Civil-Military Relations Introduction
Civil-military relations and offensive perspective trace its origin on a military technology partnership which was to stabilize the European Strategic balance of July 1914, but the stability got interfered with by the offensive military perspectives. The result got noted in the trapping of European diplomats in a war leading to severe insecurity and instability (Jack, 2004). It gets depicted that the Russo- Japanese and the Boer had predicted the war and the actual confirmation was made by the dawn of the Great War. The military relation mainly favored the defenders who happened to operate own territory and could easily drive away the invaders.
Equally notable, it gets argued that the offensive perspectives were noted as disastrous. The perspectives failed in achieving the intended aim hence disadvantaging their pioneer states. The major nations involved were Germany, Belgium, Russia, France and Britain. Germany invaded Belgium and France acted as a determinant of where Britain would offer support. Germany went further to invade France taking their major industrial hubs and making a permanent settlement. It gets argued that Germany was the first nation to commit the global over ambitious offensive perspective (Jack, 2004). The nature and timing of the offensive perspectives in other nations got pointed out as different but shared in the problems of military relations.
The question also arose as to whether the European war planners were in appreciation of the advantages of the defender especially when Germany fell into the hands of the Russians. It gets noted that Germany used their defensive advantage in defeating the two prongs of the Russians which were advancing around the Lake of Masurian. The response to the concern stated that the European war planners partly appreciated and defied the advantages based on their 20/20 hindsight. The hindsight was qualitatively different from the understanding that got met by the protagonists of history. It gets documented that between 1912 and 1914, Russia also increased their commitments of the offensive perspectives which later heightened adverse conditions of the civil- military relations (Jack, 2004).
Political Scientists Notes
Political scientists also note that the underlying problem of the time got based on the existence of two veto powers within the military. For example, the existence of the General Staff which favored action against the Germans could not get ignored and the Kiev Military District which aimed at attacking Austria. Further discussion on the issue points out the inferiority of both the groups which needed civilian action to restore order. The restoration could not be made due to the civilian’s ignorance of the military affairs, and that imaged them as different factions. Another highlight on the matter also depicts that social changes which got associated with urbanization and industrialization may have offered a single ground for the existence of the civil- military relations. The justification for the assertion gets based on a leveled conflicts re- enforcing the civil-military conflicts (Jack, 2004). In consideration of the war of 1914 courtesy of the offensive perspective, today’s military machine offer a favor to the defender while the superpowers are adopting counterforces which are offensive as part of defiance to any technological shortcoming.
In summary, it gets pointed out that civil- military relations and offensive perspectives traced its genesis of an ideal idea initiated to offer military technology that would stabilize the European front. The paper goes further to highlight that the stability could not get achieved due to various offensive measures by different nations as depicted in the paper.
Jack, S. (2004) Civil- Military Relations and the Cult of the Offensive, 1914 and 1984