Civil-military relations during President William J. Clinton's administration are often credited as being the least harmonious of any American president. It was frequently asserted that civil-military relations during the Clinton administration became so strained and mired in conflict that civilian control of the military had reached a point of "crisis." These claims were frequently substantiated with allegations that the military had become increasingly alienated from the society which it is to serve and protect. Many cited that the military had abandoned its political neutrality and became actively involved in partisan politics. Most significant were claims that the senior military leadership had become increasingly influential in dictating national policies. These elements seemed to indicate that there was a fundamental change within civil-military relations and that the civilian leadership was leading an insubordinate military. The ability and willingness for the military to render political opposition against its civilian masters, act contemptuously against the president, or dictate national policy certainly calls into question the effectiveness of civilian control over the military. Though it may be tempting to regard this loss of civilian control as a result of military animosity against Clinton, the issue was much more complex. While clashing personalities undoubtedly were a factor, the problem was more deeply rooted. This monograph poses the question of how did civil-military relations change prior to and during the Clinton administration to convince many observers that American civilian control had declined to a point of crisis? This monograph argues that the primary cause for the perceived decline in civilian control during the Clinton administration was the absence of relevant civil-military relation models which addressed the delineation of labor between civilian and military leaders in the post-Cold War environment. In effort to assess why a crisis wa

The weight of the loads carried by today's dismounted infantrymen has degraded their ability to operate in restricted terrain. This degradation in capability has had a drastic impact on the effectiveness of the Infantry Brigade Combat Teams which were designed to operate in restrictive and severely restrictive terrain. Originally developed as a part of the Future Combat Systems program, the Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment-Transport is an unmanned ground vehicle designed to carry some of the excess weight of the rifle squad. This research project sought to determine whether or not the Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment-Transport is a viable mitigation strategy for the Soldier load problem in the Infantry Brigade Combat Team. The study defined the severity of the Soldier load problem as well as the capabilities and limitations of the Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment-Transport. Given a notional mission in dessert, urban, and mountainous terrain, the Multifunctional Utility/Logistics and Equipment-Transport was assessed against a set of evaluation criteria which included mobility, versatility, and protection. That assessment led to the conclusion that the MULE-T, as it is currently designed, is not a viable mitigation strategy for the Soldier's load problem in the Infantry Brigade Combat Team.

"The format of each chapter is clear and logical. . . . The style is aimed at students and tries to engage them in thinking further about points raised in each chapter. The authors avoid over-use of technical terms. . . . Material is well-presented with many headings and subheadings. . . . This book is a useful source for cross referencing research reports in special education with design or techniques used. In addition, the checklists for critiques are potentially valuable as study aids for undergraduates and students commencing post-graduate work." --Ann Lewis in British Journal of Developmental Psychology "The book represents a useful short introductory guide to approaches to research. . . . the authors go systematically. . . through the stages of the research process from literature review to data analysis and reporting. . . . On completion of the book, the reader would have a very good idea of the span of options open to a researcher and would have gained considerable breadth. . . of knowledge not only about methodology, but also about the corpus of special education research. . . . Mertens and McLaughlin have. . . produced a sound introductory text which makes short cuts for the reader who is both new to research methodology and working within special education." --Educational Research "The breadth of reference is a strength of the text. . . . This short book is a convenient and well-organized addition to [the Sage series]." --Tony Cline in Division of Educational & Child Psychology Newsletter "Donna M. Mertens and John McLaughlin have created a basic work that beautifully bridges the fields of research and special education. The document provides a step-by-step approach with clear, rich examples that should allow the user to plan and conduct a research study that meets the standards of both fields. My initial fears were that the authors would get caught up in the jargon of either research or special education and present a confusing array of concepts that would benefit neither researchers nor special educators. Those fears were soon alleviated when they indicated that a 'researcher may be doing footwork that more resembles a "cha cha" than a straightforward stroll.' The document is formatted in a manner that is easy to use with a map to each chapter at the beginning and study questions at the end. Mertens and McLaughlin have filled a unique gap in the research of special education issues." --Kenneth R. Olsen, Technical Assistance Specialist, University of Kentucky "This is a clear, sensitive, and user-friendly introduction to qualitative and quantitative research methods in special education. A much-needed primer and a must read for researchers working with individuals with disabilities." --David Fetterman, Director of Research and Evaluation,