Civilians and military personnel do not have a clear view of each other in the United States today. Conspiring against such understanding are the norms and traditions of the two cultures. On the one hand, the military is considered to like its secrecy and think of itself as morally superior to the civilians it is meant to serve. On the other hand, civilians praise or blame the armed forces based on political exigencies and generally without true comprehension of their culture. And their mutual misperceptions seem greater now than in the late 1960s and early 1970s during the Vietnam War. Yet, as U.S. Naval Academy professor Bruce Fleming points out, the military is linked to the civilian world so fundamentally that all of us pay the price if they do not develop an appreciation of one another--but that is achievable only if each side also strives to see itself clearly. As the military fulfills its mission of protecting Americans and their way of life, civilians must also do their part and support the military through budget allocations, legislation, and enlistment. Without this shared commitment, American interests suffer as a whole. Fleming shows how to close a military-civilian gap that yawns so large in twenty-first-century America that it potentially threatens national security and essential freedoms.

How civilians and the military can better understand each other

The authors assess school leaders' awareness and perception of Department of Defense youth programs, the ways such programs build connections with communities, and the extent to which these programs help bridge the civilian-military divide.

Essays on the emerging military-civilian divide in the United States.

Researchers have identified a "civil-military gap," an observable cultural distinction between members of the American military.

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? Although a variety of differences were found among the views of military and civilian survey respondents, these differences mostly disappeared when the authors focused on the attitudes that are pertinent to civilian control of the military and military effectiveness.

Since the conclusion of the Vietnam War, the American public and the Armed Forces have steadily drifted apart. This has resulted in a division between the people of the nation and the individuals that defend its values. Consequently, as this division increases, the American public is thankful of military servicemen, but believes that service is something others should do. Conversely, the military’s sole purpose is to protect and defend the nation, its people, and its values, but it has become more isolated. Additionally, military service is becoming a family tradition in which outsiders cannot easily understand the values and pride of service. This gap is further perpetuated by incongruences between the media’s portrayal of the military—in movies and on the news—and what real military life consists of. This is problematic because both parties are crucial to the other’s success. If the military does not understand the public, it cannot represent and protect its ideologies, likewise, if the people do not understand the military, they will lose sight of what the true cost of freedom is, as well as, implement policies that prevent the military from accomplishing its mission set. Due to the disproportionate representation of the military within the nation—less than 1% of the total population- this study will examine the civilian-military divide from the perspective of the military. Through a careful analysis of the U.S. Army profession, and the information collected from soldier interviews, several issues were identified as the primary factors in the current division. The first factor to forging partnerships is that both parties must have a desire to be involved. The second factor to overcome is perceptions about the military that are created through media. The third factor, is a general misconception regarding what the true Army profession is and what it entails. This issue is common in both civilian and military settings. The final factor is that some civilians are ignorant about the day-to-day operation of the military, believing the military to be in a perpetual state of combat. The analysis of these contentions has produced the following objectives: 1. Define the Army profession 2. Differentiate soldiers from media portrayals 3. Examine soldier involvement in their community In addressing these objectives, this study will use an ethnographic approach to ascertain how members of the 25th Infantry Division conceptualize themselves. Twenty soldiers were interviewed and asked questions regarding their assessments of the Army profession, life in the military, and their involvement in the community. The information derived from these interviews was used to determine essential themes within the Army community and capture these themes on film. The final compilation consisted of a photo-essay that explains a key tenet of military culture and provides a visualization of the military experience. The aim of this compilation is to take an initial step toward the resolution of the civilian-military divide by breaking down current perceptions of the military and defining the life of a service member.

During the 1990s, many observers expressed concerns about the state of civilian-military relations in the United States. Although the expression of these concerns was muted in the immediate aftermath of the attacks on 9/11, the underlying issues they raised remain salient. Specifically, there is a potential for a civil-military gap to undermine military effectiveness by reducing support for defense budgets, increasing the difficulties of recruiting quality people to join the military, and dwindling public support for using military force, particularly where high casualties are likely. Some observers even worried that a growing civilian-military gap could undermine the principle of civilian control of the military. The armed services have an abiding interest in preventing problems that may reduce military effectiveness. Potential problems with resource availability and with recruitment and retention of personnel are basic concerns of the services, because they relate directly to tasks specified in Title 10 of the U.S. Code. Consequently, the Army asked RAND Arroyo Center to examine the evidence on the existence of a civil-military gap to determine how it might affect military effectiveness, what implications it might have on the U.S. actions to deal with trans-national terrorist groups, and, finally, to recommend actions that might close any breach that might exist.