American Civil War Association Membership Application: Fill & Download for Free

Of course.they can also become Supreme Court Justices - Sandra Day O’Connor.And Secretary of State - Condoleeza Rice.Here is a link to 25 modern science, math and technology leaders who were . homeschooled (and I copied the content in this link below). Homeschool rocks. Homeschool works.25 Modern Science, Math and Technology leaders who were homeschooled - A Magical HomeschoolHere is a round-up of 25 modern science, technology, engineering and mathematics leaders who were homeschooled:Grant Colfax (1965- ) is the Director of the Office of National AIDS Policy. He is the President’s lead advisor on domestic HIV/AIDS and is responsible for overseeing implementation of the National HIV/AIDS Strategy and guiding the Administration’s HIV/AIDS policies across Federal agencies. Dr. Colfax is the eldest of the four sons homeschooled while building the family homestead and goat farm with their parents, David and Micki Colfax. The Colfaxes wrote about their homeschooling experiences in the books “Homeschooling for Excellence” and “Hard Times in Paradise.” They did not follow a “school at home” approach and once commented that months went by without books being opened (his parents reported that young Grant was nine before he even learned to read). Dr. Colfax graduated from Harvard Medical School and previously worked as the Director of the HIV Prevention Section in the San Francisco Department of Public Health. Upon appointing Dr. Grant to his current position, President Obama said, “Grant Colfax will lead my Administration’s continued progress in providing care and treatment to people living with HIV/AIDS. Grant’s expertise will be key as we continue to face serious challenges and take bold steps to meet them. I look forward to his leadership in the months and years to come.”Francis Collins (1950- )is the current Director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). He is also famous for his leadership of the Human Genome Project. He has received the Presidential Medal of Freedom and the National Medal of Science. He founded and served as president of the BioLogos Foundation, which promotes discourse on the relationship between science and religion and advocates the perspective that belief in Christianity can be reconciled with acceptance of evolution and science. In 2009, Pope Benedict XVI appointed Collins to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences. Dr. Collins was homeschooled until sixth grade.Erik Demaine (1981- ) was named “one of the most brilliant scientists in America” in 2003 by Popular Science magazine. The MIT professor of computer science is considered a rising star in the area of theoretical computer science, specifically computational geometry, data structures and algorithms. The Canadian was homeschooled until he entered Dalhousie University at twelve. He completed his bachelor’s degree at age fourteen and completed his PhD by age twenty. He joined the MIT faculty in 2001 at age 20, reportedly the youngest professor in the history of the the university. In 2003, Dr. Demaine became one of the youngest people ever selected for the prestigious MacArthur Fellowship, commonly called “the genius grant.” He has been recognized with many other grants and awards, and his mathematical origami artwork (created in collaboration with his father) is part of the Museum of Modern Art’s permanent collection. It is worth noting that Demaine was raised by his father, a glassblower and silversmith, who had only a high school education. You can read about his unconventional homeschool (or even “roadschool”) education here and here and you can visit his fascinating website here.John Linsley (1925-2002) was an internationally recognized astrophysicist who was nominated for the Nobel Physics Prize in 1980 for his work studying cosmic rays and who won the Premio Internazionale San Valentino d’Oro in astrophysics in 1982. He is best known for being the first to detect an air shower created by a primary particle with an energy of 1020 eV. Dr. Linsley’s observations suggested that not all cosmic rays are confined within the galaxy and showed the first evidence of a flattening of the cosmic ray spectrum at energies above 1018 eV. Dr. Linsley was homeschooled by his mother for most of his childhood.Philip Streich (1991-2012) had already won the prestigious Intel Foundation Young Scientist Award, been honored by Discover magazine as one of the Discover 50 “Best Brains in Science,” been named a Davidson Fellow Laureate and had co-founded a nanotechnology company by the time he entered Harvard as a self-made multimillionaire in his teens. Streich, who was homeschooled from 7th grade on, was the youngest and first non-faculty member to be named a University of Wisconsin System “Innovative Scholar of the Year.” His work was published in magazines such as Science and Advanced Materials. The company he cofounded, Graphene Solutions, was featured in Business Week and won the Wisconsin Governor’s Business Plan top award. As an Intel Science Talent Search finalist, Streich was elected by the other finalists to win the Glenn T. Seaborg Award for scientific communication and the Creativity Foundation’s Legacy Medal for his exceptional creative promise as a scientist and entrepreneur. Streich’s research on carbon nanotubes and their thermodynamic solubility showed promise in finding the key to using nanoparticles in revolutionary applications. He already held numerous patents for his discoveries at the time of his death at only age 21. The Harvard Crimson called him, “an enthusiastic entrepreneur, a scientific prodigy, a political activist, a record producer, and a grandiose party host.”Margaret Mead (1901–1978) was one of America’s most famous and influential cultural anthropologists. In her early years, her family moved frequently and her education alternated between homeschooling and traditional schools. Dr. Mead focused her research on problems of child rearing, personality and culture. She served as executive secretary of the National Research Council’s Committee on Food Habits, curator of ethnology at the American Museum of Natural History, president of the American Anthropological Association, president and chair of the executive committee of the board of directors in the American Association for the Advancement of Science, as well as working as a professor and prolific author. She was posthumously awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom by President Carter.Samuel Chao Chung Ting (1936- ) is an American physicist who received the Nobel Prize in 1976 for discovering the subatomic J/ψ particle. Ting was born in Michigan, where his parents met and married as graduate students at the University of Michigan. His parents returned to China two months after his birth and due to the Japanese invasion in China he was mostly home-schooled by his parents. Dr. Ting is the principal investigator for the international $1.5 billion Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer experiment which was installed on the International Space Station in 2011 and a professor at MIT. He is a member of the United States National Academy of Sciences, an academician of the Chinese Academy of Sciences and an academician of Taiwan’s Academia Sinica.Aaron Swartz (1986-2013) was a computer programmer, writer, political organizer and Internet activist. Starting at age fourteen, he helped develop the web feed format RSS, Creative Commons, and Reddit, among other contributions. He helped launch the Progressive Change Campaign Committee and was a research fellow at Harvard University’s Safra Research Lab on Institutional Corruption. He founded the online group Demand Progress, known for its campaign against the Stop Online Piracy Act. Swartz unschooled himself after ninth grade.Reid W. Barton (1983- ) is one of the most successful performers in the International Science Olympiads. Barton was homeschooled starting in third grade, and attended classes at Tufts University in chemistry, physics, Swedish, Finnish, French and Chinese in fifth and sixth grade. In eighth grade, he worked part-time with MIT computer scientist Charles E. Leiserson on CilkChess, a computer chess program. He worked at Akamai Technologies to build one of the earliest video performance measurement systems that have since become a standard in industry. Barton won two gold medals at the International Olympiad in Informatics and won the Morgan Prize for his work on packing densities. Barton recently earned his Ph.D in Math at Harvard.Fred Terman (1900-1982) is widely considered to be “the father of Silicon Valley.” His father, Lewis Terman, (a Stanford scientist who was best known for developing the Stanford-Binet IQ test) educated him at home until age nine. Terman had graduated from Stanford by age twenty. During World War II, Terman directed a staff of more than 850 at Harvard’s Radio Research Laboratory, an organization charged with creating Allied jammers to block enemy radar, tunable receivers to detect radar signals and aluminum strips to produce spurious reflections on enemy radar receivers. Terman was a founding member of the National Academy of Engineering and was awarded the IRE Medal of Honor for “his many contributions to the radio and electronic industry as teacher, author, scientist and administrator.” Terman’s students at Stanford included Oswald Garrison Villard, Jr., William Hewlett and David Packard, whom he encouraged to form their own companies. He personally invested in many of them, resulting in firms such as Litton Industries and Hewlett-Packard.Erwin Schrödinger (1887-1961) was an Austrian physicist who was very influential in the field of quantum theory. Schrödinger proposed an original interpretation of the physical meaning of the wave function and in subsequent years repeatedly criticized the conventional Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics (once using the now-famous paradox of Schrödinger’s cat). He was the author of many works in various fields of physics, specifically statistical mechanics and thermodynamics, physics of dielectrics, color theory, electrodynamics, general relativity, and cosmology. Schrödinger won many awards, including the Nobel Prize for Physics and the Max Planck Medal. He was homeschooled until age ten.Jacob Barnett (1998- ) is a mathematician and astrophysicist who, while still a teenager, expanded on Einstein’s theory of relativity and became an orator of Physics classes at Indiana University. Diagnosed with autism as a young child, he started out in public school in special education classes. His parents pulled him out and chose to let him follow his interests in math and science instead. He began taking college classes at age 8, taught himself all high school math in 2 weeks at age 10, began work on his Master’s at 13, and was accepted to the Perimeter Institute at 15. He has been featured in the TEDxTeen talk “Forget What You Know” and he has his own You-Tube channel where he explains concepts like quantum mechanics, scientific notation, calculus and linear algebra for viewers of all ages. He is the world’s youngest astrophysics researcher and has been tipped for a Nobel Prize for his work.Benoit Mandelbrot (1924-2010), the Yale mathematics professor known as the “father of fractals” and the person who coined the term, was taught at home by his uncle in his early years. After his family fled Warsaw, he was educated in and out of French schools and by another uncle and family friends, who helped him graduate on time despite what he described as “a peculiar education.” The New York Times wrote of Mandelbrot: “Over nearly seven decades, working with dozens of scientists, Dr. Mandelbrot contributed to the fields of geology, medicine, cosmology and engineering. He used the geometry of fractals to explain how galaxies cluster, how wheat prices change over time and how mammalian brains fold as they grow, among other phenomena.” His awards include the Wolf Prize for Physics, the Lewis Fry Richardson Prize of the European Geophysical Society, the Japan Prize, and the Einstein Lectureship of the American Mathematical Society. The asteroid 27500 Mandelbrot was named in his honor, he’s the subject of a Jonathan Coulton song (the lyrics of which he good-naturedly autographed) and he was made a Knight in the French Legion of Honour. Lebanese author and professor Nassim Nicholas Taleb said that Mandelbrot “had perhaps more cumulative influence than any other single scientist in history, with the only close second, Isaac Newton.”George Washington Carver (1864–1943) was a leading African American scientist, botanist, educator, and inventor in the South after the Civil War. Carver was born into slavery and raised and educated by German immigrants Moses and Susan Carver. He left their home when he was eleven years old and later worked his own way through college at Iowa State, where he also earned a Master’s degree. Dr. Carver researched and promoted alternative crops to cotton, such as peanuts, soybeans and sweet potatoes, which also aided nutrition for farm families. He developed and promoted about 100 products made from peanuts that were useful for the house and farm, including cosmetics, dyes, paints, plastics, gasoline, and nitroglycerin. He became the head the Tuskegee Institute’s Agriculture Department, where he taught for 47 years, developing the department into a strong research center. He taught methods of crop rotation, introduced several alternative cash crops for farmers that would also improve the soil of areas heavily cultivated in cotton, initiated research into crop products (chemurgy), and taught generations of black students farming techniques for self-sufficiency. He received numerous honors for his work, including the Spingarn Medal of the NAACP, induction into the Hall of Fame for Great Americans and membership into the Royal Society of Arts in England.Soichiro Honda (1906-1991) was a Japanese engineer and industrialist who established the Honda corporation, a multinational automobile and motorcycle manufacturer. Honda spent his early childhood helping his father, a blacksmith, with his bicycle repair business. He was not interested in traditional education and developed a fake family seal to stamp his graded reports instead of showing them to his parents. He left home at age 15 to start work as a car mechanic in Tokyo. In 1937, he founded Tōkai Seiki to produce piston rings for Toyota. After a bomber attack destroyed Tōkai Seiki’s Yamashita plant during World War II and his Itawa plant collapsed in the 1945 Mikawa earthquake, Honda sold the salvageable remains of the company to Toyota and used the proceeds to found the Honda Technical Research Institute. He created motorized bicycles and then motorcycles, later branching out into automobiles. His company is now a billion-dollar multinational corporation.Paul Erdős (1913–1996) has been called the world’s greatest problem poser and solver. He collaborated with over 500 mathematicians and published around 1,525 math papers, making him one of the most prolific publishers of papers in mathematical history. The Hungarian-born mathematician worked with hundreds of collaborators pursuing problems in combinatorics, graph theory, number theory, classical analysis, approximation theory, set theory and probability theory. He developed an elementary proof for some of the most challenging math problems, including the the Prime Number Theorem and Bertrand’s conjecture that there was always at least one prime between n and 2n for n > 2. He was homeschooled by his parents, who were both mathemeticians, for much of his childhood.Bertrand Arthur William Russell (1872– 1970) was a British nobleman, logician, philosopher, mathematician, historian and social critic who is considered one of the founders of analytic philosophy. Following the death of his parents when he was very young, he was raised by his grandmother and educated at home by tutors. His work has had a considerable influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science and philosophy, especially philosophy of language, epistemology and metaphysics. A prominent anti-war activist, he campaigned against Hitler, World War I, Stalin, nuclear weapons and the Vietnam War, among other causes. He was awarded the Nobel Prize in Literature “in recognition of his varied and significant writings in which he champions humanitarian ideals and freedom of thought.”Ruth Elke Lawrence-Naimark (1971- ) is an Associate Professor of mathematics at the Einstein Institute of Mathematics, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, and a researcher in knot theory and algebraic topology. She was born in England, where her parents were computer consultants. When she was five, her father gave up his job so that he could educate her at home. At the age of nine, she gained an O-level in mathematics and achieved a Grade A at A-level Pure Mathematics. She graduated from the University of Oxford at age thirteen, then earned a second degree in physics and went on to earn a PhD in mathematics at Oxford at the age of 17. Her first academic post was at Harvard University, where she became a Junior Fellow at the age of 19. Dr. Lawrence-Naimark’s 1990 paper, “Homological representations of the Hecke algebra,” published in Communications in Mathematical Physics, introduced certain novel linear representations of the braid group known as Lawrence–Krammer representation.Wilson “Snowflake” Bentley (1865–1931) is one of the first known photographers of snowflakes, and certainly the best. Born on a family farm in Vermont, he was homeschooled by his mother, a former teacher, who also gave him his first microscope at age fifteen and then his first camera at seventeen. After two years of trial and error, he made the world’s first photomicrograph of a snow crystal at age nineteen. He published 49 popular and 11 technical articles about snow crystals, frost, dew and raindrops, including the entry on “snow” in the 14th edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica. He was elected a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society in 1920. “Snow Crystals,” a book of his snow crystals images, was published in 1931.Bill Lear (1902-1978) is best known for founding the Lear Corporation. He also invented the B-battery eliminator and the 8-track cartridge. He was kicked out of high school for “showing up his teachers,” after which he spent time re-building a Model-T car with his father, traveling the country, running and repairing rotary typesetting and printing machines and serving in the navy. He eventually decided to return to complete his high school education and was on track to complete all four years in one when he was expelled again for “showing up his teachers.” He was self-taught and worked as an engineer for companies such as Magnavox and Universal Battery. Lear eventually started his own company, Radio Coil and Wire Corporation, out of the basement of his mother’s old house, which he later traded for stock in another company. He went on to invent the 8-track casette, which enjoyed great commercial success in the 1960’s and 1970’s. He founded Lear Developments, a company specializing in aerospace instruments and electronics, and developed radio direction finders, autopilots and the first fully automatic aircraft landing system, among other inventions. He went on to found the Swiss American Aviation Company and later developed the Lear Jet.Mary Carson Breckinridge (1881–1965) was an American nurse-midwife and the founder of the Frontier Nursing Service. Born to a prominant family, she was educated at home by tutors. She started family care centers in the Appalachian mountains and was known for helping many people with her hospitals.Sho Yano (1990- ) is an American physician who was awarded a PhD in molecular genetics and cell biology from the Pritzker School of Medicine at the University of Chicago at the age of 18 and became the youngest person to graduate with an MD from the University of Chicago at age 21. His mother homeschooled him through the 12th grade. Dr. Yano began his residency in pediatric neurology at Comer Children’s Hospital in 2012.Willard Boyle (1924-2011) was a Canadian physicist and co-inventor of the charge-coupled device. He was awarded the 2009 Nobel Prize in Physics with George E. Smith for the invention of the imaging semiconductor circuit—the CCD sensor, which allowed NASA to send clear pictures to Earth back from space. It is also the technology that powers many digital cameras today. He also helped develop the first continuously operating ruby laser and the first semiconductor injection laser, helped with the development of integrated circuits for telecommunications and electronics, and worked with NASA to help determine where astronauts should land on the moon. He was home schooled by his mother until age fourteen, when he began his college education.Sir Frank Whittle (1907-1996) is credited with single handedly inventing the turbojet engine. Educated for a short time at a private school in England, he was forced to return home when his father’s business failed. He learned at home from then on, both in his father’s workshop and at the local library, where he researched astronomy, engineering, turbines, and the theory of flight in his spare time. At the age of 15, determined to be a pilot, Whittle applied to join the Royal Air Force. After failing the medical exam because of his short stature (he was then only 5 feet tall), he spent six months on a rigorous diet and grew three inches (also putting on three inches in chest circumference). Upon failing again, he applied again under an assumed name and was admitted. His skills and mathematical genius helped him quickly rise through the ranks as a fighter pilot. While writing his thesis, he formulated the fundamental concepts that led to the creation of the turbojet engine, taking out a patent on his design in 1930. He worked as an engineering specialist for Shell Oil, Bristol Aero Engines and the United States Naval Academy, among others. Whittle was ranked number 42 in the BBC poll of the 100 Greatest Britons.Arran Fernandez, (1995- ) is an English mathematician who was accepted to Cambridge at age 15. Arran first made headlines in 2001, when he gained the highest grade in the foundation maths paper at age five. His current goal is to be a research mathematician and find a solution to the Riemann hypothesis – the unsolved theory about the patterns of prime numbers that has baffled mathematicians for 150 years. Fernandez has had several sequences published in the On-Line Encyclopedia of Integer Sequences (OEIS), the number theory database established by Neil Sloane. His father Neil, who homeschooled him, told the UK Standard, “Any child could do this. The idea that babies are born with different amounts of intellectual potential is false. It is fundamentally oligarchic. Home-educated children just find it easier to avoid the dumbing-down process.”These brilliant doctors, inventors, engineers, mathematicians and scholars learned at home in all different ways. Some were self directed, some taught by tutors, some unschooled and some taught with the assistance of college classes.The one thing they all had in common was that they contributed to STEM advancements in amazing ways in our modern world.Who knows what the next generation of homeschoolers will contribute?

Civilian control of the militaryFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to navigation Jump to searchPart of the Politics seriesBasic forms of governmentPower structureSeparationAssociated stateDominionChiefdomFederalismFederationConfederationDevolutionIntegrationEmpireHegemonyUnitary stateAdministrative divisionPower sourceDemocracy(power of many)DirectRepresentativeLiberalSocialDemarchyOthersOligarchy(power of few)AnocracyAristocracyPlutocracyKleptocracyKakistocracyKraterocracyStratocracySynarchyTimocracyMeritocracyTechnocracyGeniocracyGerontocracyNoocracyKritarchyParticracyErgatocracyNetocracyCapitalist stateSocialist stateTheocracyAutocracy(power of one)DespotismDictatorshipMilitary dictatorshipTyrannyAnarchism(power of none)AnarchyFree associationStatelessPower ideologyMonarchy vs. republic(socio-political ideologies)AbsoluteLegalistConstitutionalParliamentaryDirectorialSemi-presidentialPresidentialAuthoritarian vs. libertarian(socio-economic ideologies)TribalismDespotismFeudalismColonialismDistributismAnarchismSocialismCommunismTotalitarianismGlobal vs. local(geo-cultural ideologies)CommuneCity-stateNational governmentIntergovernmental organisationWorld governmentPolitics portalvtePart of a series onWarHistory[show]Battlespace[show]Weapons[show]Tactics[show]Operational[show]Strategy[show]Grand strategy[show]Organization[show]Personnel[show]Logistics[show]Related[show]Lists[show]vteCivilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national politics, is called a military dictatorship. A lack of control over the military may result in a state within a state. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority".[1]Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People's Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party," reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist–Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism.[2]As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process".[3]Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. National Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear cut lines of civilian control.Contents1 Rationales 1.1 Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers 1.2 Domestic law enforcement 1.3 Maoist approach2 Methods of asserting civilian control 2.1 A civilian commander-in-chief 2.2 Composition of the military 2.3 Technological developments 2.4 Restrictions on Political Activities 2.5 Political officers3 Military dislike of political directives 3.1 Case study: United States4 Extent5 See also6 References7 Further readingRationalesAdmiral John B. Nathman (far right) and Admiral William J. Fallon salute during honors arrival of Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England at a change of command ceremony in 2005. A subordinate of the civilian Secretary of Defense, the Secretary of the Navy is the civilian Head of the Department of the Navy, which includes the U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps.Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political character.[citation needed]The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men" (also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflect this view. Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that:The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it.[3]A state's effective use of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worst cases, this may lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection".[4]Also, military personnel, because of the nature of their job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialize strictly in warfare. The military is authoritative and hierarchical, rarely allowing discussion and prohibiting dissention.[5]For instance, in the Empire of Japan, prime ministers and almost everyone in high positions were military people like Hideki Tojo, and advocated and basically pressured the leaders to start military conflicts against China and others because they believed that they would ultimately be victorious.Liberal theory and the American Founding FathersMany of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it".[6]Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."[6]In Federalist No. 8, one of The Federalist papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton expressed concern that maintaining a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experience as a positive one, he presented the idea of a strong nation protected by a navy with no need of a standing army. The implication was that control of a large military force is, at best, difficult and expensive, and at worst invites war and division. He foresaw the necessity of creating a civilian government that kept the military at a distance.James Madison, another writer of many of The Federalist papers,[7]expressed his concern about a standing military in comments before the Constitutional Convention in June 1787:In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.[8]The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton’s argument that distributing powers among the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.Finally, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that to create a government that relied primarily on the good nature of the incumbent to ensure proper government was folly. Institutions must be in place to check incompetent or malevolent leaders. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military.Hamilton and Madison thus had two major concerns: (1) the detrimental effect on liberty and democracy of a large standing army and (2) the ability of an unchecked legislature or executive to take the country to war precipitously. These concerns drove American military policy for the first century and a half of the country’s existence. While armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilize quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime military force "engendered new concerns" of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil–military relations in the United States.[9]Domestic law enforcementThis section needs expansion.You can help by adding to it.(February 2010)The United States' Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits any part of the Army or the Air Force (since the U.S. Air Force evolved from the U.S. Army) from engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless they do so pursuant to lawful authority. Similar prohibitions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps by service regulation, since the actual Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to them. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus since it normally operates under the Department of Homeland Security versus the Department of Defense and enforces U.S. laws, even when operating as a service with the U.S. Navy.The act is often misunderstood to prohibit any use of federal military forces in law enforcement, but this is not the case. For example, the President has explicit authority under the Constitution and federal law to use federal forces or federalized militias to enforce the laws of the United States. The act's primary purpose is to prevent local law enforcement officials from utilizing federal forces in this way by forming a "posse" consisting of federal Soldiers or Airmen.[10]There are, however, practical political concerns in the United States that make the use of federal military forces less desirable for use in domestic law enforcement. Under the U.S. Constitution, law and order is primarily a matter of state concern. As a practical matter, when military forces are necessary to maintain domestic order and enforce the laws, state militia forces under state control i.e., that state's Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard are usually the force of first resort, followed by federalized state militia forces i.e., the Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard "federalized" as part of the U.S. Army and/or U.S. Air Force, with active federal forces (to include "federal" reserve component forces other than the National Guard) being the least politically palatable option.Maoist approachMaoist military-political theories of people's war and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Communist Party of China figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao explicitly refuted "comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and [who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks", prescribing increased scrutiny of the People's Liberation Army by the Party and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy[11]. In Mao's theory, the military—which serves both as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat—is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed Party members (who today exercise control in the People's Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.Methods of asserting civilian controlAn immensely popular hero of World War II, General Douglas MacArthur's public insistence on the need to expand the Korean War, over the objections of President Harry S. Truman, led to the termination of his command.Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country's military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.A civilian commander-in-chiefThe establishment of a civilian head of state, head of government or other government figure as the military's commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control.In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution establishes the President as the commander-in-chief. Ambiguity over when the President could take military action without declaring war resulted in the War Powers Resolution of 1973.American presidents have used the power to dismiss high-ranking officers as a means to assert policy and strategic control. Three examples include Abraham Lincoln's dismissal of George McClellan in the American Civil War when McClellan failed to pursue the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia following the Battle of Antietam, Harry S. Truman relieving Douglas MacArthur of command in the Korean War after MacArthur repeatedly contradicted the Truman administration's stated policies on the war's conduct, and Barack Obama's acceptance of Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the War in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone article was published where he mocked several members of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.Composition of the militaryDiffering opinions exist as to the desirability of distinguishing the military as a body separate from the larger society. In The Soldier and the State, Huntington argued for what he termed "objective civilian control", "focus[ing] on a politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps".[1]This autonomous professionalism, it is argued, best inculcates an esprit de corps and sense of distinct military corporateness that prevents political interference by sworn servicemen and -women. Conversely, the tradition of the citizen-soldier holds that "civilianizing" the military is the best means of preserving the loyalty of the armed forces towards civilian authorities, by preventing the development of an independent "caste" of warriors that might see itself as existing fundamentally apart from the rest of society. In the early history of the United States, according to Michael Cairo,[the] principle of civilian control... embodied the idea that every qualified citizen was responsible for the defense of the nation and the defense of liberty, and would go to war, if necessary. Combined with the idea that the military was to embody democratic principles and encourage citizen participation, the only military force suitable to the Founders was a citizen militia, which minimized divisions between officers and the enlisted.[6]In a less egalitarian practice, societies may also blur the line between "civilian" and "military" leadership by making direct appointments of non-professionals (frequently social elites benefitting from patronage or nepotism) to an officer rank. A more invasive method, most famously practiced in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, involves active monitoring of the officer corps through the appointment of political commissars, posted parallel to the uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The regular rotation of soldiers through a variety of different postings is another effective tool for reducing military autonomy, by limiting the potential for soldiers' attachment to any one particular military unit. Some governments place responsibility for approving promotions or officer candidacies with the civilian government, requiring some degree of deference on the part of officers seeking advancement through the ranks.Technological developmentsDuring the term of Lyndon B. Johnson, the President and his advisors often chose specific bombing targets in Vietnam on the basis of larger geopolitical calculations, without professional knowledge of the weapons or tactics. Apropos of LBJ's direction of the bombing campaign in Vietnam, no air warfare specialists attended the Tuesday lunches at which the targeting decisions were made.[12]Historically, direct control over military forces deployed for war was hampered by the technological limits of command, control, and communications; national leaders, whether democratically elected or not, had to rely on local commanders to execute the details of a military campaign, or risk centrally-directed orders' obsolescence by the time they reached the front lines. The remoteness of government from the action allowed professional soldiers to claim military affairs as their own particular sphere of expertise and influence; upon entering a state of war, it was often expected that the generals and field marshals would dictate strategy and tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.Improvements in information technology and its application to wartime command and control (a process sometimes labeled the "Revolution in Military Affairs") has allowed civilian leaders removed from the theater of conflict to assert greater control over the actions of distant military forces. Precision-guided munitions and real-time videoconferencing with field commanders now allow the civilian leadership to intervene even at the tactical decision-making level, designating particular targets for destruction or preservation based on political calculations or the counsel of non-uniformed advisors.Restrictions on Political ActivitiesIn the United States the Hatch Act of 1939 does not directly apply to the military, however, Department of Defense Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10) essentially applies the same rules to the military. This helps to ensure a non-partisan military and ensure smooth and peaceful transitions of power.Political officersMain article: political commissarPolitical officers screened for appropriate ideology have been integrated into supervisory roles within militaries as a way to maintain the control by political rulers. Historically they are associated most strongly with the Soviet Union and China rather than liberal democracies.Military dislike of political directivesWhile civilian control forms the normative standard in almost every society outside of military dictatorships, its practice has often been the subject of pointed criticism from both uniformed and non-uniformed observers, who object to what they view as the undue "politicization" of military affairs, especially when elected officials or political appointees micromanage the military, rather than giving the military general goals and objectives (like "Defeat Country X"), and letting the military decide how best to carry those orders out. By placing responsibility for military decision-making in the hands of non-professional civilians, critics argue, the dictates of military strategy are subsumed to the political, with the effect of unduly restricting the fighting capabilities of the nation's armed forces for what should be immaterial or otherwise lower priority concerns.Case study: United StatesThe "Revolt of the Admirals" that occurred in 1949 was an attempt by senior US Navy personnel, to force a change in budgets directly opposed to the directives given by the Civilian leadership.U.S. President Bill Clinton faced frequent allegations throughout his time in office (particularly after the Battle of Mogadishu) that he was ignoring military goals out of political and media pressure—a phenomenon termed the "CNN effect". Politicians who personally lack military training and experience but who seek to engage the nation in military action may risk resistance and being labeled "chickenhawks" by those who disagree with their political goals.In contesting these priorities, members of the professional military leadership and their non-uniformed supporters may participate in the bureaucratic bargaining process of the state's policy-making apparatus, engaging in what might be termed a form of regulatory capture as they attempt to restrict the policy options of elected officials when it comes to military matters. An example of one such set of conditions is the "Weinberger Doctrine", which sought to forestall another American intervention like that which occurred in the Vietnam War (which had proved disastrous for the morale and fighting integrity of the U.S. military) by proposing that the nation should only go to war in matters of "vital national interest", "as a last resort", and, as updated by Weinberger's disciple Colin Powell, with "overwhelming force". The process of setting military budgets forms another contentious intersection of military and non-military policy, and regularly draws active lobbying by rival military services for a share of the national budget.Nuclear weapons in the U.S. are controlled by the civilian United States Department of Energy, not by the Department of Defense.During the 1990s and 2000s, public controversy over LGBT policy in the U.S. military led to many military leaders and personnel being asked for their opinions on the matter and being given deference although the decision was ultimately not theirs to make.During his tenure, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld raised the ire of the military by attempting to reform its structure away from traditional infantry and toward a lighter, faster, more technologically driven force. In April 2006, Rumsfeld was severely criticized by some retired military officers for his handling of the Iraq War, while other retired military officers came out in support of Rumsfeld. Although no active military officers have spoken out against Rumsfeld, the actions of these officers is still highly unusual. Some news accounts have attributed the actions of these generals to the Vietnam war experience, in which officers did not speak out against the administration's handling of military action. Later in the year, immediately after the November elections in which the Democrats gained control of the Congress, Rumsfeld resigned.[citation needed]ExtentAs of 2015, military dictatorships, where there is no civilian control of the military, are:[citation needed]ThailandMyanmar ( Although Myanmar do have civilian government, military have tremendous amount of autonomy including 25% of seats in all Parliament houses and self appointed Commander-in-Chief see- Commander-in-Chief of Defence Services)Other countries generally have civilian control of the military, to one degree or another. Strong democratic control of the military is a prerequisite for membership in NATO[citation needed]. Strong democracy and rule of law, implying democratic control of the military, are prerequisites for membership in the European Union[citation needed].See alsoCivil–military relationsMight makes rightMilitary–industrial complexNational Security ActPolitical commissarRevolt of the AdmiralsSeparation of powersState within a stateArmed Forces & SocietyReferencesTaylor, Edward R. Command in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Civil-Military Affairs (pdf), United States Navy Postgraduate School thesis. 1998: 30-32.Mao Zedong, English language translation by Marxists Internet Archive. Problems of War and Strategy. 1938. (See also: Wikiquote: Mao Zedong.)Kohn, Richard H. An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military. 1997.Peter D. Feaver. 1996. "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces & Society. 23(2): 149–78."Kohn: Civilian Control". The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Retrieved 2015-12-11.Cairo, Michael F. Democracy Papers: Civilian Control of the Military, U.S. Department of State International Information Programs.Gottfried Dietze. 1960. The Federalist: A Classic on Federalism and Free Government. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.Max Farrand. 1911. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787. New Haven: Yale University Press. 1:465.Donald S. Inbody. 2009. Grand Army of the Republic or Grand Army of the Republicans? Political Party and Ideological Preferences of American Enlisted Personnel. Faculty Publications – Political Science. Paper 51.Hendell, Garri B. "[1]" "Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order—posse comitatus Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President" Publius (2011) 41(2): 336-348 first published online May 6, 2010 doi:10.1093/publius/pjq014Mao Zedong, English language translation by Marxists Internet Archive. On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party. 1929."Washington's Management of the Rolling Thunder Campaign", M. Jacobsen, US Naval Historical Center Colloquium on Contemporary History ProjectFurther readingvon Clausewitz, Carl. On War – Volume One 1832 German language edition available on the internet at the Clausewitz Homepage 1874 English language translation by Colonel J.J. Granham downloadable here from Project Gutenberg. 1982 Penguin Classics paperback version, ISBN 0-14-044427-0.Desch, Michael C. Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8018-6059-8Feaver, Peter D. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Harvard University Press, 2005 ISBN 0-674-01761-7Finer, Samel E. The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics. Transaction Publishers, 2002. ISBN 0-7658-0922-2Hendell, Garri B. "Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order – posse comitatus Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President" Publius (2011) 41(2): 336–48 first published online May 6, 2010 doi:10.1093/publius/pjq014Huntington, Samuel P.. Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press, 1981 edition. ISBN 0-674-81736-2Levy, Yagil. "A Revised Model of Civilian Control of the Military: The Interaction between the Republican Exchange and the Control Exchange", Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2012)Janowitz, Morris. The Professional Soldier. Free Press, 1964, ISBN 0-02-916180-0.vteLawAuthority controlLCCN: sh85026420NDL: 00561021Categories:AccountabilityCivil–military relationsConstitutional lawGovernmentMilitary doctrinesMilitary scienceMilitary sociologyNavigation menuNot logged inTalkContributionsCreate accountLog inArticleTalkReadEditView historySearchMain pageContentsFeatured contentCurrent eventsRandom articleDonate to WikipediaWikipedia storeInteractionHelpAbout WikipediaCommunity portalRecent changesContact pageToolsWhat links hereRelated changesUpload fileSpecial pagesPermanent linkPage informationWikidata itemCite this pagePrint/exportCreate a bookDownload as PDFPrintable versionLanguagesالعربيةفارسی한국어ItalianoBahasa Melayu日本語中文Edit linksThis page was last edited on 28 May 2019, at 22:48 (UTC).Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.Privacy policyAbout WikipediaDisclaimersContact WikipediaDevelopersCookie statementMobile view

Eliminating the hesitations of history, India and the United States have built a strong and strategic bilateral relationship and continues to contribute the stability and prosperity of the world. The first Prime Minister of India Jawaharlal Nehru likened American Imperialism to that of British. He propounded and propagated the Non-Alignment Principle whereby India refused to join either the capitalistic US or the communist Soviet Union.India’s socialistic economic principles and deep scepticism to the US hegemony resulted in its predilections towards USSR much to the ire of the West. As the ideological Cold War ended after a myriad of international convergences and divergences, India was forced to look West given the paradigm shift in the geopolitics of the world and in Francis Fukuyama’s words “End of History”. Today both India and US are among the most vibrant foreign cohorts and strategic partners.India-USA: History of RelationsThe birth of Indian Republic was accompanied by Pakistan’s occupation of Kashmir. Nehru’s efforts to garner support from the international community was fruitless.India declined the American offer to accept a seat at the United Nations Security Council and rather pushed for the membership of the People’s Republic of China which it has immediately recognized as a sovereign nation. (Reference – TheHindu)In the year 1950, India abstained from a US-sponsored resolution calling for UN’s military involvement in the Korean War. India even voted against UN forces crossing the 38th Parallel and naming China as an aggressor.1955: Pakistan officially aligned with the United States via the South East Asian Treaty Organization (SEATO) and Central Treaty Organization (CEATO) also known as Baghdad Pact. Meanwhile, India, being the chief proponent of Non-Alignment Movement (NAM), held the first Afro-Asian Conference at Bandung, Indonesia.The rogue state of Pakistan became an important ally to the US in the containment of the Soviet Union, giving rise to strategic complications with India.In the Sino-Indian war of 1962, the US extended help to India against China’s belligerence by sending an American carrier- The Enterprise- to the Bay of Bengal. China, however, had declared unilateral ceasefire the next day. Indian leaders and public welcomed American intervention.1966: In response to India’s criticism of the US intervention in Vietnam, President Lyndon B. Johnson restricted the supply of grain shipments to India under Public Law 480 programme.1967: A predominantly Anti-American worldview led India to reject a founding membership in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN).1968: India rejected the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) proposed by the world’s leading nuclear powers.1971: The USA had maintained a studious silence on Pakistan’s repressive policies in East Pakistan. The then Secretary of State Henry Kissinger visited Delhi to make India comply to not support liberation movements in East Pakistan. Indira Gandhi’s intransigence was met with diplomatic muscle-flexing. Next month, India signed a Treaty of Friendship, Peace and Cooperation with the Soviet Union, seen as a blatant shift from India’s Non-Alignment policies. US President Richard Nixon in a retaliatory move chose to explicitly tilt American policy in favour of Pakistan and suspended $87 million worth of economic aid to India. American naval fleet USS Enterprise traversed the Bay of Bengal, issuing mild threats. India won the Bangladesh Liberation War as the Pakistani Army embarrassingly surrendered more than 90,000 troops.1974: India conducted its first nuclear weapon test at Pokhran, and it came as a major jolt to the USA who made plans to upgrade its presence at Diego Garcia, a British-controlled island in the Indian ocean.1975: India faced considerable domestic turmoil and entered into a state of Emergency.1977: The Emergency ended and the US immediately eased restrictions it has placed on World Bank loans to India and approved direct economic assistance of $60 million.1978: US President Jimmy Carter and Indian Prime Minister Desai exchanged visits to each other’s nations.The 1980s: Large amounts of military aid was pumped into Pakistan by the USA in order to fight a proxy against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. This created significant repercussions in the internal security of India as the Pakistani mujahedeen fighters infiltrated into Kashmir as militants.1988: Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi made a historic visit to China which led to normalization of relations between India and China.1990: India hesitatingly provided a brief logistical support for American military operations in the Gulf War.Post-1991: The Soviet Union disintegrated into independent nations and the United States emerged as the single largest hegemon, making the world unipolar. It coincided with India opening doors to foreign private capital in its historic Liberalization, Privatization, and Globalization move.Trade between India and the US grew dramatically and is flourishing today.Why India Matters to the USA?India is an indispensable partner for the United States. Geographically, it sits between the two most immediate problematic regions for U.S. national interests. The arc of instability that begins in North Africa goes through the Middle East, and proceeds to Pakistan and Afghanistan ends at India’s western border.The Indian landmass juts into the ocean that bears its name. With the rise of Asian economies, the Indian Ocean is home to critical global lines of communication, with perhaps 50 percent of world container products and up to 70 percent of ship-borne oil and petroleum traffic transiting through its waters.India’s growing national capabilities give it ever greater tools to pursue its national interests to the benefit of the United States. India has the world’s third-largest Army, fourth-largest Air Force, and fifth largest Navy. All three of these services are modernizing, and the Indian Air Force and Indian Navy have world-class technical resources, and its Army is seeking more of them.India is an important U.S. partner in international efforts to prevent the further spread of weapons of mass destruction.India’s broad diplomatic ties globally (most importantly in the Middle East), its aspirations for United Nations (UN) Security Council permanent membership, and its role in international organizations such as the International Atomic Energy Agency makes New Delhi an especially effective voice in calls to halt proliferation.India’s position against radicalism and terrorism corresponds with that of the United States.India’s English-speaking and Western-oriented elite and middle classes comfortably partner with their counterparts in U.S. firms and institutions, including more than 2.8 million Indian Americans. The U.S. higher education system is an incubator of future collaboration, with more than 100,000 Indian students in American universities.As India modernizes and grows it will spend trillions of dollars on infrastructure, transportation, energy production and distribution, and defence hardware. U.S. firms can benefit immensely by providing expertise and technology that India will need to carry out this sweeping transformation.India-USA cooperation is critical to global action against climate change.India is genuinely committed to a world order based on multilateral institutions and cooperation and the evolution of accepted international norms leading to accepted international law.Indian culture and diplomacy have generated goodwill in its extended neighbourhood. New Delhi has positive relations with critical states in the Middle East, in Central Asia, in Southeast Asia, and with important middle powers such as Brazil, South Africa, and Japan—all of the strategic value to the United States. India’s soft power is manifest in wide swaths of the world where its civil society has made a growing and positive impression.Indian democracy has prospered despite endemic poverty; extraordinary ethnic, religious, and linguistic diversity; and foreign and internal conflicts.Why the United States matters to India?America remains the critical stabilizing force in Asia through its military and diplomatic power projection and commitments to the region.The twentieth century bore witness to a multigeneration U.S. efforts to prevent the emergence of any hostile hegemon on the Eurasian landmass, a function that the United States continues to fulfil today with the help of its Asian partners.China has chosen episodically to ignore global nonproliferation norms, a pattern of behaviour that the United States has assiduously sought to curtail. Though no nation can a priori prevent future Chinese proliferation activities, only a U.S.-led international effort has any chance of success.India will be better able to protect its national interests in Pakistan and Afghanistan in coordination with the United States.The United States will continue to be important for India’s economic success. India’s economy has been built around unleashing domestic consumption rather than relying on exports.The United States has also remained one of the top sources of foreign direct investment in India, bringing important managerial expertise, capital, and technology with it to the dynamic Indian market.The United States has a long-term commitment to maintain security and freedom of navigation on the high seas, something critical to India as a net energy importer.Washington retains unparalleled power and influence in global governance institutions.As India seeks a larger role in the UN Security Council and international monetary institutions, U.S. support for India will be critical to reforms that benefit New Delhi’s national interests.The United States retains a sizable technological edge on many commercials, aerospace, and defence technologies, the access to which benefits Indian national interests as well as Indian firms and customers.India-USA: Five Pillars of Strategic PartnershipStrategic IssuesEnergy and Climate ChangeScience and TechnologyHealth and InnovationEducation and DevelopmentIndia-US Civil Nuclear DealThe deal is seen as a watershed in India-USA relations and introduces a new aspect to international nonproliferation efforts. Since July 18, 2005, the deal lifts a three-decade U.S. moratorium on nuclear trade with India. It provides U.S. assistance to India’s civilian nuclear energy program and expands India-USA cooperation in energy and satellite technology.Terms of the deal:India agrees to allow inspectors from the International Atomic Energy Association (IAEA), the United Nations’ nuclear watchdog group, access to its civilian nuclear program. By March 2006, India promised to place fourteen of its twenty-two power reactors under IAEA safeguards permanently.India commits to signing an Additional Protocol (PDF)-which allows more intrusive IAEA inspections of its civilian facilities.India agrees to continue its moratorium on nuclear weapons testing.India commits to strengthening the security of its nuclear arsenals.India works toward negotiating a Fissile Material Cutoff Treaty (FMCT) with the United States banning the production of fissile material for weapons purposes. India agrees to prevent the spread of enrichment and reprocessing technologies to states that don’t possess them and to support international nonproliferation efforts.US companies will be allowed to build nuclear reactors in India and provide nuclear fuel for its civilian energy program.An approval by the Nuclear Suppliers Group lifting the ban on India has also cleared the way for other countries to make nuclear fuel and technology sales to India. India would be eligible to buy U.S. dual-use nuclear technology, including materials and equipment that could be used to enrich uranium or reprocess plutonium, potentially creating the material for nuclear bombs. It would also receive imported fuel for its nuclear reactors.Ashley Tellis of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace-who was intimately involved in negotiating the civil nuclear agreement with India as a senior adviser to the U.S. undersecretary of state for political affairs–said in congressional testimony in 2005 that the deal recognizes this growing relationship by engaging India, which has proven it is not a nuclear proliferation risk. (Reference: Council on Foreign Relations)Five developments in the India-US relations since the deal:The US has removed many high technology sanctions imposed on India since 1974. If Delhi was prevented by law from importing anything for its nuclear programme over the last few decades, it is boosting atomic power generation in India through imported uranium and is negotiating with multiple vendors for the purchase of new reactors.The US has become India’s largest trading partner in goods and services, and the two sides have set an ambitious goal of half a trillion dollars for future trade. The growing commercial engagement has been reinforced by an intensification of people-to-people contact and the presence of the 3 million strong Indian diasporas in America.Cooperation on counter-terrorism and intelligence-sharing have expanded rapidly over the last decade. The US has become one of India’s major suppliers of arms, and the two sides are discussing ideas that would once have been dismissed as inconceivable — for example, US support in the development of India’s next-generation aircraft carrier.In refusing to extend the civil nuclear initiative to Islamabad, Washington removed the hyphen in its relations with Delhi and Islamabad. Since 2005, America has also discarded the idea of mediating between India and Pakistan, especially on the Kashmir question.While traditional differences between Delhi and Washington on global issues have endured, the two sides are now avoiding confrontation in multilateral fora dealing with trade and climate change.Controversial issues with the deal:In March 2006, the U.S. Congress also took up the agreement and formally made it into legislation (Hyde Act) after the committee level deliberations and conciliations in terms of words by both the House and the Senate.On 1 August 2007, U.S. and Indian negotiators concluded a separate technical agreement under section 123 of the U.S. Atomic Energy Act, which spells out the precise terms, conditions, responsibilities, obligations and promises that each party undertakes.As the Hyde Act had imposed restrictions on how India could utilize U.S. nuclear supplies, the implementation of the agreement has received a setback because of the opposition by the Communist parties that supported India’s UPA government from outside. Leaders of almost all the political parties of India had categorically expressed their dislike and apprehensions for provisions that provided for cutting off aid if India conducts any future nuclear tests and the return of the all nuclear material or equipment provided by U.S. suppliers.Section 17b in the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010 according to which the Operator cannot seek recourse in case of nuclear accidents because of patent or latent defects in the material, equipment and even in the services provided. The US defies it to be against international norms whereas India says that it is according to Convention on Supplementary Compensation.The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Bill, 2010The Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Bill, 2010 fixes liability for nuclear damage and specifies procedures for compensating victims.The Bill fixes no-fault liability on operators and gives them a right of recourse against certain persons. It caps the liability of the operator at Rs 500 crore. For damage exceeding this amount, and up to 300 million SDR, the central government will be liable.All operators (except the central government) need to take insurance or provide financial security to cover their liability.For facilities owned by the government, the entire liability up to 300 million SDR will be borne by the government.The Bill specifies who can claim compensation and the authorities who will assess and award compensation for nuclear damage.Those not complying with the provisions of the Bill can be penalized.Analysis of the Bill and further issues:The liability cap on the operator:(a) may be inadequate to compensate victims in the event of a major nuclear disaster;(b) may block India’s access to an international pool of funds;(c) is low compared to some other countries.The cap on the operator’s liability is not required if all plants are owned by the government. It is not clear if the government intends to allow private operators to operate nuclear power plants.The extent of environmental damage and consequent economic loss will be notified by the government. This might create a conflict of interest in cases where the government is also the party liable to pay compensation.The right of recourse against the supplier provided in the Bill is not compliant with international agreements India may wish to sign.The time-limit of ten years for claiming compensation may be inadequate for those suffering from nuclear damage.Though the Bill allows operators and suppliers to be liable under other laws, it is not clear which other laws will be applicable. Different interpretations by courts may constrict or unduly expand the scope of such a provision.The understanding reached with the United States on January 25, 2015, during the visit of President Obama to India:India and the United States have reached an understanding on the issues related to civil nuclear liability and finalized the text of the Administrative Arrangement to implement the September 2008 bilateral 123 Agreement. This will allow us to move towards commercial negotiations on setting up reactors with international collaboration in India and realize the significant economic and clean energy potential of the civil nuclear understanding of 2005-2008.There is no proposal to amend the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage Act of 2010 Act or the Rules.How have U.S. concerns over the CLND Act then been resolved?During the course of the discussions in the Contact Group, using case law and legislative history, the Indian side presented its position concerning the compatibility of the Civil Liability for Nuclear Damage (CLND) Act and the Convention on Supplementary Compensation for Nuclear Damage (CSC). The idea of the India Nuclear Insurance Pool as a part of the overall risk-management scheme for liability was also presented to the U.S. side. Based on the presentations by the Indian side, and the discussion thereon, there is a general understanding that India’s CLND law is compatible with the CSC, which India has signed and intends to ratify.India-US Defense CooperationDefence relationship has emerged as a major pillar of India-USA strategic partnership with the signing of ‘New Framework for India-U.S. Defense Relations’ in 2005 and the resulting intensification in defence trade, joint exercises, personnel exchanges, collaboration and cooperation in maritime security and counter-piracy, and exchanges between each of the three services.India participated in Rim of the Pacific (RIMPAC) exercise in July-August 2016.The agreements signed during the past one year include:Logistics Exchange Memorandum of Association (LEMOA)Fuel Exchange AgreementTechnical Agreement (TA) on information sharing on White (merchant) ShippingInformation Exchange Annexe (IEA) on Aircraft Carrier TechnologiesPending agreements are:Communication and Information Security Memorandum of Agreement (CISMOA)Basic Exchange and Cooperation Agreement (BECA)In June 2016, at the conclusion of the third and last major bilateral summit between then U.S. President Barack Obama and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, a joint statement between the U.S. and India was signed and released by the White House. Though an official joint statement is standard protocol for such high-level engagements, this third and final joint statement announced the U.S. recognition of India as a Major Defense Partner for the first time in the history of both nations.Though that was no doubt a historic move, why this was done remains an issue of debate, and the potential of such a designation remains unfinished work. Given the importance that the administration of U.S. President Donald Trump has accorded the U.S.-India relationship and the momentum in ties, Washington must begin moving forward on next steps now as should New Delhi.The reason behind the joint statement was to cement the progress made within the U.S. Department of Defense, with interagency support, to advance policy decisions that ultimately redefined the bilateral defense relationship by placing India on par with most of the U.S. allies within NATO. The policy changes gave equal footing to India with these countries in respect to technology release and cooperation decisions enabling a closer political, military, and industrial partnership.With the looming end of the Obama presidency and subsequent exit of supportive political appointees that enabled this rapid and historic shift, changes within key U.S. documents, statements and legislation reflecting this progress were needed to ensure a smooth and consistent transition to a new administration, regardless of which candidate won the election.Reaching the full potential of this designation will require serious partnering by both nations in the coming months under the Trump administration. The joint statement of June 2016 recognized the defense relationship as an anchor of stability, and, to this day, the defense relationship remains an island of continuity for both nations.By designating India as a major defense partner, the United States committed to continue its work toward facilitating technology sharing with India to a level commensurate with that of its closest allies and partners. Furthermore, the United States committed to continuing efforts to facilitate the export of goods and technologies for projects, programs, and joint ventures in support of official U.S.-India defense cooperation and India’s “Make in India” initiative.Subsequently, the U.S. Congress passed the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) for Fiscal Year 2017, which included recognition of India as a major defense partner. This act legally recognizes a unique partnership designation by the United States to India and codifies in U.S. law the spirit of the June 2016 joint statement.The immediate effect of both the June 2016 joint statement and the NDAA for fiscal year 2017 was twofold. As stated earlier, the June 2016 joint statement cemented policy gains that had been previously published. In addition, it immediately served as a tool for revisiting policy decisions made earlier that were not fully reflective of this designation. Therefore, that joint statement not only cemented previous gains, but served as a high-level document to challenge policy decisions deemed too restrictive and in need of liberalization to match such a designation.The June 2016 joint statement and NDAA language technically facilitated changes in licensing policy. Furthermore, the Department of Commerce commenced with an effort to amend the Export Administration Regulations (EAR) to reflect such a status while the United States committed to ensure licensing requests for defense products and technology would now be considered under this unique designation.Over the past 12 months, the Trump administration has committed to further define the meaning of this designation in partnership with the Modi government. The objective is to reach agreement on what would be viewed as both transactional and aspirational by the opening of the planned 2+2 U.S.-India dialogue early this year. This dialogue, a merging of foreign affairs and defense topics at the ministerial level, was agreed to by the President and Prime Minister this past summer.The good news is that, over the past year, the defense relationship trajectory remains on a positive path as before with a commitment by the Trump team “to raise the bar.” The current administration demonstrated its view of the importance of this designation with the historic decision to transfer Sea Guardian capability to the Indian government – historic in that this is a first time U.S. approval of such a capability for other than a NATO ally deployed with U.S. forces in Afghanistan.And although a formal bilateral definition remains unpublished, actions speak volumes. The question being asked more and more around Washington, D.C. is: what is India doing to demonstrate how it embraces such a designation? After all, the June 2016 joint statement was a joint statement, and the statement should reflect what both nations agreed to at the highest levels.Although this designation was a recommendation of the United States and was done so to cement the progress that Washington had made internally to reach this new high, there was an expectation that India too would work to define and transform its policies and practices in an attempt to match the progress the United States had made and continues to make. Looking forward to the 2+2 dialogue, what should both nations be doing to advance relations as major defense partners?For the United States, consideration should be given to replicate the Defense Department’s NDAA 2017 language within the State Department. Why? As the final decision authority on the transfer of military capability and partnering with respect to military technology, the Secretary of State is not bound by the Pentagon’s NDAA. And although the NDAA does have weight, complementary language should be included within State’s policies to ensure a whole of government embrace of India as a major defense partner.The United States should consider broadening ITAR changes to further embrace this designation and continue to modify policies to ensure India is on par with some of our closest allies and partners. The Pentagon also needs to designate a political appointee of sufficient rank to act as champion for this relationship and to be held accountable for devoting sufficient time to ensure continued progress. At the moment, it appears as though the relationship is of importance but not necessarily as nurtured as it was in recent past. There is no doubt that in the absence of sustained, high-level political attention, antibodies will reemerge and progress will stall.For India, the government must also consider both transactional and aspirational stretch goals. India must help the United States understand where it views the defense relationship trajectory heading, and it cannot be exclusively measured by how much technology the United States is willing to transfer. With the rise of China, the challenges of securing the Indian Ocean, and a non-aligned constitutional position, what is India’s objective with respect to U.S.-India defense relations? Understanding those objectives greatly helps the U.S. system to coalesce to advance the relationship even further. The U.S. military technology release decision process remains one dominated by understanding how our friends and allies want to partner.Other questions remain. For instance, does such partnering then lead to the need for interoperability? Working together military to military to advance issues such as maritime domain awareness, stabilizing Afghanistan, or pursuing quadrilateral military relations all serve to motivate the U.S. system to lean even further forward. What does India envision with respect to U.S.-India military relations?By defining the vision with respect to U.S.-India military relations, the United States will then better understand whether we should be concerned with India’s other military partners; some of which present a potential national security risk. There is nothing more vital to national security than military capability, and it is therefore in U.S. national interest to remain conservative in its sharing of such capability and technology. India routinely expresses intent to partner with Russia on next generation military capability and the sharing of such technology with Russia remains a major issue of concern within the United States. The United States respects India’s sovereignty and need to manage a diverse list of international partners, but, in turn, India must then respect U.S. hesitation to go further especially with respect to sharing our most critical military technology—the same technology that U.S. policy greatly restricts across the globe.To move forward as I believe both nations desire to do, India must commit to U.S. requirements for securing military technology and to ensuring that its emergent defense industrial complex agrees to the same. Furthermore, there must be assurance that both government officials and industry personnel are held accountable for such security, hence the need for concluding the remaining enabling agreements. For both nations, as in the past, progress will only be sustained with a mutual commitment to creative solutions for resolving unfinished yet critical business such as the remaining enabling agreements.Ideally, the Indian government would soon announce a defense Make in India project with the United States and its industries to enable both governments and their industries to tangibly demonstrate the impact of U.S. policy changes. Both U.S. fighter offers, if agreed to, would represent a transformational demonstration of these gains and would provide both governments an opportunity to further refine their procedures and policies, thus enabling ever more ambitious joint military projects tomorrow.Now is the time to act. The Trump administration is eager to raise the bar and willing to get past impediments, with an eye towards finding creative and historic approaches to make progress. The administration, with its recently published National Security Strategy, has clearly stated its intent to expand defense and security cooperation with India as a Major Defense Partner. India, for its part, is positioned well to continue the trajectory with the Modi government remaining on firm political footing with no significant change expected over the next few years.For both governments, continuing to delay major cooperative decisions, holding out for a better deal, and allowing entrenched antibodies to delay further progress, will only ensure we both fall short of the possible. Meanwhile, the world and our adversaries are not resting nor delaying their investments and preparedness. Let us elevate the cooperation and decisionmaking while time is on our side.