Richard K. Betts and Michael C. Desch respond separately  to Peter D. Feaver's spring 2011 International Security article, "The Right to Be Right: Civil-Military Relations and the Iraq Surge Decision."

President George W. Bush’s Iraq surge decision in late 2006 is an interest­ing case for civil-military relations theory, in particular, the debate between professional supremacists and civilian supremacists over how much to defer to the military on decisions during war.

"Success Matters" authoritatively explains the rationale for the George W. Bush administration's attempts to maintain U.S. domestic support for the war in Iraq. In 2005, as the war became increasingly unpopular, Peter Feaver, one of the article's authors, was appointed to the National Security Council staff as special adviser for strategic planning and institutional reform. He has reportedly played a key role in shaping U.S. policy. Feaver and his coauthors conclude that the American public will support a war when it believes that success is likely. This article offers a detailed look at the analysis that underpins current U.S. policy. It is suggested that the public will even tolerate relatively high levels of casualties if victory is the probable outcome of the war. These conclusions have served as the basis for the "strategy for victory" that President Bush outlined in his November 30, 2005 Naval Academy speech and elsewhere.

In this issue's correspondence section, Peter Feaver, Gunther Hellmann, Randall Schweller, Jeffrey Taliaferro, and William Wohlforth argue against points made in Jeffrey Legro and Andrew Moravcsik's fall 1999 article "Is Anybody Still a Realist?" Legro and Moravcsik respond to their critics.

Many commentators have pointed to an emerging civil-military "gap" in the United States.  Former Secretary of Defense William Cohen declared that a "chasm" is opening between the military and civilian worlds.  Some claim that America's armed forces and its civilians no longer share the same values and understanding of the role of the military.  Others go so far as to suggest that the U.S. military is becoming less willing to accept civilian direction.