Military modernization in post-conflict states is routinely expected to consolidate cohesion and democratic subordination. This article argues that, under conditions of institutional asymmetry and legal uncertainty, the same reforms can generate alienation among the officers most aligned with them. Drawing on a cross-sectional study of 295 Colombian Armed Forces officers using K-means clustering and semantic network analysis, we identify a phenomenon we term Enlightened Professional Dissonance. Civilian academic exposure was associated with stronger doctrinal adaptation, yet adaptation was positively related to commitment crisis and identity erosion. A dominant profile of “alienated modernizers” paired high adaptation with acute estrangement and narratives centered on legal vulnerability and perceived abandonment. The findings complicate linear professionalization theories, suggesting that modernization can redistribute risk downward, weakening institutional attachment in transitional democracies.
ArjonaA. (2016). Rebelocracy: Social order in the Colombian civil war. Cambridge University Press.
2.
AteşE. (2024). Civil–military relations and education of military elites in Turkey and the United States. Armed Forces & Society, 50(1), 253–273. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X221103294
3.
AvantD. (2005). The market for force: The consequences of privatizing security. Cambridge University Press.
4.
Ben-AriE.ElronE. (2001). Blue Helmets and White Armor multi–nationalism and multi–culturalism among UN peacekeeping forces. City & Society, 13, 271–302. https://doi.org/10.1525/city.2001.13.2.271
BromleyP.PowellW. W. (2012). From smoke and mirrors to walking the talk: Decoupling in the contemporary world. Academy of Management Annals, 6(1), 483–530. https://doi.org/10.5465/19416520.2012.684462
7.
BrooksR. (2020). Paradoxes of professionalism: Rethinking civil–military relations in the United States. International Security, 44(4), 7–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/isec_a_00374
8.
BrooksR. A. (2008). Shaping strategy: The civil-military politics of strategic assessment. Princeton University Press.
9.
BrunssonN. (1989). The organization of hypocrisy: Talk, decisions and actions in organizations. John Wiley.
10.
CardonaJ. M. (2022). Normas y prácticas en los oficiales durante el conflicto armado interno colombiano (1995-1998): Modelo plural divergente instintivo. Academia Colombiana de Historia.
11.
CarifioJ.PerlaR. J. (2007). Ten common misunderstandings, misconceptions, persistent myths and urban legends about Likert scales and Likert response formats and their antidotes. Journal of Social Sciences, 3(3), 106–116. https://doi.org/10.3844/jssp.2007.106.116
12.
DannenbaumT. (2018). The criminalization of aggression and soldiers’ rights. European Journal of International Law, 29(3), 859–886. https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chy054
13.
DeschM. C. (1999). Civilian control of the military: The changing security environment. Johns Hopkins University Press.
14.
DiMaggioP. J.PowellW. W. (1983). The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review, 48(2), 147–160. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095101
15.
FeaverP. D. (2003). Armed servants: Agency, oversight, and civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
16.
FellmethA.CrawfordE. (2022). “Reason to know” in the international law of command responsibility. International Review of the Red Cross, 104(919), 1223–1266. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1816383122000236
17.
HillA. J. (2019). Mission command as leadership: Empowering subordinates to act. Military Review, 99(1), 45–55.
18.
HillA.NiemiH. (2017). The trouble with mission command: Flexive command and the future of command and control. Joint Force Quarterly, 86, 94–100.
19.
HinterleitnerM.SagerF. (2017). Anticipatory and reactive forms of blame avoidance: Of foxes and lions. European Political Science Review, 9(4), 587–606. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1755773916000126
20.
HoodC. (2011). The blame game: Spin, bureaucracy, and self-preservation in government. Princeton University Press.
21.
HuntingtonS. P. (1957). The soldier and the state: The theory and politics of civil–military relations. Harvard University Press.
22.
JanowitzM. (1960). The professional soldier: A social and political portrait. Free Press.
23.
KalyvasS. N. (2006). The logic of violence in civil war. Cambridge University Press.
KohnR. H. (2002). The erosion of civilian control of the military in the United States today. Naval War College Review, 55(3), 8–59.
26.
MeyerJ. W.RowanB. (1977). Institutionalized organizations: Formal structure as myth and ceremony. American Journal of Sociology, 83(2), 340–363. https://doi.org/10.1086/226550
27.
MoskosC. C.Jr. (1973). The emergent military: Civil, traditional, or plural?The Pacific Sociological Review, 16(2), 255–280.
Norheim-MartinsenP. M.NyhamarT. O. (Eds.). (2015). International military operations in the 21st century: Global trends and the future of intervention. Routledge.
30.
NormanG. (2010). Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education, 15(5), 625–632. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10459-010-9222-y
31.
PantevP.RatchevV.TagarevT.ZaprianovaV. (2005). Civil-military relations and democratic control of the security sector: A handbook for military officers, servicemen and servicewomen of the security and intelligence agencies, and for civilian politicians and security experts. Procon.
32.
Pion-BerlinD. (2005). Military autonomy and emerging democracies in South America. Comparative Politics, 38(1), 83–102.
33.
Pion-BerlinD. (2016). Military missions in democratic Latin America. Palgrave Macmillan.
34.
SchakeK.MattisJ. (Eds.). (2016). Warriors and citizens: American views of our military. Hoover Institution Press.
35.
SkaarE. (2014). Judicial independence and human rights in Latin America: Violations, politics, and prosecution. Palgrave Macmillan.
36.
SoetersJ. (2020). Sociology of the military. Routledge.
37.
StepanA. (1988). Rethinking military politics: Brazil and the Southern Cone. Princeton University Press.
38.
UprimnyR. (2011). Transitional justice, impunity and democratic stability: The case of the Colombian peace process. Sur–International Journal on Human Rights, 7(13), 147–171.
39.
VanLandinghamR. E. (2024). Courtroom as war crime: Ukraine’s military justice struggle. Ohio State Law Journal, 84(6), 1297–1333.
40.
WilliamsR. (2019). Transitional justice in Colombia: Negotiating the terms of peace. International Journal of Transitional Justice, 13(1), 1–21.
