The Profession of Arms - Research Paper Example

? The Profession of Arms s of Learning This work employs the ethical processing model to examine the ethical issuesfacing the modern US military after a decade in persistent wars. In this regard, this paper critically evaluates some three fundamental aspects of the contemporary US military: professionalism, culture, and ethics in the US military. In the analysis, it compares military professionalism with civil professionalism, points out the differences, justify military actions, and points to the direction military professionalism should take. Military culture is also discussed in lengths in addition to being compared with military climate. In evaluating ethics, this paper illustrates possible platforms and avenues of achieving virtues behaviors among individual soldiers in the US military. Finally, this work comes up with a compelling conclusion in which dialogue in light of the discussion presented in this paper is pointed to as solution to ethical issues facing the US military. This paper builds a convincing profession of arms in the US after a decade in war. INTRODUCTION After close to a decade in war, the performance of soldiers and leaders in the United States Army has continued to be magnificent. While some critical skills have eroded along the way, the US Army is different from what it was in 2001, and continues to be an Army in transition—learning, always seeking to meet the needs of the American People. As a profession—a profession of arms—it is appropriate for the army to examine itself particularly at these times of transition to ensure that that it appreciates and lives up to the principles that define a profession. This can be achieved by understanding three critical ethical issues; what it implies for the army to be a profession of arms; the meaning of an individual being a professional soldier; and an examination of how individual professionals and the army as a profession is working to meet these aspirations after a decade in war (Casey, 2009). THE ARMY AS A PROFESSION After years of study and practice, the military, like any other profession, should be able to produce uniquely expert work—away from routine or a repetition. In exercise of military professionalism, the military, just like the sick need a cure from the medics, should be able to provide security to the defenseless. In so doing, effectiveness, rather than pure efficacy, should be the defining factor. In this light, one of the ethical issues that face the US military is the continuous development of expertise and the subsequent utilization of that expertise in the best interest of the society only. The security that the American society cannot provide for itself, and without which it cannot survive, the military should provide. In so doing however, the military should employ its expertise only in accordance to the values held by the Nation (Dempsey, 2010). One of the factors that underline the existence of the army is the applications of lethal force. Unlike other professions, the weapons and operations of a soldier are lethal, and individual soldiers must be ready to kill and die in response to the needs of a republic. However, the US Army aspect of professionalism has waned over the years, depicting itself more as an occupation than a profession (Casey, 2009). In particular, the US military has gone professional during expansion and later phases of war while it turns ‘occupational’ during contraction and after wars. A good illustration to this aspect is the post-World War 2 in Korea and post-Vietnam. The coming to being of an all-volunteer force in 1971 and the subsequent rebuilding of the Army NCO Corps Post-Vietnam did not end this trend. This was followed by more professionalism during Desert Storm and more of managerial aspects over the next decade. Today, after close to a decade in war, the US army exhibits more traits of a professional outfit as opposed to the institutional side of the army. However, in the contemporary global era of persistent conflict, the professional aspects of the military should not be allowed to suffer (Casey, 2009). Another ethical issue facing the US Army is the exercise of discretional judgment in their profession. Like most professions, nobody should tell a soldier what to do and what not to—he/she should reach a solution drawn from years of knowledge and practice. While this is trust invested by the Americans on their soldiers, most of their discretional judgments have a high degree of moral implications on the life of others—soldiers, enemies or innocent civilians on the battlefield. In this light, army professionals of highly developed moral character, and who can effectively reason with the moral frameworks should deliver such judgments. Balancing the role of army profession’s leaders also comes in as an ethical; issue in the contemporary US military. This is in view of the fact that after ten years in war, some military systems have gone out of balance. The military strategic leaders—sergeant majors, colonels, and generals—should balance the relationship between the four fields of expertise to ensure that the army has the right capabilities to employ where and when the nations needs them. An apparent short fall in maintaining this balance was seen after the fall of Baghdad in in March 2003. As a result, Junior US soldiers found they were fighting a counterinsurgency campaign for which they lacked the necessary expertise and equipment. Lastly, the commitment, well-being, and satisfaction of US army professionals will heavily rely on a balanced relationship between the culture, climate, and institutional practices of the US Army (Dempsey, 2010). THE PROFESSIONAL CULTURE OF THE ARMY In terms of professional culture, an ethical issue facing the contemporary US military is an understanding among the military leaders how institutional cultures affect professional behavior. Since self-awareness at an institutional level is as critical as self-awareness at an individual level, one aspect of the US military that remains critical—whether its culture, after tens of war, is still relevant to its current missions. In this regard, the culture of an army is a reflection of the shared values, goals, practices, and attitudes that define it for a given period (Dempsey, 2010). Climate, on the other hand, is a more deeply embedded aspect of an organization that reflects the true feelings and attitudes of individual soldiers during their interaction within the culture. For example, a ‘zero defect’ culture can lead to a climate where soldiers perceive a lack of trust on them and subsequently lead to lack of transparency and dialogue. Climate is based on the tangible aspects of an institution’s culture like flow of communication, tempo of operation, rewards, punishment, and leadership quality among others. Climate, unlike the intrinsic culture, can be changed by say, replacing an unpopular leader within the military (Casey, 2009). In a forthcoming transition, the US army must always put its professional culture under consideration. There should be an appropriate adoption of culture at every of the three levels—artifacts, values and beliefs, in addition to the basic assumptions. Clearly, there is an occurrence of cultural changes in a way not being realized or managed. As an example, high rates of promotion have an implication on the culture of the army and its belief on professional meritocracy. The underlying factor is therefore not whether a change in the US army culture will occur during this transition but rather the direction and the speed with which army leaders will manage this change (Snider and Toner, 2009). THE ARMY ETHIC In view of the lethality of a soldier in the battlefield, there is a dire need for well-shaped character and beliefs at the soldier level in addition to strong professional ethics at the military institution level. Clearly, both are necessary pre-requites for the profession of the arms. Numerous artifacts at the surface level of the US army culture demonstrate the deep moral character of the soldier profession. The purpose of military moral values and ethical is realized through their expression in actions of individual actions soldiers, failure to which they serve no purpose. In this regard, military leaders across the organizational levels must lay the foundation for ethical; culture where the good is rewarded and the bad subjected to punishment (Dempsey, 2010). Leaders can further enhance ethical and virtuous behavior through communication of the values and ideals a particular unit of soldiers are expected to subscribe to. Even more important is the military leaders to act as role models to their respective juniors (Casey, 2009). Clearly, ethical and virtuous behaviors among individual US soldiers do not come naturally. The shaping of moral-ethical characters of individual soldiers across the US military landscape must happen across the numerous organizational levels. To illustrate this, individual units should develop collective norms that should subsequently shape the respective soldiers through mechanisms such as unit climate and culture. In this light, a unit can go a long way in shaping the character of soldiers through different social learning and identity processes. For example when a particular unit develops a particular belief towards say, prisoners of war, it can easily influence other units particularly when it cuts the shape of a moral actor (Dempsey, 2010). CONCLUSION In observation of the above, there is need to adapt the US army as a profession of arms. The above discussion lays a platform on which the army professionals can draw a framework and a common language that is vital to beginning a dialogue. This is underlined by the need to set a clear path among the US military officials both in their capacity as individuals and in their desire to build a military institution that is effective and revered. In this regard, this paper has shed light on the important aspects of the military as a profession, its culture, and its ethics. Such concepts can be easily refined through dialogue before adoption as doctrines for the effective and gainful running of the US military. After a decade in war and counting, there is need for a thorough evaluation of all the critical attributes in the profession of arms (Dempsey, 2010). References Casey, G. W. (2009) "Advancing the army: professional military ethics." ndupress.ndu.edu 54( 93:14-15. Dempsey, M. (2011). An army white paper: the professions of thre arms. December 8, 2010. November Snider, Don, and Kevin Toner. (2011) Professional military ethics monograph. October 2009. http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB895.pdf (accessed November 29, 2011). Read More