An Argument For Military Expertise. Of The Six Chapters

"Leadership is the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation to accomplish the mission and improve the organization" (Mills, 2013). The Army measures its leaders by their attributes and their core leader competencies. Also, a leader must be able to train, coach and mentor their subordinates. Additionally, the Army has three levels of leadership: Direct, Organizational, and Strategic. An effective leader understands and practices these qualities at an operational level.

Leadership development in the military is critical to its mission and objectives. Understanding and embracing leadership will foster an agile culture and facilitate attainment of strategic goals. People desire quality leadership to assist with achieving their goals, albeit personal or professional development. Having a clear vision and the motivation to perform at high-levels influences others to work synergistically together to achieve organizational goals. Insomuch, employees value being treated respectfully, fairly, and ethically. Leaders serve people best when they help them develop their own initiative and good judgment, enable them to grow, and help them become better contributors.

Army leaders must balance the link between the Army’s culture and it’s climate and institutional practices. When there is a proper balance it has a huge impact on the mindset of the Army’s Soldiers. Their actions or inactions impacts the five key attributes of the profession, and the four fields of expertise, and have long term effects on the Army’s culture and climate. These actions influence Soldiers’ perceptions that they are serving professional who have answered the call of service to the republic, it is important that Soldiers understand that their role is a calling and not just a job.

Leadership goals should always contain methods of a continuous process of learning through education, training, and individual experiences that help ensure that the message will be communicated in a confident and competent manner when leading troops. Soldiers tend to follow leaders that demonstrate and live the Army values, while displaying their confidence in every decision that affects change. Leaders are not born as organizational or tactical leaders; but grown by their genetic determinism, which is inside and the characteristics they work toward; that mold is which type leader they will become. Not just anyone can lead; you must have the desire to lead, be willing to make the commitment to being a leader, and prepare yourself properly, then you have the desire to become a leader. (Fulton, 1995).

The Army's definition of leadership is “the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization.” An army leader is anyone who inspires and influences people to accomplish their goals. Leaders motivate people both inside and outside the army to help them pursue their goals, focus thinking, and shape decisions for the better of the army. Leadership can be acquired by anyone as long as they have the self-determination to do so. The main principles of leadership in the army are broken down in to the acronym LDRSHIP (loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, personal courage), characteristics the army aims to instilled in each

2. Intent. Leader development is the most important thing leaders do. It is my goal that each of you achieves the highest level of responsibility and service your talents permit. I will balance that goal with my duty to help identify the future leaders of our Army.

The term “civil-military relations” is a misleading term at best, since it implies there are only two actors at play: the civil and the military. Clausewitz 's strategic triad posits three legs: the military, the government, and the people where the interplay between the three directly affects the ability for the nation to function as a whole. (Triad of Government, Armed Services, and People) That interplay is underpinned by trust between the military and the other two legs of the triad, and supports the basic structure of our Republic. When this societal glue is diluted, the nation finds herself at a crossroads, and only when that trust has been restored does

In 2013, a West Point survey found that American “civilians born between 1980 and 2000 want no part of military life and want it separate from civilian life”. According to Lieutenant Colonel Remi H. Hajjar, a professor of behavioral sciences and leadership at the United States Military Academy, “most Americans consider our military to be like a guard dog. It offers them protection, but they’d rather not have it as a neighbor.” The question to ask is why? Why is it that Americans choose not to connect to their military if they seek their protection? This discourse poses three significant challenges: incompatibility in the workplace, lack of shared understanding, and

The United States army started in 1775 with only a group of volunteer fighters who opposed against the rule and the oppression of the British. (Hogan 2005) The U.S army is still an all-volunteer fighting force today defending and defeating enemy threats to the United States. Since the creation of the U.S army it has built on tradition and honor for its country and willing to defend the constitution for more than two and a half century. Learning the culture of the United States Army will help give people an understanding of the people who serve in the army as well as learn what shaped the army today.

National Leaders use senior military positions as rewards for loyal supporters, thereby increasing regime stability as the support of the military is typically decisive in deciding when national leaders rise or fall. Recognizing these fundamental realities in the civil-military

Military Expertise is the next characteristic in the Army profession. In chapter three of (ADRP1) it states “Military expertise is the design, generation, support, and ethical application of land power, primarily in unified land operation, and all supporting capabilities essential to accomplish the mission in defense of the American people” (ADRP1, 2013). That would explain military expertise as a whole for the Army but, there are a lot of different experts within the Army profession. Inside the Army profession there are many different professions and professionals an example would be the aviation branch compared to the combat arms branch two way different professionals within the same Army profession. It takes every ones expertise working together to make the army work as well as it does. Military

Leadership, according to the Army doctrine, represents individuals’ ability to influence people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improving the organization (“Leadership” FM 6-22). However, the varying characteristics of individuals that the Army attracts may instill this doctrine in many different ways, leading to different representations of leadership. Some individuals choose to lead their subordinate in a stern matter, only displaying matured emotions and a “tough-loving” attitude to guide them in the right direction. Others

Every uniformed Army professional knows the Soldier’s Creed. The tenth line of the Soldier’s Creed - “I am an expert and I am a professional,” is a powerful statement recited during significant occasions including enlistments, graduations, first formations, promotion boards, change of command ceremonies, and deployment ceremonies. The NCO Creed even includes the bold statement, “No one is more professional than I,” in the opening line. For these words to ring true, the Army must deliver training sufficient to certify professional Soldiers and leaders at all levels. The Army’s ability to recognize this need and adapt its methods speaks volumes for the Profession of Arms. The three components of the Army’s leadership model -

Civil-military relations extends much deeper than simply how the civilian population views the military. While progressing through the modules, readings and additional research, it has become apparent that many issues dwell just below the surface. All throughout history, many leaders both civilian and military have chosen to ignore these issues, ignore this gap between the civil society and the military organization. Stephen Wrage stated in a White House study, “the record of civil-military relations since

The term ‘military necessity’ has often been used throughout history to describe scenarios where a country needed justification for their actions, or a loophole allowing them to act. In Italy during World War II, Hitler ordered the invasion of a Benedictine abbey, Montecassino, in order to gain access to Rome. During the fight against the Axis powers, the Allied powers attempted to prevent damage to Montecassino during the fight, unless it interfered with what they deemed a military necessity (Hayashi, “Contextualizing Military Necessity”). “Military necessity’ in regards to the dropping of atomic bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified, as opposed to Montecassino. This is because military necessity dictates that in the event of extreme circumstances security concerns supersede possible ethical considerations (Hassner, “Military Necessity”). In Italy, the term’s use was subjective, but in Japan, the United States had to utilize it. Avoiding lives that would have been lost in the invasion of Japanese home islands, Japan’s Mobilization Law of 1938 and total warfare, and rising tensions between the United States and the Soviet Union all contributed to the dropping of the atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki being a military necessity.