Civil-military relations are complex in its nature, in the meaning that there is no any approach or theory that explain or provide the whole picture of the field (Owens 2011, 14), and it also has many paradoxical issues. One of such main problems is what Peter Feaver called the civil-military problematique, which states that a country must be able to handle two scenarios like creating strong enough military to provide safety for its citizens and ensuring that the military it created will not turn against polity (Owens 2011, 12). Samuel P. Huntington was one of the first political scientists, who provided a modern theory of civilian control with an intention to provide a solution to the given paradoxical issue of the field, which is widely used and still considered to be dominant in CMR. Although Huntington’s theory of civilian control is widely accepted as the mains of the scope and objective control approach is mostly preferred, I will argue that it is not necessarily the only condition that can solve the problematique as two realms can also be united to achieve common goals, without fearing external threats as well as internal ones. It is the aim of the paper to discuss some flaws of the Huntington’s theory on civilian control of military regarding a distinction between civilians and militaries, what Schiff named as “separation” theory, approach that is kind of advancement of the Prussian general and military theorist, Carl von Clausewitz’s theory of the war (Owens 2011, 20). Therefore, before going deep in that discussion, first, we must briefly have a look on what is meant by objective civilian control that Huntington considered as the preferred approach for the civil-military problematique, and its opposite subjective control, which was considered as the worst scenario. Above mentioned two terms were formulated and introduced by Samuel Huntington in his work The Soldier and the State, as the person who was concerned about the paradoxical issues of CMR, he came up with these models trying to provide a solution that would maximize military’s ability to defend the country while minimizing any possible internal threat. So, objective civilian control deals with the given issue by maximizing professionalism of military, which according to the concept of professionalism- expertise, responsibility, and corporations- makes military autonomous as its skill of management of the violence makes it a unique subgroup (Huntington 1957, 83). On the other hand, there is a subjective control, an antithesis of the objective one, stated as the simplest way of gaining control, where some group or groups of the society alien and integrate with the military to gain dominance of society. Hence, such a fusion of the civilians and militaries was considered dangerous and even anarchic from author’s point of view (Huntington 1957, 80). Military professionalism described by Huntington is called to be too idealistic and narrow, in the sense that it mainly considers only past and just after WWII military personnel, whereas conditions and the requirements for the military can be changed due the needs of the new age. So, even though Huntington and his supporters saw fusion of two sides as something dangerous, some military sociologists like Morris Janowitz argued that in the post-World War II period, there appeared a need for military officers to integrate with politics as a result of development of nuclear weapons and emergence of limited wars (Taylor 1998, 38). Janowitz then states that difference between peace and war washes away, when military “is continuously prepared to act, committed to the minimum use of force, and seeks viable international relations, rather than victory” naming it a constabulary force that challenges the civilian control by pollicization of the military due to the new requirements needed to be ready for an opposing USSR threat (Taylor 1998, 38-39). For instance, as an aftermath of the WWII, the USA organized some parliamentary (military) force to protect its colonies that were trained to operate as police officers. This is what Janowitz argued for and said to be the convergence of civil and military society’s values (Binkley 2016, 255), which will make the military more supportive of the politics by making them to a have a better understanding of the political field, hence, decreasing an internal threat. Moreover, there are some more political scientists, who argued against the necessity of the separation of powers, stating some examples from the history when civilians and militaries worked together that Samuel Huntington overlooked or did not consider. For instance, Peter Feaver alongside with proposing his Agency theory criticizes the predictive abilities of Huntington’s theory on liberals being unable to produce enough military to went through the Civil War by bringing up an example of the United States that had a sufficient military and was a liberal state (Owens 2011, 29). Also, Feaver stated that during the Cold War “the military became more “civilianized”, the officer corps more politicized, and civilians habitually intruded into the military realm” (Owens 2011, 29), which shows a clear possibility of civilians and military’s integrated existence. Another example can be today’s Kazakhstani military, where military, in my opinion, and the society is highly integrated, as those officers, lieutenants and other military personnel of the Kazakh army has a right to vote in elections, also, there are many professions like in intelligence functions, computer scientists and doctor, where civilians are highly integrated. So, dividing citizens into some different unique subgroups to avoid an internal threat is not the only solution as those subgroups may be integrated with civilians without fearing the state and staying professional. To conclude, answering the main questions of the paper on the preference of separation over integration it can be said that there are variations where civil and military reals can co-operate without opposing the threat of turning against the state. However, if to be conservative minded, an integration should only be allowed to some limited extent and uniqueness of both realms should be kept for avoiding loss of military professionalism.