Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions
By: Don M. Snider.
Contributors: Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute.
Publisher: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College
Published: 2008
Place of publication: Carlisle, PA
Language: eng
Number of pages: 38
ISBN-13: 9781584873419
Subjects: Dissenters -- United States; Civli-military relations -- United States; Military ethics -- United States; United States -- Armed Forces -- Officers -- Political activity
Description: One of the central difficulties to a right understanding of American civil-military relations is the nature of the U.S. military. Are our armed forces just obedient bureaucracies like most of the Executive branch, or are they vocational professions granted significant autonomy and a unique role in these relationships because of their expert knowledge and their expertise to apply it in the defense of America? To large measure, the answer to this question should determine the behavior of the strategic leaders of these professions, including the uncommon behavior of public dissent. Using the "Revolt of the Generals" in 2006 as stimulus, the author develops from the study of military professions the critical trust relationships that should have informed their individual decisions to dissent. After doing so, he makes recommendations for the restoration of the professions' ethic in this critical area of behavior by the senior officers who are the professions' strategic leaders.
Notes: "February 2008."

Includes bibliographical references (p. 32-38).

Full text also available on the SSI website.
Table of contents: title: Introduction; title: Part I: A framework for throught; title: Part II: What are the characteristics of military professions and their ethic of trust; what are the factors within dissent that can strengthen or weaken critical trust relationships?; title: Part III: Conclusions - Should there be further limitations on military dissent by the strategic leaders of Americ'as military professions, particularly those in retired status, or is the current ethic, which strongly discourages such acts, still sufficient?