AbstractIn this report, we have tried to deeply analyze relations between military and civilian. We have discussed almost every dimension of this relationship followed by practical in stance. For research, we have discussed gender issue in military, for this purpose we have carried out survey of 200 samples. For this research we have evaluated willingness, consistency, and confidence that plays very important role in military staff success. Besides that we have also discussed further issues in ‘Changing Societal Contexts’ section. Being globalised is also need of today’s military so we have briefly discussed this issue also.
At the end we have provided conclusion and some policy implications. Statement of the Problem: The women in military surged with the founding of the all volunteer force. It is perceived that assimilation of women has had a small effect on willingness, consistency, and confidence and the unit workload are perceived as having a far more profound influence. Chapter 1: IntroductionThe relationship between civilian and military spheres that developed over the years allowed the military to acquire a legitimate right to function in certain civilian areas, as opposed to others which were off-limits.
Military involvement was recognized as legitimate in the broadly defined area of national security, which included most aspects of foreign policy, as well. On the other hand, internal affairs such as social welfare policy and the workings of democratic regime were treated as distinctly civilian spheres. However, the question as to what should be included or excluded from the broad area of national security was left open. The tendency to expand the sphere of legitimate national security concerns did not necessarily emanate from the military men.
On the contrary, debates on such issues were usually conducted within the civilian sector. The compliance with the rules of the game by civilian and military elites alike was rooted in a broad consensus that views as a society whose existence was constantly subject to an acute military threat. The subordination of foreign affairs to national security stems from this fundamental perception. The prevalent foreign affairs outlook among the elites and the general public alike is rooted in a national security approach that gives, so far, priority to strategic considerations over diplomatic ones.
On the other hand, with few exceptions, the military elite has internalized democratic values and norms and has not exhibited authoritarian leanings in the realms of domestic politics, government, public administration, freedom of speech and cultural expression, civil rights, and the right of labor to organize and strike. To the extent that proposals to restrict these rights have arisen, it has been from radical groups on the fringe of the political spectrum and not from the ranks of the military. The trends of militarization of the civilian sector and the "civilianization" of the military can also be examined from the perspective of Samuel Huntington's analysis of the "military mind. " The characteristics of the military mind fall into two categories: The first category concerns the utility or desirability of violence as a means to attain goals in international relations; the second concerns authoritarian values and the symbolic importance attached to the hierarchical structure of the military.
These categories are not necessarily found together to the same degree in all cases. A consensus between the military and the civilian elites on the legitimacy of employing violence in international conflicts on the one hand, and on the need to restrict the authoritarian dimensions of military life and to prevent them from spilling over into the civilian sector, on the other.
The shared dominant approach is thus "civilian" where politics is concerned and "military" where national security is at stake.