Civil-military relations and humanitarian intervention: A re-examination of the politics of military advice and the use of force

During the 1990s, observers noted that American responses to foreign humanitarian crises were inconsistent. This project examines the American choice to intervene in humanitarian crises through the lens of civil-military relations. Specifically, it tests the hypothesis that military advisers influenced intervention policy in ways that were inappropriate and unprofessional. A second hypothesis claims military influence increases when civilian leaders are divided over policy decisions. To test the hypotheses, the project examines five cases from the 1990s in detail: American military intervention policy toward Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Rwanda, and Kosovo. The data focuses on the use of professional military advice for political purposes, and supports the hypothesis that military advisers had inappropriate influence over the examined intervention decisions. While the data supporting the second hypothesis is inconclusive, the project does provide a plausibility probe that suggests divided civilian leadership may indeed augment military influence over policy.