"Using a range of survey tools to glean insights into changing norms within the US military, this book provides a particularly valuable window into the political beliefs and behavior of active-duty (primarily US Army) officers. With its presentation of contemporary data, discussion of new dynamics created by social media, large number of questions for future research, and pragmatic policy recommendations, this book offers significant findings to be pulled that will improve the dialogue within professional military education and in senior military leader's writings to their colleagues and guidance to the forces and is an important resource for policymakers, practitioners, and scholars"--

Between 1864 and 1877, during the height of the Plains Indian wars, Pawnee Indian scouts rendered invaluable service to the United States Army. They led missions deep into contested territory, tracked resisting bands, spearheaded attacks against enemy camps, and on more than one occasion saved American troops from disaster on the field of battle. In War Party in Blue, Mark van de Logt tells the story of the Pawnee scouts from their perspective, detailing the battles in which they served and recounting hitherto neglected episodes. Employing military records, archival sources, and contemporary interviews with current Pawnee tribal members—some of them descendants of the scouts—Van de Logt presents the Pawnee scouts as central players in some of the army's most notable campaigns. He argues that military service allowed the Pawnees to fight their tribal enemies with weapons furnished by the United States as well as to resist pressures from the federal government to assimilate them into white society. According to the author, it was the tribe's martial traditions, deeply embedded in their culture, that made them successful and allowed them to retain these time-honored traditions. The Pawnee style of warfare, based on stealth and surprise, was so effective that the scouts' commanding officers did little to discourage their methods. Although the scouts proudly wore the blue uniform of the U.S. Cavalry, they never ceased to be Pawnees. The Pawnee Battalion was truly a war party in blue.

This monograph argues that although the United Wa State Party (UWSP) has been branded by the international community as a "narco-trafficking army," the organization has an ethnic nationalist agenda whose aim is to build a Wa state within Burma. The UWSP is not innocent of narcotics-related crimes, but few conflict parties in Burma can claim to have clean hands. The weak capacity of the UWSP leadership has prevented it from developing a clear vision of how to develop a Wa state. Although the UWSP has promoted Wa nationalism, the population under its control is not mono-ethnic. The UWSP has implemented a ban on opium cultivation to comply with international pressure. It has called for international aid to offset the impact of the ban, but so far not enough assistance has come through. The organization has relocated thousands of Wa villagers to the Thai border area, displacing part of the original Lahu, Akha, and Shan populations and aggravating ethnic tensions. Relations with the government remain tense, and peace has not been achieved. It is unlikely the UWSP will agree to disarm until some of its basic demands have been met. The United States has indicted eight UWSP leaders on drug trafficking charges. Thailand sees the UWSP as a security threat and accuses it of producing amphetamines. China has a better relationship with the UWSP and has given support and technical advice to the organization. The drug trade is controlled by powerful ethnic Chinese syndicates that have no interest in conflict resolution and state building. Demonizing and isolating the UWSP will make the organization more dependent on them, and will obstruct reconciliation efforts in Burma.

Although much is known about the political stance of the military at large during the Civil War, the political party affiliations of individual soldiers have received little attention. Drawing on archival sources from twenty-five generals and 250 volunteer officers and enlisted men, John Matsui offers the first major study to examine the ways in which individual politics were as important as military considerations to battlefield outcomes and how the experience of war could alter soldiers’ political views. The conservative war aims pursued by Abraham Lincoln’s generals (and to some extent, the president himself) in the first year of the American Civil War focused on the preservation of the Union and the restoration of the antebellum status quo. This approach was particularly evident in the prevailing policies and attitudes toward Confederacy-supporting Southern civilians and slavery. But this changed in Virginia during the summer of 1862 with the formation of the Army of Virginia. If the Army of the Potomac (the major Union force in Virginia) was dominated by generals who concurred with the ideology of the Democratic Party, the Army of Virginia (though likewise a Union force) was its political opposite, from its senior generals to the common soldiers. The majority of officers and soldiers in the Army of Virginia saw slavery and pro-Confederate civilians as crucial components of the rebel war effort and blamed them for prolonging the war. The frustrating occupation experiences of the Army of Virginia radicalized them further, making them a vanguard against Southern rebellion and slavery within the Union army as a whole and paving the way for Abraham Lincoln to issue the Emancipation Proclamation.

Conventional wisdom holds that the American military is overwhelmingly conservative and Republican, and extremely political. Our Army paints a more complex picture, demonstrating that while army officers are likely to be more conservative, rank-and-file soldiers hold political views that mirror those of the American public as a whole, and army personnel are less partisan and politically engaged than most civilians. Assumptions about political attitudes in the U.S. Army are based largely on studies focusing on the senior ranks, yet these senior officers comprise only about 6 percent of America's fighting force. Jason Dempsey provides the first random-sample survey that also covers the social and political attitudes held by enlisted men and women in the army. Uniting these findings with those from another unique survey he conducted among cadets at the United States Military Academy on the eve of the 2004 presidential election, Dempsey offers the most detailed look yet at how service members of all ranks approach politics. He shows that many West Point cadets view political conservatism as part of being an officer, raising important questions about how the army indoctrinates officers politically. But Dempsey reveals that the rank-and-file army is not nearly as homogeneous as we think--or as politically active--and that political attitudes across the ranks are undergoing a substantial shift. Our Army adds needed nuance to our understanding of a profession that seems increasingly distant from the average American.