The quality of the relationship between military commanders, senior government officials, and the head of state greatly influences the effectiveness of military force employment. Samuel Huntington explored this phenomenon, among others, in his seminal work, The Soldier and the State, and in the fifty-five years since its publication, history has given numerous new examples with which to test his ideas about executive civil-military relations. This work examines three American civil-military relationships using two frameworks presented by Huntington. Huntington's frames illustrate more clearly how the relationships in these three presidential administrations--Wilson, Truman, and Johnson--functioned and how the level of functionality influenced the prosecution of a war. The first framework consists of the three types of civil military relationships - balanced pattern, coordinated scheme and vertical pattern. The second framework is the patterns of civil-military relations. He addresses five combinations of three variables to explain these patterns. The three variables are political ideology, level of military political power and level of military professionalism. Huntington does not explicitly detail a correlation between these two frameworks; however, this work will explore their association to determine why problems existed and what actions can establish a more effective civil-military relationship. Additionally, an exploration of the backgrounds and experiences of the individuals involved attempts to determine if there is any correlation between their past and the effectiveness of their executive-level relationships. Although Huntington considers the balanced type of civil-military relationship the most effective, the Constitution poorly positions military leaders to influence the construct directly. Military leaders can have the greatest influence, albeit indirectly, through the behaviors defining Huntington's patterns - political ideology, level of military political power and level of military professionalism. They must approach political ideology carefully, but the military can improve the trust of their civilian leaders, regardless of ideology, by maintaining high levels of military professionalism. This may not create the desired balance, but it can aid in having a voice in the dialog. The greatest degree of impact that military leaders can have on the type of relationship they have with their civilian masters is through maintaining the appropriate amount of military political power, which adjusting, can to make the overall relationship more effective. Regardless of the patterns or type of relationship, it is ultimately the responsibility of all partners within the civil-military relationship to make the relationship work. Understanding the nature of these relationships, their typologies, and the patterns of interaction that influence their construction, maintenance, and potential failure, is the best means available to develop strategies for making these relationships cooperative and successful.

Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited. The opinions and conclusions expressed herein are those of the student-authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College or any other governmental agency. (References to these studies should include the foregoing statement.)