I think it is important to remember that just five years ago, it was very in vogue to believe that there was a "crisis in civil military relations" and that public, or perhaps even emphatic private, disagreement with "civilian" leadership (left very unspecified as to just who this included) was disloyal, or "shirking."
I state this not to absolve those indicted by Paul Yingling, but rather to expand it to include those who promoted academic theories that encouraged flag officers to view their informed professional opinion as just another policy preference.
I'm certain this was not the intent of the academics. There was considerably more nuance in the original books and articles than what percolated into the conventional wisdom of policy circles, but ideas have consequences.
Doug
Bookmarks