Dissent and strategic leadership of the military professions / Don M. Snider.

Format:

Book

Government document

Author/Creator:

Snider, Don M., 1940-

Contributor:

Army War College (U.S.). Strategic Studies Institute.

Language:

English

Subjects (All):

Dissenters--United States.

Dissenters.

Military ethics--United States.

Military ethics.

United States--Armed Forces--Officers--Political activity.

United States.

Physical Description:

viii, 38 pages : digital, PDF file

Place of Publication:

[Carlisle Barracks, PA] : [Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College], [2008]

System Details:

Mode of access: Internet from the STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE web site. Address as of 3/04/2008: http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB849.pdf; current access is available via PURL.

Summary:

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.

Contents:

Introduction

Part I: A framework for thought

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?

Part III: Conclusions - Should there be further limitations on military dissent by the strategic leaders of America's military professions, particularly those in retired status, or is the current ethic, which strongly discourages such acts, still sufficient?

Notes:

Title from title screen (viewed on March 4, 2008).

"February 2008."

Includes bibliographical references (pages 32-38).

OCLC:

212783639