RAND monograph series. RAND monographs present major research findings that address the challenges facing the public and private sectors. All RAND monographs undergo rigorous peer review to ensure high standards for research quality and objectivity.

This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited; linking directly to this product page is encouraged. Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial purposes. For information on reprint and reuse permissions, please visit

RAND is a nonprofit institution that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through research and analysis. RAND's publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and sponsors.