The indicators of the crisis in American civil-military relations can
be disaggregated into three categories: (1) the level of military infl
uence on policy; (2) the degree to which the military is representativ
e of society; and (3) the level of civil-military tension. Behind each
indicator is a different implicit theory about civil-military relatio
ns. These theories offer contradictory assessments about what we shoul
d want civil-military relations to be. Therefore, holding the current
American civil-military relationship to all three standards is logical
ly untenable. Reviewing the crisis literature and the various theories
of civil-military relations underlying the different arguments sugges
ts the need for a more nuanced research program examining the balance
between efficiency and accountability inherent in the civil-military r
elationship.