International and budgetary pressures are causing some military members to diminish their fealty to civilian control. At the same time, today’s officers inherit decades of relative public trust within a form of government inherently wary of standing militaries. They will best maintain that position when their words and deeds follow the Constitution with its stipulation of civilian control. The military’s moral authority will not withstand its senior leaders succumbing to the temptation to determine policy rather than carry it out. Yet the civil-military underpinning of officership has not been sufficiently resourced. Far greater attention is needed to educating the officer corps to the requirements as well as the potential of adherence to Constitutional principles

A domain-based model helps illuminate terms and concepts in the debate over the professional status of military members. They are adjudged professionals based on exacting criteria. The U.S. military as a community applies the subdomain of arms for its primary society, the Nation. It performs a vital function, mastery of the art and science of arms, to protect the society in ways the society accepts. It has established the proper mechanisms for its practitioners, the Servicemembers, to attain and sustain professional status, and the practitioners generally sustain community norms and meet societal expectations

Active and retired officers should consider the circumstances that merit disagreement, how it should be expressed, what principles should guide the expression, whether different rules should govern Active and retired officers, and the parameters determining what is appropriate and lawful. Should officers influence policy at all? Here, a retired general who was publicly critical of a Secretary of Defense presents cases, including his own, where ethical questions were weighed, a stand was taken, and the consequences emerged. Among other considerations is the difference between giving testimony before civilian authorities, where truthful responses are expected, and speaking critically to the news media, where perceived disloyalty can be damaging to national security or lead to dismissal.