Assessing Military Dissent in Vietnam and Beyond

This study comprises an analysis of the legitimacy of dissent by Admiral Sharp and General Westmoreland following the Vietnam War. The author does this by using Huntington’s theories of objective civilian control of the military and his four different cases of dissent to devise a two-step dissent analysis model. The model addresses first, whether the military officer has a valid message of dissent, and second, whether there are extenuating circumstances to justify going directly to the public with the dissent rather than using more traditional and appropriate avenues. The conclusion is that Sharp and Westmoreland’s dissent was inappropriate because they criticized President Johnson on political grounds in which they did not have the requisite expertise. The study then briefly addresses recent dissent during Operation Iraqi Freedom. Again, the study found that the dissent presented failed to meet the criteria for legitimacy. The retired generals challenged Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld on political grounds. Additionally, there was not a sufficiently strong case for going directly to the public rather than using their chain-of-command while still on active duty.This work has been selected by scholars as being culturally important, and is part of the knowledge base of civilization as we know it. This work was reproduced from the original artifact, and remains as true to the original work as possible. Therefore, you will see the original copyright references, library stamps (as most of these works have been housed in our most important libraries around the world), and other notations in the work.This work is in the public domain in the United States of America, and possibly other nations. Within the United States, you may freely copy and distribute this work, as no entity (individual or corporate) has a copyright on the body of the work.As a reproduction of a historical artifact, this work may contain missing or blurred pages, poor pictures, errant marks, etc. Scholars believe, and we concur, that this work is important enough to be preserved, reproduced, and made generally available to the public. We appreciate your support of the preservation process, and thank you for being an important part of keeping this knowledge alive and relevant.