Objective Control Model
Successful victory and survivability is based on the ability to adapt to different warfare forms and strategies. However, another critical variable/principle is the needs of a strong Civil-Military Relationship. For the military to be able to quickly adjust to the ever changing political goals/objectives, and to have the ability to adapt and change to different forms and strategies, their needs to be a healthy political and military relationship. First and foremost, the government and the military needs to trust each other. Huntington and Janowitz both wrote a great deal on civil-military theories. Agreeing on the purity of the Objective Control model, we are starting on a strong foundation for a flourishing civil-military relationship. Clausewitz
…show more content…
A nation’s leadership must evaluate our means (goals and objectives) on a sliding scale; the more justice, the more acceptable to use military forces. A superior military must distinguish themselves above unlawful murders and massacres by operating established ‘Rules of War’ - executing restrictions on the battle. Going into the forth critical guiding principle for military leaders of modern warfare, a sovereign state actor must necessitate, and/or lead other civilized state actors in ‘Just War’ Doctrine. When our political leaders commits to utilizing military to achieve a political goal, they must have a ‘just’ reason. Caldwell states that it is a nations duty to preserve humanity and human rights by adapting and upholding ‘Just War Theory’; ‘jus ad bellum’ (“moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war”), ‘jus in bello’ (“legitimacy of the means used to wage war”), and ‘jus post bellum’ (“‘just peace’ - moral judges after the war ends”). Williams & Caldwell adds, “waging a just war involves facing ethical challenges before, during, and after the war itself.” Both strategy and morality must be equally assessed when political leaders justify utilizing their military. This includes the justice of the ends, as it is linked to the justice of the means. The Vietnam War exposed "flaws" in the social and military structure. Incidents Vietnamese civilians were killed by American Soldiers. This Massacre causes a culture outcry - infamous incident. This is a violation of ‘jus in bello’. Therefore, a prestige civilized democratic state actor will ensure the country leads with ‘Just War’
A nation’s leadership must evaluate our means (goals and objectives) on a sliding scale; the more justice, the more acceptable to use military forces. A superior military must distinguish themselves above unlawful murders and massacres by operating established ‘Rules of War’ - executing restrictions on the battle. Going into the forth critical guiding principle for military leaders of modern warfare, a sovereign state actor must necessitate, and/or lead other civilized state actors in ‘Just War’ Doctrine. When our political leaders commits to utilizing military to achieve a political goal, they must have a ‘just’ reason. Caldwell states that it is a nations duty to preserve humanity and human rights by adapting and upholding ‘Just War Theory’; ‘jus ad bellum’ (“moral reasoning that justifies the resort to war”), ‘jus in bello’ (“legitimacy of the means used to wage war”), and ‘jus post bellum’ (“‘just peace’ - moral judges after the war ends”). Williams & Caldwell adds, “waging a just war involves facing ethical challenges before, during, and after the war itself.” Both strategy and morality must be equally assessed when political leaders justify utilizing their military. This includes the justice of the ends, as it is linked to the justice of the means. The Vietnam War exposed "flaws" in the social and military structure. Incidents Vietnamese civilians were killed by American Soldiers. This Massacre causes a culture outcry - infamous incident. This is a violation of ‘jus in bello’. Therefore, a prestige civilized democratic state actor will ensure the country leads with ‘Just War’