An Assessment of the Profession of Arms Essay

American soldiers are ethical warriors. Military ethics and warrior ethos constitute the two fundaments of the Army’s Code of Honor. One cannot be separated from the other. This obligation has applied for ages to those who held power: "science without conscience is but the ruin of the soul," as wrote Rabelais in the early seventeenth century. More than ever, soldiers need ethic references to guide their actions and prevail, especially in a Counter-insurgency environment where excessive use of force jeopardizes mission accomplishment. Whatever the situation might be, soldiers must be able to use their science of war with restraint, discernment, and ethics. Recent bad experiences proved that the Army should advocate this ethical military obligation with humility and determination.

Ethics Theory for the Military Professional by Chaplin (COL) Samuel D. Maloney illustrates the complex ethical decision making process. Army Leaders are responsible for professionally, and ethically develop subordinates. Developing unethical subordinates in a zero defect Army is a leadership challenge. Goal-Oriented Aspirations, Rule-Oriented Obligations, and Situation-Oriented Decisions provide leaders an understanding of the ethical decision making process. The first step to Professionally developing subordinates is identifying, and providing input on all subordinate goals. Leaders are obligated to enforce rules and regulations. Understanding subordinate character provides leaders with the information to evaluate a soldier’s integrity. However,

According to TRACDOC commander General Robert Cone, it takes “years of hard work to reemphasize training and doctrine and years of individuals seeking to professionally improve themselves and the profession” to reach the desired end state of masters in the profession of arms.

Ethical Dilemmas facing today Army Leaders demands that Soldiers adhere to Army ethical standards at all times. One understanding the whole concept of ethical behavior comes from believing right is right and wrong is wrong or good versus evil. In my opinion, we cannot consider good or bad within the Army profession outside its framework of norm behavior. The Army teaches Soldiers that our forces are protectors to enhance good life throughout the world and whatever we destroy degrades the ability of evil to survive. One of the main issues I have faced during my 28 years is how senior leaders function within the organization.

A professional is a member of a disciplined group, who must stick to certain ethical standards. They will be skilled and competent in their line of work; this will be there way of income rather than a hobby or volunteering.

The Profession of Arms what it means to be a profession and if the Army meets this condition. Three main questions asked, what does it mean for the Army to be a Profession of Arms? What does it mean to be a professional Soldier? How are we as individual professionals and as a profession meeting these aspirations? (CG TRADOC, 2010, p.1)

“We sleep safely at night because rough men stand ready to visit violence on those who would harm us” (Winston Churchill). The grand stake of this country 's freedom is from the soldiers who serve on our behalf as warriors in the United States military branches. The American men and women who sacrifice their lives are liable to our lives in the freedom that we all withhold as citizens and residents of this great country. It is anticipated by the stretch of war, benefits, and terrific reasoning of joining the military for claims on good reasoning, not only on the side of war but, on the side of reaching great and honorable methods of career and life

Ethics matter in any kind of business or organization, but they are especially significant when it comes to the US Army (Blackburn, 2001). The reason behind this involves the chain of command and the risk to life and limb that are such large parts of military life. When a soldier in the Army has no ethics, he or she can cause trust and respect problems with other members of his or her unit. The US military is a stressful organization for most people involved with it, and people's lives are on the line frequently. Issues like PTSD and other medical problems are commonplace for those who leave the military and must adjust to civilian life, so it is very important that those who are in the Army work with their colleagues and higher-ups to get the help and support they need during and after their service. There is more to ethics in the Army than the problems that military individuals can face, though.

While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.

A Profession of Arms. It is a title that the United States Army currently holds. A Profession that is uniquely separates us based on the lethality of our weapons and operations. Many factors are involved that make what we do in the Army a Profession and not just a job or an occupation. To maintain this idea that what we do is a Profession takes understanding what a Profession is, a tenuous balance by leadership and the culture of the professionals within. As a Human Resource Sergeants, we do not carry the Arms that grant us our lethality, yet we still have a vital role within this Profession of Arms.

The movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

The U.S. Army Leadership Field Manual clearly states that Army leaders and soldiers alike must uphold ethical standards of behavior in war. It also states that "unethical behavior quickly destroys organizational morale and cohesion it undermines the trust and confidence essential to teamwork and mission accomplishment. Consequently doing the right thing forges strong character in individuals and expands to create a culture of trust

Be all you can be. An Army of one. These two phrases are recognized by almost everyone. The United States Army is one of three military departments (Army, Navy and Air Force) that make up the Department of Defense. The organization holds a strong set of core values. Each soldier is also required to instill that same set of values and beliefs. The Seven Core Army Values define what being a soldier is about. These values include Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. Soldiers are expected to not only know the meaning of these words, but to live up to them every day.

Although many people are familiar with the heroic conscientious objector, World War II American Army Medic Desmond T. Doss, very few people are familiar with the names of recent conscientious objectors. In fact, in an all-volunteer force that exists in the United States military today, some would be shocked to learn that about 60 members of the military still apply for to be a conscientious objector each year. While numerous military members and United States civilians agree that it is outrageous for a volunteer to the military to decide they cannot fight in a war they enlisted to participate in, this does not fully encapsulate the issue at hand. The Military Service is incentivized, offering a career, education, and life-long benefits; thus, some will volunteer for Military Service without deeply considering the ethics of service and their personal convictions; moreover, the nature of war causes man to struggle with the morality after deployment, resulting in a conviction arriving late into one’s career. Therefore, when faced with unresolved conflict of conscience, it is necessary for a military member to examine their moral beliefs in order to make an ethical decision regarding whether to continue military participation.

Soldiers and Leaders alike deploy worldwide and risk life and limb in order to uphold the tenets of the Constitution. American citizens place an insurmountable of trust in its leaders to do the ethical and moral thing in the application of lethal land power. Trust is the bedrock upon which the Army is