"Civil-military relations inevitably lead to tensions." Do you agree with this statement from the text? Why or why not? Provide a specific current example to illustrate your argument.
What will be an ideal response?
The ideal answer should include:
1. Define civil-military relations.
2. Discus whether civil-military relations inevitably lead to tensions. For example, military leaders may undermine the authority of civilian leaders in carrying out foreign policies, or they may threaten civilian supremacy if certain actions are taken in international conflicts.
3. Provide an example. For instance, historically, Turkey's military has intervened to take control from elected leaders when military officers felt the government was threatening the country's secular nature. Recently, however, the civilian government has been arresting officers who it believes were plotting a coup. These actions have led to a fragile situation in that country.
4. Offer a concise summary and effective conclusion.
You might also like to view...
The practice of wealthy interests, such as the Texas energy industry, hiring government regulators as executives or lobbyists once they leave their government job is known as
a. elitism. b. pluralism. c. the revolving door. d. the free rider principle. e. capture theory.
The antiwar feminist tradition shares the constructivist view that weapons of mass destruction cannot secure global security
a. True b. False Indicate whether the statement is true or false