Abstract
At a time of heightened sensitivity to the military’s role in national security and domestic politics, senior officers are more likely than ever to “play the neutral card” – i.e. to act in ways that simply emphasize their supposedly apolitical role. Two of the dominant schools of civil-military relations theory insist that this is virtually the only card officers can play, positing in effect that any political influence by officers on policy-making is inappropriate. However, a third tradition has long argued the opposite: officers do and should engage in consistent dialogue with civilian principals in the hope of producing better policy outcomes. This article adjudicates between the three perspectives, finding that while the third perspective is most persuasive, it too suffers from serious limitations. We provide a new perspective on how senior officers influence their political environments, highlighting their power and the range of options open to them.