This paper, jointly sponsored by SSI and CPME, is intended to be the first of many whose purpose is to promote scholarship on Officership and the Professional Military Ethic as well as enhance the discussion of military professionalism within the Army and sister services.

This paper, jointly sponsored by SSI and CPME, is intended to be the first of many whose purpose is to promote scholarship on Officership and the Professional Military Ethic as well as enhance the discussion of military professionalism within the Army and sister services.

This monograph surveys the history of the Army's professional ethic, focusing primarily on the Army officer corps. It assesses today's strategic, professional, and ethical environment. Then it argues that a clear statement of the Army officers' professional ethic is especially necessary in a time when the Army is stretched and stressed as an institution. The Army officer corps has both a need and an opportunity to better define itself as a profession, forthrightly to articulate its professional ethic, and clearly to codify what it means to be a military professional.

General George W. Casey, Jr., Chief of Staff, U.S. Army, once observed: "If you walked around the Army and asked people what the professional military ethic is, you would get a lot of different answers."1 That is because Army's professional military ethic is not codified, although its spirit is resident in a number of documents. Other American professions have clearly promulgated statements of ethics. Within the Army, there are several extant statements of ethical responsibility-for Soldiers, noncommissioned officers (NCOs), and civilians-but not for officers. This monograph briefly surveys the history of the Army's professional ethic, focusing primarily on the Army officer corps. It assesses today's strategic, professional, and ethical environment. Then it argues that a clear statement of the Army officers' professional ethic is especially necessary in a time when the Army is stretched and stressed as an institution. The Army officer corps has both a need and an opportunity to better define itself as a profession, forthrightly to articulate its professional ethic, and clearly to codify what it means to be a military professional. Finally, this monograph articulates such an ethic. For more than 2 centuries, the U.S. Army has developed a mature professionalism, but one that waxed and waned over time. The historical record shows that wartime crises tended to produce, or perhaps to expose, the profession's shortcomings, which peacetime reformers then sought to correct. The Army's professional ethic embraced national service, obedience to civilian authority, mastery of a complex body of doctrinal and technical expertise, positive leadership, and ethical behavior. But at the beginning of the 21st century, it was less healthy in terms of its junior professionals' acceptance of a lifelong call to service. Time would show that it was doctrinally unprepared for the trials that lay ahead. Eight years of repetitive deployments have left the Army, in the words of General Casey, "stressed and stretched." Some observers think the Army is near the breaking point. Several factors contribute to that stress. One concern is the type of warfare that the Army is being asked to conduct, counterinsurgency, which is one of the most ethically complex forms of war. Further, during these years of war, some policy decisions have tended to blur moral, ethical, and legal lines that Soldiers have long been trained to observe and uphold. Officers, above all, must fight to maintain and safeguard the laws of war as a professional responsibility. Third, since the post-Cold War drawdown, the armed forces have chosen to rely more and more heavily on commercial contractors, sometimes for inherently governmental functions. Today, the Army is "selling" large tracts of its professional jurisdiction. Finally, professionally improper dissent on the part of retired generals and the widespread perception that they speak for their former colleagues still on active duty threaten the public trust in the military's apolitical and nonpartisan ethic of service as well as the principle of civilian control.

"This essay offers a proposal for the missing constructs and language with which we can more precisely think about and examine the Army's Professional Military Ethic, starting with its macro context which is the profession's culture. We examine three major long-term influences on that culture and its core ethos, thus describing how they evolve over time. We contend that in the present era of persistent conflict, we are witnessing dynamic changes within these three influences. In order to analyze these changes, we introduce a more detailed framework which divides the Ethic into its legal and moral components, then divide each of these into their institutional and individual manifestations. Turning from description to analysis, we also examine to what extent, if any, recent doctrinal adaptations by the Army (FM 3-0, 3-24, and 6-22, etc.) indicate true evolution in the essential nature of the profession's Ethic. Then, we present what we believe to be the most significant ethical challenge facing the Army profession -- the moral development of Army leaders, moving them from 'values to virtues' in order that they, as Army professionals, can consistently achieve the high quality of moral character necessary to apply effectively and, in a trustworthy manner, their renowned military-technical competencies."--P. x