First a whole and in individual countries, but

First of all, I would like to consider how different authors described the importance of civil military relations and the importance of the theory. From many course we can see that the civil military relations have a very broad theory that can be divided in many subfields and parties and have a lot of institutions that study wars that were in the past and regards the importance of these theories. According to Owens _______, theories are very important and are employed to be used in many cases, such as predicting the cases that can be evolved future by looking at the facts that happened in the past, prescribing policy in order to make a connection between policy and the state. I will help by explain steps necessary to maintain healthy relations with other countries. When writing this article Owens made many references to Huntington who wrote the whole book called “The Soldier and the State” (Huntington 1967). Huntington also talked about the importance of theory, especially underlying military as the profession that connected to accumulated from the past and that military man learns from experience (Huntington 1967, 64). However, I can see a contradiction because as far as Huntington concerned about theory, he used to say that progress in more important that history and history is significant only in some particular cases, when it is used to create principles which will be important to imply in the future.Moreover, Owens also challenged Huntington’s theories about military, and suggested to create new theory, which is agency theory, that they thought will be more beneficial. Huntington’s work is aimed at focusing attention on the growing problems not between countries, but civilizations. each civilization will become politically united as a whole, and conflicts and struggles between different groups within civilizations will cease. Today, an example of this is the proof that conflicts are taking place or are growing on the scrap of civilizations. Huntington’s the “clash of civilizations” theory is not the result of an objective analysis of events and processes occurring both in the world community as a whole and in individual countries, but rather is created as a scientific theory, an attempt to manipulate people’s consciousness. The worldview of scientists and politicians who proclaim the “clash of civilizations” is extremely subjective. According to the famous American scientist Edward Said, “the main danger of this theory lies in the fact that it clouds consciousness.” Huntington became the heralds of certain circles, driven by so-called “binary logic”, those who represent the world “black and white”, divided into “their own and others”, “friends and enemies,” and those who want to find the “image of a new” enemy for the West after the collapse of the Eastern bloc. As far as for Feaver in Owens (2011, 29), he posses the agency theory by considering whether agent “working” or “shrinking”, which will give ability to minitar the agent and punish him in the case of “shrinking” without observing consciousness as Huntington suggested. However, this is not more beneficial because mankind is tired of the warrior, enmity, artificial walls built between “our own and others” that accompanied him to the end of the 20th century and which affected the beginning of the 21st century. As never before, humanity needs peace, mercy and tranquility. Between people, despite the confessional and ethnic differences, there is much in common, mankind must be able to find ways to unite in the work of doing good and good and be able to accept everyone as he she is able to see unity and diversity, while Huntington’s theory does not provide sufficient military ability to survive the war. t is no accident that many political scientists noted that the main thing in the confrontation of civilizations is the struggle of individual countries for a place under the sun, and not their cultural differences. It is important that none of the ruling elites of the non-Western powers among the potential leaders of any “non-Western civilization” openly opposes themselves to the West, for fear of economic and other consequences. On the contrary, such countries try to actively fit into the established world order, pursuing their economic interests. As a result, it can be concluded that Huntington’s theory was formed within the framework of today’s reality, under the conditions of the domination of man-made western cultural values ??inscribed in the idea of ??liberalism, all contradictory historical alternatives were discarded.