3‐Isoquinuclidone

Pearlman, W. M.

doi:10.1002/0471264180.os049.20

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...

Repeated Disobedience June 1950-march 19511

Citation Types

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Year Published

2012

Publication Types

Select...

Article1

Relationship

Self Cite0

Independent1

Authors

Journals

Cited by 1 publication

(1 citation statement)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although MacArthur technically had received permission to visit Formosa, there was an ''understanding'' with the State Department that he would not visit the island ''for the indefinite future.'' 28 MacArthur also did not inform civilian officials at the US consulate in Taipei of his meeting. In effect, the general conducted a diplomatic mission that exceeded the responsibilities and purview of his command.…”

Section: Repeated Disobedience June 1950-march 1951mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toward a Theory of Civil–Military Punishment

Bessner

Lorber

2012

Armed Forces & Society

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article addresses a significant question in American civil–military relations: under what conditions will civilian principals punish military leaders for shirking? In order to inductively derive a theory of civil–military punishment, the authors examine two cases of military shirking where there is little doubt that insubordination occurred. The first case the authors analyze is Douglas MacArthur’s insubordination under Harry Truman during the Korean War, and the second is Colin Powell’s scuttling of Bill Clinton’s plan to allow homosexuals to serve openly in the military in late 1992 and early 1993. This analysis indicates that two factors are linked to civil–military punishment. First, the salience of the issue at stake determines whether he or she decides to punish shirking. The second factor linked to punishment is whether or not the civilian has the military’s support to pursue punishment.

show abstract

Section: Repeated Disobedience June 1950-march 1951mentioning

confidence: 99%