Should I Stay or Should I Go? Building a Mental Construct for Senior Officers Contemplating Leaving the Service Over Matters of Policy
Abstract
This study offers a mental construct that attempts to answer the question: What issues should senior military officers consider when contemplating departure from the armed forces over policy differences with civilian leaders? It begins by using previous civil-military relations studies to derive a theory that proposing that senior military officers can retire or resign when they have acute policy disagreements without endangering national security or the military s subordination to civilian leadership. The mental construct takes the form of a series of six questions that senior military officers can use to analyze the costs and benefits their departure might have on their future, their service s future, and national security. The questions asked are: 1. Will my departure adversely affect civilian control of the military? 2. Will my departure adversely affect the morale of my fellow servicemembers? 3. Will my departure provide aid and comfort to the enemy? 4. If I depart the armed forces, is there a competent replacement? 5. Do I intend to disagree with policy publicly? 6. Will staying in the armed forces and complying with those policies I find disagreeable unacceptably violate my principles and values? Two historical examples are then used to evaluate the mental construct s utility: the first is Lieutenant General James M. Gavin, who chose to retire in response to policy differences with the Eisenhower Administration; the second is General Harold K. Johnson, who considered resigning in protest to the Johnson Administration s handling of the Vietnam War but chose to remain on active duty. The thesis concludes with an assessment of the mental construct s utility and the study s implications.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- Jun 01, 2011
- Accession Number
- ADA625705
Entities
People
- Ernesto Divittorio
Organizations
- Air University