This Journal is sponsored by the Assn. for Christian Conferences, Teaching and Service.

ISSN: 2354-8315 (Online)


The Army Ethic White Paper July 2014 - Discussion part 3
PDF Print E-mail
Article Index
The Army Ethic White Paper July 2014
Introduction & Background
The Problem and The Risk
Discussion continued
Discussion part 3
Discussion part 4
Discussion part 5
Discussion part 6
Discussion part 7
Reinforcing the Army Profession plus Summary & Solution
The Army Ethic—Heart of the Army
All Pages

Today, the Army Ethic remains a concept, described as the, “…set of laws, values, and beliefs…within the Army culture….” motivating and guiding the conduct of Army Professionals in a common moral purpose.29 This description is little advanced from observations made in 2009 by Dr. Don M. Snider, et al. regarding “The Army’s Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict.” The purpose of their monograph was to provide a framework within which scholars and practitioners could discuss the various aspects of the Army’s Ethic. They observed that such discussion is especially challenging because the Army lacks common models and language for this dialogue.

“Current Army doctrine and scholarly research do not provide a construct for examining the Army Ethic.”30 —COL (R) Don M. Snider, Ph.D., MAJ Paul Oh, MAJ Kevin Toner, from “The Army’s Professional Military Ethic in an Era of Persistent Conflict Summary,” SSI Monograph, October 2009

In September 2012, LTC Clark C. Barrett suggested “The Right Way” to establish an Army institutional Ethic. His thesis is that the “frameworks” the Army has adopted only imply, they do not explicitly state an Army Ethic. He proposes an integration of the disjointed and disconnected Army ethical prescriptions. He further emphasizes that the Army Ethic plays a key role in shaping the Character Development of Army Professionals.31

Colonel Brian Michelson, in his USAWC Strategy Research Project, argues that the Army Profession’s concept for developing Character is ineffective. It is compromised because Army doctrine does not explicitly articulate the Army Ethic. Hence, the Army Profession does not have a consensus strategy for Character Development. His conclusion is that our approach is laissez faire.32

Colonel John A. Vermeesch, writing in Military Review, offered his conclusion that the Army Profession is challenged by the lack of Character Development systems. In redressing this condition, he recommends paying particular attention to moral and ethical reasoning. He believes a well-designed and implemented strategy for Character Development will strengthen professional identity and enhance appreciation for and application of Army Values.33

Similar concerns and expectations exist for Army Civilians. Brigadier General (Retired) Volney Warner, President of the Army Civilian University, and Ms. Natalie Liu Duncan stated in their 2011 “Army Civilians – Professionals by Any Definition,” Military Review article, “As government professionals Army Civilians have obligations to the highest standards of performance and accountability to high ethical standards.”34

Last Updated on Friday, 14 November 2014 12:35