The Decision Isn’t the Problem

By Christopher M. Phillips, Ph.D.

Editor’s note: The cases described in this article are composites, with identifying details changed.

I sat across from a man a few months after his retirement ceremony. Twenty-two years of service with multiple deployments. A career worth respecting. He said the ceremony had gone well, and the speeches were affirming. I asked how he’d been doing, and he said quietly that he was “fine … handling it.”

I asked what he did with his mornings now. He went quiet for a while. Long enough that I almost moved on to the next question. Then he said he’d been waking up at 0530 out of habit, sitting in the kitchen, and wondering what he was supposed to do until the rest of the house woke up. After 22 years, he said, nobody had ever asked him to “just exist without a task attached to it.”

I asked if he knew who he was without the job. He didn’t answer that one at all.

Here was a man who had spent two decades being the person other people called when something needed to get handled. He had built an identity out of being effective under pressure, reading the room, and being humble and persuasive. That identity had never once failed him. That’s exactly why he had never had to examine it. The uniform had been doing the work of answering a question he had never actually asked himself: Who am I?

The fracture wasn’t created the day the structure was gone. The retirement paperwork wasn’t the cause. It was just the first day nothing external was holding the question closed anymore.

Transition is rarely just the vocational event people prepare for. It’s a structural event. Some of what shifts is real: the routines, the community, the day-to-day belonging that used to organize a life. But some of what surfaces was never constant to begin with: an identity, a set of relationships, a sense of purpose that had been resting on borrowed support. Transition doesn’t just change the terrain. It exposes what the terrain could no longer hold up on its own.

His story isn’t unusual. It’s simply a clearer version of a problem many operators eventually face, whether the decision in front of them is retirement, a job offer, or something smaller.

Operators obsess over decisions. Accept the offer or turn it down. Retire or stay in. Move the family or hold steady. Start the business or wait another year. They feel like the moments that define a life. They’re usually not the problem.

Most SOF veterans will spend more years out of uniform than they ever spent in it, yet few prepare for that stretch with anything close to the rigor they brought to mission planning. Competing obligations, limited time, and the sheer unpredictability of transition all play a part. But the deeper reason is that transition requires a different skill from the one that made them exceptional operators.

Every decision grows out of an environment you can’t see. That environment determines which options even register as possible. Someone leaving SOF doesn’t struggle because the next job is a hard call to make. He struggles because the ground underneath the decision had already shifted, months or years before the offer ever landed on his radar.

His identity has shifted; his marriage has changed under the weight of the transition; his sense of purpose is unsettled. The community that used to hold him accountable is gone, the routines that structured his days have vanished, and the feedback loops that used to tell him whether he was doing well or badly no longer exist. The job offer just happens to be the thing sitting there when it all comes due.

The research points in the same direction. Sgt. Maj. Keith Thomas, writing in Special Warfare, observes that an abrupt separation from service, particularly one that is involuntary or poorly supported, often costs an operator community, identity, and mission-driven purpose at roughly the same time. In their 2026 scoping review, Walters and colleagues found that veterans who did not choose to leave, or who were not prepared to, reported greater identity loss. The routines are the obvious loss. Harder to see is how much those routines had been holding in place: where someone belonged, what was expected of them, what they were useful for, and who they understood themselves to be.

Brandt Smith, writing for the Irregular Warfare Center, developed a framework to describe competition among states and societies, not the interior life of an individual. But the structural logic translates remarkably well. Smith argues that modern strategic competition has shifted away from primarily destroying an adversary’s military capability and toward something that operates beneath and before it: shaping the social terrain, the underlying relationships, motivations, institutions, and conditions that make collective action possible in the first place.

Smith contends that information and cyber operations, economic coercion, and social influence campaigns are different instruments aimed at the same target: the conditions that determine how a society thinks, organizes, and acts.

The analogy only carries so far, and it doesn’t need to carry any farther. A person’s interior life is not a battlespace, and the people around him are not adversaries. What Smith’s framework exposes is something more useful: the visible contest is often downstream from the conditions underneath it. By the time the decision arrives, much of the ground on which it will be made has already been shaped.

Smith’s more important claim is about how success gets measured. Winning individual information battles doesn’t matter much on its own. What matters is whether the underlying terrain grows more or less resilient over time. In a resilient society, social conditions remain cohesive and adaptive enough that manipulation fails to produce lasting effects. Win the terrain, and individual battles have less impact. Lose it, and no number of tactical victories will save you.

The Two Competitions

A person’s life operates on much the same logic. The decision itself is rarely the central problem; the landscape beneath it is. That terrain has two distinct fronts, and most people only ever fight one of them.

The external competition is made up of everything outside a person that’s competing to author who he is and what he should want. Culture runs a campaign to convince him that identity is something you purchase or perform. An institution’s culture subtly, and sometimes not so subtly, tries to convince him that his rank or his title is the real measure of what he’s worth. Even people who mean well participate in that shaping without recognizing it. A group’s expectations, a family’s assumptions, or an OER/NCOER’s definition of a good year can exert a constant, low-grade pressure that bends a life along lines he never chose. None of this is necessarily hostile. Smith would call it competition, not conflict. Nobody has to be your “adversary” for their interests to reshape your terrain if you’re not paying attention.

I watched this happen to a man while he was still in service. He’d moved into a position with more responsibility and visibility, and by every normal measure his career was going well. There wasn’t anything wrong with the job, but when we talked about how he was doing, almost everything he said came back to work. Whether he was performing, whether people trusted him. Whether he was still the guy others counted on when something needed to get done. I asked about his marriage, what he was looking forward to, what made for a good day when nobody needed anything from him. Those questions were harder. His work had become the vocabulary he used to understand himself. He hadn’t lost a fight over who got to define him. He’d never realized there was one to fight. The external competition had won mostly because nothing inside him had ever contested it.

The internal competition is harder to see and more decisive. It’s the war between the version of a man still loyal to an identity that used to work and the version trying to build one that fits where he actually is now. The tension between the part of him that wants an easy night and the part that knows there’s a difficult conversation with his wife he has been avoiding. Old assumptions work much the same way. They persist because they require very little from us. Left unexamined, they continue shaping how we interpret a life that may have changed considerably since those assumptions first took hold.

What matters more is the condition of the terrain the external pressure encounters. External competition rarely succeeds against a person whose internal terrain is cohesive. A man with a settled identity, an intact marriage, and a will anchored in something larger than his own comfort can absorb an enormous amount of external pressure and keep his shape. But internal fragmentation is an open door. When the internal competition is unresolved, the external one doesn’t have to work very hard. It just has to offer the fragmented man a version of himself that feels easier to hold than the one he’s currently failing to integrate. He’ll often take it, not because he’s persuaded, but because he’s tired of fighting a war on the inside that nobody else can see.

Smith makes a similar point about societies: resilience doesn’t mean an absence of disagreement or outside pressure, but enough internal cohesion to keep manipulation from producing lasting effects. Likewise, a resilient person is one whose internal terrain is coherent and adaptive enough that the tests don’t relocate him.

That’s the part almost everyone gets backwards when they talk about transition, about divorce, about the breakdown that seems to come out of nowhere after 20 good years. People often came to me wanting to talk about what to do next. The older I get, the more I think that was the wrong place to start. The more important question is what has been entrusted to you, and what condition is it actually in?

That’s where the idea of terrain connects to something older: stewardship. Terrain describes the conditions underneath a life. Stewardship describes our responsibility for them.

The language of stewardship is older than the modern language of achievement. In the Christian tradition especially, a life is understood less as a possession than as something entrusted. Time is a stewardship, marriage is a stewardship, influence is a stewardship, and even our gifts are entrusted rather than owned.

Decisions look different once you see your life that way instead of as something you own outright. The question is no longer simply “What should I do next?” It’s “What have I been entrusted with, and what does faithfulness to it require now?” That’s the posture worth sitting with: making decisions like someone entrusted with a life, not someone simply managing one.

The Pattern Beneath

Research on military-to-civilian transition supports what I heard from that man who sat in his kitchen at 0530, and what I’ve seen in so many others. Identity disruption after separation is repeatedly associated with post-transition distress. In a scoping review of 65 studies, Heward and colleagues found that where military identities were hidden or disrupted, poorer mental health outcomes were observed. In my clinical work, the men who struggled most were often not the ones who performed worst in uniform. They were the ones whose sense of self seemed most completely absorbed by the role. Grimell’s ten-year longitudinal study documented how military identity can remain deeply embedded in veterans’ lives long after separation, shaping how they understand themselves, their work, and their place in civilian society.

Military identity is not something a person simply needs to shed on the way out. For years, it may have done enormously important work. It supplied belonging, standards, relationships, purpose, and a remarkably clear answer to the question of where a person fit.

That is part of what makes leaving so complicated. Flack and Kite’s research with Australian veterans suggests that some dimensions of military identity remain protective after service, while others can make social connection outside that world more difficult, particularly when military identity becomes highly central or the military is experienced as family. Social connectedness, in turn, is closely associated with well-being after service. A 2026 scoping review by Walters and colleagues makes a similar point: leaving service can require veterans to renegotiate identity and find new sources of meaning and purpose.

The paradox is that some of the people who look best prepared for transition may be carrying a vulnerability that success has helped conceal. The problem is not having a strong military identity. It is what can happen when too much of the architecture of identity, purpose, belonging, and competence has come to depend upon it. The military role may have carried all of those things extraordinarily well for a very long time. The harder question is what remains standing when that role is gone.

That vulnerability should not be confused with fragility. Research by Cooper and colleagues comparing Army Special Forces personnel with conventional infantry found the opposite pattern: Special Forces personnel reported fewer mental health problems, fewer physical health problems, and healthier behaviors despite exposure to demanding operational environments. The point is not that exceptional performers are “secretly” less resilient. It is that resilience is always expressed somewhere, under particular conditions. The question is what happens when a person leaves the environment in which those adaptations were selected, reinforced, and repeatedly rewarded.

But what if some of this starts much earlier?

Even before an operator spends years in the culture, the selection process sorts for characteristics that matter within it. Research by Farina and colleagues at SFAS found that physical performance was the strongest predictor of selection, but psychological characteristics, including resilience and grit, mattered too. The institution does not simply train people for a demanding environment. It intentionally begins by selecting people unusually well suited to it.

None of this makes every difficult transition a clinical crisis. Thankfully, most are not. But belonging shouldn’t be dismissed as a trivial variable. Its loss has long figured in theories of suicide risk, notably the interpersonal theory of Van Orden and colleagues, and recent work on military-to-civilian transition places social connection near the center of post-service well-being. In SOF specifically, Thomas goes further and argues that the isolation that follows the loss of the community is among the most important drivers of suicide risk. What begins as a question of where someone fits can, for some veterans, become something far more consequential.

It doesn’t have to go that way. I worked with another man, two years out from his own retirement, who’d started examining his own terrain early, not because anything had gone wrong yet, but because a mentor had pushed him to do so while he was still in uniform. He didn’t have an answer right away. Nobody does. But he spent the better part of a year sitting with the discomfort of not having one: in counseling, in long conversations with his wife, and in a men’s group that had nothing to do with the military at all. By the time his retirement ceremony came, the question wasn’t new to him. It didn’t disappear, and it didn’t get easier exactly, but it also didn’t detonate. He’d already been standing on that ground for a year. The retirement still arrived. It just didn’t find anything he hadn’t already faced.

The Only Real Choice

Nobody builds a better future simply by getting faster at making decisions. They build it by finally asking the question the uniform, the marriage, and the job title had been answering for them the whole time, and by deliberately naming what those structures had been providing: identity, purpose, belonging, worth. The work is not to make those things matter less. It is to build enough underneath a life that no single role is asked to carry all of them at once.

Timing matters more than method. Do it while the structure is still standing and the work is exploratory. Wait until the structure is gone and the same work becomes an emergency.

The pivotal event doesn’t create the crisis. It reveals it. The question is whether you’ve examined the terrain beneath your life before circumstances test it for you.

References

“Social Terrain: The Strategic Substrate of Irregular Competition”, by Brandt A. Smith (Irregular Warfare Center).

“You Can Take a Person Out of the Military, but You Can’t Take the Military Out of the Person: Findings From a Ten-Year Identity Study on Transition From Military to Civilian Life”, by Jan Grimell (Frontiers in Sociology).

“A Scoping Review of Military Culture, Military Identity, and Mental Health Outcomes in Military Personnel”, by Carolyn Heward, Wendy Li, Ylona Chun Tie and Pippa Waterworth (Military Medicine).

“Transition From Military to Civilian: Identity, Social Connectedness, and Veteran Wellbeing”, by Mal Flack and Leah Kite (PLOS ONE).

“Transitioning to Civilian Life: How Are Life Meaning, Purpose and Identity Related to Wellbeing for Veterans? A Scoping Review”, by Cassandra Walters, Lauren Miller-Lewis and Amy Johnson (Behavioral Sciences).

“Mental Health, Physical Health, and Health-Related Behaviors of U.S. Army Special Forces”, by Adam D. Cooper et al. (PLOS ONE).

“Physical Performance, Demographic, Psychological, and Physiological Predictors of Success in the U.S. Army Special Forces Assessment and Selection Course”, by Emily K. Farina et al. (Physiology & Behavior).

“The Interpersonal Theory of Suicide”, by Kimberly A. Van Orden, Tracy K. Witte, Kelly C. Cukrowicz, Scott R. Braithwaite, Edward A. Selby and Thomas E. Joiner (Psychological Review).

“Fractured Brotherhood: Suicide, Identity Loss, and the Crisis Within U.S. Special Operations Forces”, by Sgt. Maj. Keith Thomas (Special Warfare, U.S. Army).

_____________________________

Dr. Chris Phillips is the founder of Valor Institute for Leadership and Legacy (leadwithvalor.com) in Monument, Colorado. A former Air Force psychologist, his work has spanned SERE psychology, resilience, and human performance in military and Special Operations environments, most recently as a clinical and human performance psychologist supporting Special Operations Command Europe (SOCEUR). Connect with him on LinkedIn.

As the Voice of the Veteran Community, The Havok Journal seeks to publish a variety of perspectives on a number of sensitive subjects. Unless specifically noted otherwise, nothing we publish is an official point of view of The Havok Journal or any part of the U.S. government.