Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

download Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

of 38

Transcript of Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    1/38

    RMY PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND JURISDICTIONS

    Richard A. Lacquement, Jr.

    October 2003

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    2/38

    *****

    The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do notnecessarily reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army,the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. This report is cleared for

    public release; distribution is unlimited.

    *****

    The author wishes to acknowledge the Naval War College Advanced ResearchProgram that sponsored the original project from which this monograph isderived.

    *****

    Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to:Director, Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 122 Forbes Ave,Carlisle, PA 17013-5244. Copies of this report may be obtained from thePublications Office by calling (717) 245-4133, FAX (717) 245-3820, or by e-mail [email protected]

    *****

    All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) monographs are available on the SSIHomepage for electronic dissemination. SSI's Homepage address is:http://www.carlisle.army.mil/ssi/

    *****

    The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to updatethe national security community on the research of our analysts, recent andforthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute.

    Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our researchanalysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please let us know by e-mail at [email protected] or by calling (717) 245-3133.

    ISBN 1-58487-145-8

    ii

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    3/38

    iii

    FOREWORD

    ith the soldiers of the Army deployed to over 120 countries andexecuting a wide variety of missions, the Army as a profession isbeing stretched to its limits. Richard Lacquement takes note of thesedevelopments and calls for a clarication of what exactly the Armyprofession entails.

    His mapping of the professions expert knowledge providesa framework to continue the debate on the jurisdictions of theArmy profession. The recommendations he presents are radicaland thought provoking. While there may not be a consensus on hisconclusions, this monograph serves the important role of stimulating

    thought and debate on the Army profession.

    DOUGLAS C. LOVELACE, JR.Director

    trategic Studies Institute

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    4/38

    iv

    BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH OF THE AUTHOR

    RICHARD A. LACQUEMENT, JR., a lieutenant colonel in the U.S.Army, is a professor of Strategy and Policy at the U.S. Naval WarCollege. He is a strategic plans and policy ofcer who has servedin a variety of command and staff positions in both heavy andlight eld artillery units. Lieutenant Colonel Lacquements artilleryassignments included the 82nd Airborne Division, the 1st ArmoredDivision (to include combat service in Operation DESERT STORM),the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized) and the 101st AirborneDivision, (Air Assault). During Operation IRAQI FREEDOM, heserved as head of the Army G3s War Plans Divisions Stability

    Operations Planning Cell and then returned to the 101st AirborneDivision to assist with stability operations in Northern Iraq.Lieutenant Colonel Lacquement has also served as an AssistantProfessor of Social Sciences at the United States Military Academywhere he taught courses in American politics, international relationstheory, and international organizations. He is the author of Shaping

    American Military Capabilities After the Cold War(Praeger, 2003).Lieutenant Colonel Lacquement is a graduate of the U.S. MilitaryAcademy and holds masters degrees from Princeton University andthe Naval War College and a Ph.D. in International Relations fromPrinceton University.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    5/38

    SUMMARY

    Changes in the international security environment and intechnology challenge leaders to dene the Armys role for thefuture. Effective strategic leadership of the Army profession willbe an essential component of successful transformation. To serveAmerican society effectively, strategic leaders of the profession mustdene, prioritize, and limit the expert knowledge of the professionclarify the jurisdictions within which this knowledge applies, andthen develop professionals to apply this knowledge.

    here are three main reasons to map and prioritize the Armysprofessional expertise and jurisdictions:

    Facilitate choices about the use of constrained resources; Reestablish the Armys collective professional identity; and, Move beyond the concept of full spectrum dominance.

    his monograph provides a framework intended for use by theArmys strategic leaders. But it also should be a point of departurefor debate among all members of the profession. The most importantpurpose of this framework is to provide a mechanism for HOWTO THINK about Army expert knowledge and jurisdictions. Thismonograph offers some general recommendations derived from myapplication of the framework and its logic. These recommendationsrepresent just one possible view. Ultimately, the strategic leaders ofthe Army will decide priorities and boundaries.

    Recommendations include:

    Eliminating of combat service support branches as basic

    ranches for commissioned ofcer accession. trengthening precommissioning standards for combat

    and combat support ofcers to include certied militaryraining and educational components.

    Establishing clearer qualitative standards for assignment,promotion, and retention of commissioned ofcers (inerms of physical capacity, psychological capacity, and

    emonstrated performance). Refocusing the ofcer career management and education

    system.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    6/38

    vi

    Developing coherent intellectual justications and defenseof jurisdictions related to the leadership of Army soldiersin the organized application of coercive force (war, peaceenforcement, peacekeeping).Better articulating reasons for avoiding jurisdictions that

    o not require unique Army expertise (humanitarianassistance, disaster relief, homeland security).

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    7/38

    RMY PROFESSIONAL EXPERTISE AND JURISDICTION

    Introduction.

    Our nonnegotiable contract with the American people is to ght

    and win the nations wars. Every other task is subordinate to thatcommitment. To discharge our responsibilities to the Nation,we maintain several core competencies. These are the essentialand enduring capabilities of our service. They encompass thefull range of military operations across the spectrum of conict,from sustained land dominance in wartime to supportingcivil authorities during natural disasters and consequencemanagement.1

    Field Manual 1, The Army, June 14, 2001

    his quote from Field Manual (FM) 1, the Armys capstonemanual, declares broad and compelling responsibilities for theArmy. Aside from the priority for warghting, however, it providesan undifferentiated and almost limitless range of operations forwhich the Army must prepare. This is a noble aspiration that reects

    the best can-do spirit of loyal service to the nation. It is, however,a problematic practical foundation that obscures signicantlimitations and trade-offs required to concentrate the armys niteresourcespersonnel, material, and fundson the most importantrequirements. Changes in the international security environmentand in technology challenge leaders to dene the Armys role forthe future. Effective strategic leadership of the Army profession willbe an essential component of successful transformation. To serve

    American society effectively, strategic leaders of the profession mustdene, prioritize, and limit the expert knowledge of the profession, clarify the jurisdictions within which this knowledge applies, andthen develop the professionals to apply this knowledge.

    his framework is intended for use by the Armys strategicleaders. It is also a framework for debate among all members of theprofession. I hope it will generate an institutional exchange of ideas

    that can lead to renewed consensus on the Armys professionalessence.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    8/38

    2

    Problem.

    The Army needs to redraw the map of its expert knowledgeand then inform and reform its educational and developmentalsystems accordingly, resolving any debate over the appropriate

    expertise of Americas Army.

    The Army faces increasing jurisdictional competitions with newcompetitors. Thus its jurisdictional boundaries must be constantlynegotiated and claried by ofcers comfortable at the bargainingtable and skilled in dealing with professional colleagues onmatters touching the professions civil-military and political-military boundaries.3

    he Army is at a crossroads. Its traditions, recent successes, andcapabilities are praiseworthy. Its appropriate focus for the future isuncertain. Full Spectrum Dominance is a great bumper sticker,but of limited practical utility. It glosses over too much. It lacksboundaries. It lacks priorities.

    In some ways, the tremendous success of the Army in recoveringfrom Vietnam and better preparing for the Soviet challenge is

    impeding the current transformation. Clear focus on a specicfoe, in a specic theater, provided a high degree of professionalcertainty for the Army. The training revolution of the 1970s ledto a dramatic improvement of Army training for ghting the SovietUnion.4 Collective and individual training were predicated on aclear overarching mission.

    he current era is one of broader and less certain missions.Operation DESERT STORM drew heavily on the focused training

    for conventional warfare with the Soviets that characterized theCold War. This mission t the Armys preferred concept of warand was well-suited to its expertise developed in the latter stagesof the Cold War. In contrast, numerous peace operations such asthe missions in Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, and Kosovo were not well-suited to the training and organization of the Cold War conguredArmy. Although still too early to draw clear lessons from the war

    with Iraq, success in conventional combat and difculties in someaspects of unconventional warfare and post-conict stabilizationindicate a persistent tension about appropriate Army missions.There have been debates and signicant dissonance among Army

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    9/38

    leaders between the expectations and requirements related to beingprepared to ght and win our nations wars, and the numerousoperational requirements for military operations other than warMOOTW).5 Surveys of Army personnel and anecdotal evidence

    have identied related tensions within the ofcer corps--particularlybetween senior ofcers and junior ofcers.6 Army leaders should notallow internal tensions concerning professional jurisdictions andexpertise to continue.

    Intellectual Foundations.

    his monograph builds on two concepts. The rst is the concept

    of the military profession provided in Samuel Huntingtons classic,The Soldier and the State.7 Second is the concept of professionaladaptation and adjustment suggested by Andrew Abbott in heSystem of Professions Huntington provides a commonly understooddenition of the military profession. With some adjustmentsand renement, this monograph suggests a revised foundationaldenition of the Army profession. Abbott provides a frameworkfor understanding how professions adapt and sustain themselvesby dening and negotiating their roles with their clients whilecompeting with other professions.

    Huntingtons denition of a profession is a peculiar typeof functional group with highly specialized characteristics.9 Tohim, it is dened by expertise, responsibility, and corporateness.10

    With regard to the military profession, The direction, operationand control of a human organization whose primary function is

    the application of violence is the peculiar skill of the ofcer.11The responsibility of a profession is to its client. The militaryprofession is monopolized by the state. The skill of the ofcer is themanagement of violence; his responsibility is the military security ofhis client, society.12

    he Army professional core is found among its ofcers. Theyare required to master a body of abstract professional knowledgeand understand the moral, ethical, political, and social contextswithin which military actions take place. They must be experts, rstand foremost, in the human dimensions--leadership, morale, andphysical capacitythat underlie effective military operations.13

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    10/38

    4

    Rened to reect this quintessentially human endeavor, thecore expertise of American ofcers can be restated as follows. Thepeculiar skill of the military ofcer is the development, operation,and leadership of a human organization, a profession, whoseprimary expertise is the application of coercive force on behalfof the American people; for the Army ofcer such development,operation, and leadership occurs incident to sustaining Americasdominance in land warfare. In abbreviated form, I will refer to thiscore expertise as Leadership of Army soldiers in the organizedapplication of coercive force.14

    Huntington also suggested that the most appropriate meansto attain effective military subordination was to maintain a clear

    divide between the realms of civilian and military responsibility.15

    Acommon critique of Huntington is that the clarity of this separationis easy to stipulate in theory but hard to realize in practice. AsClausewitzs insight suggests, since war is merely an instrument ofpolicy, it is difcult to separate the purely military from the purelypolitical.16 To validate the importance of military advice, thereshould be standards to help determine appropriate boundaries.Dening professional expertise and jurisdictions more clearly willassist in making these distinctions.

    ndrew Abbott identies a key property of professions.Professions compete with each other to determine legitimaterealms within which to apply their expertise.17 Abbott denesprofessions as somewhat exclusive groups of individuals applyingsomewhat abstract knowledge to particular cases. 8 Professionsprovide social goods to address important problems. The tasks of

    professions are human problems amenable to expert service.19 Thecentral phenomenon of professional life is thus the link between aprofession and its work, a link [called] jurisdiction. 0 Professionscompete for jurisdictions and may not always be able to claimcomplete control over all jurisdictions within which they compete.Every profession aims for a heartland of work over which it hascomplete, legally established control. However, since full control isnot always possible, there are other possible settlements. In additionto full control, jurisdictional settlements can be divided (shared withanother profession), intellectual (cognitive control of a jurisdictionwhile allowing practical work to be widely shared), advisory (over

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    11/38

    certain aspects of work within a jurisdiction), or subordinate (anotherprofession controls the jurisdiction, but the rst profession may stilldo practical work within the jurisdiction).21

    he central questions of this monograph are fundamental onesthat Army leaders must address in dening the Army profession:

    What is the nature of Army expert knowledge? How shouldrelevant expertise be prioritized?What are the jurisdictions within which this expertise may belegitimately applied? How should jurisdictions be prioritized?Which should be claimed and defended? Which should beavoided?

    These are iterative questions that leaders of the profession mustconstantly address. The questions yield descriptive answers for thepresent and suggestive answers for the future. Strategic leaders ofthe Army profession must negotiate the answers with the civilianleaders who act as agents for American society. Hence, this is animportant aspect of civil-military relations.

    Ultimately, civilian leaders decide the Armys jurisdictions.But Army strategic leaders must represent the profession in thisdecisionmaking process. Civilian leaders decisions become partof the process that requires strategic leaders of the professionto reevaluate and modify conceptions of expert knowledge andjurisdiction.

    his monograph is explicitly focused on the profession asdened by the commissioned ofcer corps. 2 This is not meantto slight warrant ofcers, noncommissioned ofcers, or junior

    enlisted soldiers. These highly-skilled workers are the experts inthe numerous necessary tasks that allow the Army to succeed. Butthe nature of their responsibilities is fundamentally different fromthose of the Armys commissioned ofcers. These soldiers andtheir tremendous skills are the instruments of Army success. Thediagnoses, inferences, and treatments of societal problems for whichthese skills are appropriately applied are the responsibilities of thecommissioned ofcers who are guardians of the professions and theinstitutions essence.

    he framework provided is also applicable to ofcers of allcomponents of the Total Army (active, reserve, and National Guard).

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    12/38

    6

    With respect to the National Guard, the dynamic of jurisdictionaldenition and negotiation is complicated by the dual allegiance tonational and state leaders. The negotiation may be more nuanced,but, the principles and logic are the same.

    A New Framework.

    he most important purpose of this monograph is to createa rigorous framework for HOW TO THINK about Army expertknowledge and jurisdictions. Three main reasons exist to map theArmys professional expertise and jurisdictions:

    . Facilitate choices about the use of constrained resources

    We are required to make choices about the best ways to allocate theresources we acquire. A more rigorous framework will allow leadersto better articulate the Armys needs, in priority, on rm professionalgrounds.

    2. Reestablish the Armys collective professional identity.Institutional discourse on these issues can lead to consensus aboutthe Army profession and the role it plays for society. It can alsoclarify individual self-concepts of our professionals.

    . Move beyond the concept of full spectrum dominance The spectrum of conict and range of military operations is vast. Wealready acknowledge that ghting and winning our nations warsis the highest priority. Taking this as the start point, we can identifyother priorities at the nexus of established expertise and possible jurisdictions. We should be forthright in debating and negotiatingthese priorities. We owe society and the profession improved clarity

    as a step towards greater effectiveness.

    Dening the Army Professions Expert Knowledge.

    Our unique contribution to national security is prompt, sustainedland dominance across the range of military operations andspectrum of conict. The Army provides the land force dominanceessential to shaping the international security environment.23

    FM 1, The Army, June 2001

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    13/38

    7

    ndrew Abbotts valuable insight in the ystem of Professions isthe dynamic competition among experts to command jurisdictionsof practice legitimized by society. Professions succeed or fail tothe degree that they provide expertise that clients need. Manyprofessions compete in market, consumer-driven environments.The Army profession exists within a similar competitive realm;however, American society is the sole client of the Army. The Armyslegitimacy and effectiveness are measured entirely in relation tomeeting American societys demands for defense and security.

    he suggested map of the Army profession is an effort to portraywhat is unique about the Army and its expertise. It also suggestshow such expertise is related to society. Four broad categories of

    expertise are required by the Army:. Military-technical expertise. This is the Armys core

    expertise. How the profession prepares for and conducts landoperations combining Army soldiers with organizations, doctrine,and technology.24 This requires the mastery of violent means toaccomplish policy ends.

    2. Human development expertise. The Armys management ofits human resources . . .25 and creating, developing, and maintainingexpert knowledge, and embedding that knowledge in membersof the profession.26 This expertise includes how to maximize theeffectiveness of the Armys people. This also includes professionaldevelopment and understanding academic elds relevant to Armytraining and education.

    . Moral-Ethical expertise. This expertise concerns the natureof professional moral dutiesto members of the institution and to

    society. The nature of the profession is such that only moral soldierscan discharge their professional duties, and the Armys strategicleaders are morally obligated to the client to maintain a profession ofboth competence and character.27 This includes the understandingof how to apply coercive force ethically and the ethics that governthe appropriate relationship of military professionals to societycivil-military relations).

    4. Political-Social expertise. The Army profession serves itscollective client, the American people, through interactions withthe citizenrys elected and appointed leaders and the nations othergovernment agencies. 8 Army leaders require expertise to manage

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    14/38

    8

    interaction between the Army and the broader defense communitypublic, industry, government). This includes the critical task of

    representing the profession to society and advising society on theuse of the professions expertise.29

    able 1 provides an institutional perspective on the relevantelements of the professions expert knowledge. They are identiedby their applicability to the Armys core expertise in the leadership ofArmy soldiers in organized application of coercive force, especiallysustained land warfare, on behalf of society. This is the heartland ofthe Armys abstract, expert knowledge to which all other expertiserelates. The ve columns assist in classifying and prioritizing areasof Army relevant expertise.

    Ia. Army lead: Army has lead, if not unique, expertise. Theability to succeed in sustained land warfare is the core, indisputableresponsibility of the Army. The Army cannot delegate thisresponsibility. Expertise in these areas differs from other militaryservices by the relationship to sustained land warfare.

    Ib. Military unique: These are areas of expertise that encompassthe Army and at least one other military service. This relates theunique expertise of the Army to the other American military services joint operations) and American allies (combined operations) onbehalf of American society.

    II. Army-Specic application (societal availability): Areas ofexpert knowledge that have counterparts within the broader society,however, within the Army, the application of this expertise requiresanimportant and unique adaptation. For example, medicine is a bodyof expert knowledge required by society as a whole. The Army has

    a requirement for adaptation, specialization and regulation of thisexpertise to the demands of Army operationsespecially combat.The adaptation requires additional training or schooling. Regulatingethical application of such expertise justies integrating individualexperts in these areas directly into the Army.

    III. General Application (needed internally). These are areaswhere society and military applications are the same. The keydistinction is that the Army has routine or frequently recurring needof this expertise and of the individuals who can apply this knowledgefor the Armys interests. When extensive familiarity with the Armysoperations, norms, and values is important to the appropriate

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    15/38

    9

    Military

    Technical

    Expert

    Knowledge

    Human

    Development

    Expert

    Knowledge

    Moral-Ethical

    Expert

    Knowledge

    Political

    Social Expert

    Knowledge

    Other

    Expertise Applicabilityand priority

    Character of

    expertise

    How Acquired

    Developmentalresponsibility

    Certification

    Leadership of Humanorganizations inapplication ofcoercive force

    Combat

    Combat support

    Joint opns

    Combined opns

    Admin/Logistics

    Engineering/Science

    Info Technology

    Leadership

    Human Behavior

    Physical Fitness

    Education

    Combat Medicine

    Family Medicine

    Social Work

    Ethical Standards

    Characterdevelopment

    Legal

    Soldier spirituality

    Advice on behalf ofand representation ofthe Profession

    Political negotiation

    Diplomacy (attach)

    Resource Acquisition& Management

    Basic Research

    Ia. ArmyLead

    Ib. Militaryunique

    II. Armyspecific

    application

    III. Generalapplication

    (neededinternally)

    IV. Generalapplication

    (neededexternally)

    Core Core Core support BorrowedAcquired

    ArmyExclusive

    MilitaryExclusive

    Army andSociety

    ContractIN

    ContractOUT

    Army MilitarySociety with

    Armycomponent

    Society withArmy quality

    controlSociety

    Army Military SocietyArmy Army &Society

    X(sustained

    landwarfare)

    X(generalwarfare)

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X

    X X

    X X

    X

    X

    X

    Table 1. Map of the Army Professions Expert Knowledge

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    16/38

    0

    exercise of such expertise on the Armys behalf, individual experts inthese areas may be developed among members of the profession. Tothe degree that such familiarity is less crucial, experts can be hiredfrom civilian society to apply the expertise on behalf of the Army.The exercise of expertise in these areas often involves a combinationof Army professionals and civilian experts. The Army professionalsin these areas provide the valuable capacity to lead, conduct liaison,and translate an area of general expertise to Army purposes. Non-Army experts in these areas are contracted into the organization.

    IV. General Applications (needed externally). The last columnreects areas of expertise in society that may be borrowed andapplied by non-Army professionals as needs arise and without the

    more demanding social and ethical controls created by integratingsuch practitioners directly into the Army. If expertise is available tobe borrowed, there is no need to integrate it internally. Such expertscan be contracted out.

    Other relevant aspects of expertise include where the expertise isapplied, where it should be acquired, and how it is applied.

    Where applied? If practitioners in an area of expertise must bereadily available within combat zones, the Army has good reasonsto exercise horizontal integration to include such expertise within theorganization. In these cases, the expectation of operating in a violentenvironment is a key consideration (e.g., medics, chaplains, drivers,pilots). If the expertise doesnt need to be applied in a combat zone,there may be no need for it inside the Army.

    Where acquired? Who controls the life cycle of expertisedevelopment and educational advancement? For Army lead/

    dominant expertise, the Army should be responsible for the entirelife cycle of expertise development and application. For expertisecreated elsewhere in society, but with specic Army applications,the Army is responsible for developing the capacity for Army-specic aspects. For expertise with general applications in society,the Army should leave training and development to others but mustensure quality control in application to Army purposes.

    How applied? Is there a particular ethical or moral elementpeculiar to its Army application? This implies an importantcomponent of ethical control that differs from society more generally.A good example would be application of information technology as

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    17/38

    1

    a form of warfare (to hurt, kill or disable others through effects onsocietal infrastructure or other public goods).

    Dening the Expert Knowledge of Individual Professionals.

    The quality, maturity, experience, and intellectual development ofArmy leaders and Soldiers become even more critical in handlingthe broader range of simultaneous missions in this complex[future] operational environment. 0

    .S. Army Objective Force White Paper 2001

    he previous section provided a framework for understanding

    the areas of expert knowledge required by the Army at aninstitutional level. The combination of numerous professionals withdiverse paths of development and integration provide the aggregatepool of expertise to serve the profession. The next step is to suggesta map of the expertise of individual Army professionals.

    Future challenges will place high demands on new ofcers.

    Ofcers of the 21st Century must be exible, principled,

    and self-learning. These ofcers will be challenged to leadAmerican soldiers and make complex decisions in complicatedenvironments with little or no time. They will be part Harvardprofessor, part professional athlete, part Ambassador, and alldisciplined warghter. It will take each one of these attributes tobe successful on the 21st Century battleeld.31

    his is a tall order for each ofcer. The Army as a profession needs

    the expertise of professors, athletes, ambassadors, and warghters.The degree to which each professional must possess all this expertiseis an important consideration. This section suggests a frameworkto understand the appropriate relationship of the professionsgeneral requirements and the manner in which individuals developexpertise to meet the professions specic demands. It suggests aframework for professional expertise appropriate to both generalistsand specialists. It recognizes that members of the profession cannot

    all be masters of every area of expert knowledge required by theArmy as an institution.

    he Army seeks to create generalists amiliarwith many or all of

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    18/38

    2

    the major aspects of the professions expertise and the appropriateuse of such expertise in complementary, synergistic combination.These generalists are the core from which we obtain the strategicleaders of the profession. Complementing these generalists arethe specialists who master areas of knowledge that support theArmys success in its core expertise. Specialists serve the professionthrough high level expertise in a particular eld akin to the Harvardprofessors, professional athletes, and ambassadors.

    The ambiguous nature of the operational environment requiresArmy leaders who are self-aware and adaptive. Self-aware leadersunderstand their operational environment, can assess their owncapabilities, determine their own strengths and weaknesses,

    and actively learn to overcome their weaknesses. Adaptiveleaders must rst be self-awarethen have the additional abilityto recognize change in their operating environment, identifythose changes, and learn how to adapt to succeed in their newenvironment.32

    he schools and assignment process must be designed to nurturethese traits over time so that it creates the foundation of professional

    expertise at higher levels. Familiarity with the higher level conceptsamong junior members of the profession also ensures that theyunderstand the context of decisions and guidance.

    he relative demand for education versus training shouldincrease as ofcers rise in rank and experience. Mastery of specicskills and tasks should give way to broader theoretical andconceptual training. This is a means to greater exibility, versatility,psychological maturity, and mental agility. This also corresponds tothe higher levels of uncertainty and greater opportunities for choicethat accompany promotion and commensurately higher professionalresponsibilities.

    Precommissioning must address all elements of the Armysexpertise and jurisdiction as candidly as possible with rising ofcers.All ofcers should have the same foundations of professional ethics,understanding of ofcership, and the intellectual seasoning of a

    broad but balanced technical-scientic and humanities education.Core military programs and supporting academic programs aredesigned to work in tandem. The academic program provides a

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    19/38

    3

    broad context for expertise appropriate to the Army profession.The core military program reinforces these elements with Armyor military specic academic courses, practical experience,and rigorous training. Success in this comprehensive programpermits the profession to certify that its new members have anacceptable foundation for a career of principled service to thenation. The functional imperatives of the profession require that itscommissioned leaders have the mental agility to recognize problemsand draw on a complex body of knowledge to suggest appropriatediagnoses, inferences and treatments.

    his program should be standardized across all commissioningsources. Large portions of the military program are already

    standardized.33

    The academic requirements to support Armyprofessional expertise are less consistent. A bachelors degreegenerally is considered sufcient to meet professional academicqualication from Reserve Ofcer Training Corps (ROTC)programs. For Ofcer Candidate School (OCS), a bachelors degreeis not required before commissioning, but must be attained beforeattending the Captains Career Course.34 For ROTC and OCS, thespecic components of the academic program are largely at theindividuals discretion.35 Precommissioning academic requirementsshould be better standardized to meet Army professional needs.

    he body of relevant knowledge that affects the Armys abilityto function effectively has increased dramatically over time. Mastersof particular elds require specialization and long-term experience.Table 2 illustrates specialties currently identied by the Army asthey relate to the categories of Army expertise.

    able 2 depicts several important concepts. First, all Armyprofessionals enter through the box in the lower left hand corner.That is the area representing the operational force (combat andcombat support). Ultimately, the operational force will generatethe aptly named general ofcers who will lead the profession.Medical, legal, and religious experts are acquired from theirappropriate professional education systems. Additional orientationor training occurs to integrate these non-Army professionals into theinstitution.

    he arrows with their origins in the lower left box represent theOPMS III mid-career specialization tracks that draw on ofcers whohave a strong professional foundation in the operational force.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    20/38

    Area of Expert Knowledge (by Functional Area or Specialty Branch)

    Military - Technical Human Development Ethical - Moral Political - Social

    Major/LieutenantColonel/Colo

    nel

    Lieutena

    nt/

    Captain

    OPMSCareer FieldDesignation(non-OPCFspecialization)

    24 Telecommunicationssystem engineering

    30 InformationOperations

    34 StrategicIntelligence

    40 Space Operations49 Operations

    Research Systemsanalysis

    52 Nuclear Operations53 Information Systems

    Mgmt57 Simulations

    Operations

    90 MultifunctionalLogistics

    Basic Combat andCombat support

    Branches OPCF

    Medical DoctorsPsychiatrists

    Dentists

    Chaplains CorpsJudge AdvocateGeneral's Corps(JAG-Lawyers)

    None

    Medical Corps43 Human Resource

    Mgmt47 Academy Professor Chaplains Corps

    Judge AdvocateGeneral Corps

    39 Psyops/Civil Affairs45 Comptroller46 Public Affairs48 Foreign Area

    Officers

    50 Force Mgmt59 Strategic plans and

    Policy

    Lateral Entryfrom Civilian Life

    ROTCUSMAOCS

    Medical Schools Law School,Seminary

    able 2. Nonoperations Career Field (OPCF) Specialization

    able 2 depicts the idea that there are specialists in the civilianworld whose expertise can serve the Armys needs. Specialtiesthat are not unique to the Army lend themselves to lateral entry.Examples include civilian professors within the Army Schoolsystem, public affairs experts, comptrollers, and systems analysts.

    The argument for including Army professionals with signicantcombat and combat support experience in these specialties restsheavily on the degree that such experience is necessary to integratethis knowledge to the Armys requirements.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    21/38

    5

    Map of Professional Expertise: Practical Implications andApplications.

    he priority expertise of the Army profession is the humandimension of leadership. The Army is most importantly about itspeople and their ability to apply their skills in a potentially violentenvironment to serve American society. The abstract knowledgeof leadership, particularly for combat, must dominate the Armysprofessional essence.

    Knowledge of technology, military doctrine, human development,professional ethics, and political-social context supports thequintessential focus on the leadership of human organizations to

    achieve appropriate military effects.he focus of the Army profession on the leadership of soldiers in

    the organized application of coercive force suggests a few importantways to rethink the structure and composition of the ofcer corps.

    Elimination of Combat Service Support Branches for OfcerAccession.

    hese branches have no peculiar or unique skill related toleadership of Army soldiers in the organized application of coerciveforce. Instead, these skills can be provided through functional areaspecialization and civilian contracts at higher level. Within tacticalunits, combat service support task execution can be allocated toWarrant Ofcers and NCOs. Service support elements should beintegrated into existing combat and combat support units where

    the commissioned ofcers provide the most important professionalskill--leadership. Command and staff assignments should beallocated to combat and combat support ofcers. The practicalresult is the elimination of nance, adjutant general, quartermaster,transportation, and ordnance as ofcer accession branches.

    Realignment of Precommissioning System.

    Precommissioning programs should better distinguish betweenofcer candidates for operational force basic branches and candidatesfor special branches (medical, legal, chaplain, etc.).36 Operational

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    22/38

    6

    force ofcers should have the same educational foundations. Thisshould include common core military programs and common coreacademic requirements. Eligibility for accession to combat andcombat support branches should require Army certied completionof the military core program and a baccalaureate degree thatincludes Army-specied elements. Additionally, Army sponsoredprograms (USMA, OCS, and ROTC scholarships) should requireaccession to basic branches (combat and combat arms). Transfer tospecial branches (medical, legal, religious) should be permitted onlyafter an initial service obligation in basic branches has been met. 7

    Establish Stronger Qualitative Standards for Promotion and

    Advancement

    Initial certication of professional competence should beaugmented with periodic professional certication for advancement.This is an important element in making sure that qualitativeprofessional standards dominate. Providing aggregate numbersof personnel should be a subordinate objective. We know andcan establish appropriate qualications for a particular rank andresponsibility.

    Psychological development models have recognized that certainstages of development are better suited for particular positions. 8 Toidentify the appropriate position of a particular individual at a pointin their life is difcult but not impossible. The ability to measureand code a persons stage of psychological maturity would requiresubstantially different evaluation tools, but it can be done.

    imilarly, we know the physiological demands to whichindividuals will be subjected in various assignments. A minimallevel of tness for all soldiers makes sense in the same way thevarious physical disabilities and mental deciencies are bars toentry. We know the routine as well as the extraordinary demandsof particular situations. We can tailor physical tness tests better toreect the needs of particular specialties. This can provide objectivestandards that transcend charges of political correctness.

    here is nothing that prevents us from establishing specialtyrelated standards in physical tness, mental acuity, andpsychological development. Additionally, testing should be

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    23/38

    7

    designed to accommodate personal improvement and development.Similar to programs to improve current general test (GT) scores, weshould design a system for improvement and reevaluation. If thestandards for entering a particular specialty are meaningful, theymust also be subject to revalidation. The requirements for ofcersshould be particularly stringent.

    Career Management and Education.

    rmy leaders must ensure that professional valuesnotbureaucratic imperativesdrive the military education andassignment system. The two key elements of this structure are the

    Armys professional military education (PME) system and the closelyrelated assignment patterns that shape individual professionals.

    enior military leaders are not laterally appointed from othersectors of society. They must enter at the lower ranks of theprofession and advance within the boundaries of professionsassignment, education and promotion system. Through this processof professional development, the services establish and reinforceconcepts of professionalism to meet the diverse and shiftingchallenges of an uncertain era.

    his requires a professional development system that producesindividuals to meet current and short run challenges and who canalso adapt to uncertain future challenges. Such a system must placeless emphasis on narrow technical skills that are perishable andgreater emphasis on qualities of enduring value (physical, spiritual,and ethical). The system must seek to develop individuals with the

    capacity to learn and grow professionally throughout a lifetimeof service to the nation. In an era of rapidly changing technology,mastery of particular weapons and equipment may provide onlyeeting benet. More important is the intellectual agility of leadersto understand the dynamics of change and to be able to readily adaptnew capabilities to enduring requirements and old capabilities tonew requirements.

    Dening the Armys Professional Jurisdictions.

    he Army operates in jurisdictions ultimately legitimized by thedemands of society, represented by its civilian leaders. In a passive

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    24/38

    8

    formulation, the Army is simply a loyal servant of society anddoes what it is asked to do. Supercially accurate and normativelysupportable, this formulation overlooks an important responsibilityfor the profession to participate in clarifying appropriate jurisdictionsin negotiation with its societal clients. The Armys professionalexpertise and capabilities are nite. The Army is capable ofperforming duties unrelated to its core expertise and core mission.The costs of doing so must be measured against its ability to performduties effectively for which it is uniquely designed and for whichsociety is solely reliant upon the Army. Army leaders must be ableto reconcile the jurisdictions within which the profession operateswith the expertise and capacity it possesses. Civilian leaders have

    the nal decision; nonetheless, Army leaders should be clear aboutthe nature of the Armys appropriate role in specic jurisdictions.

    Expertise is developed for application within particular jurisdictions. If jurisdictions are no longer relevant to the clientsneeds, a profession with expertise in that area may no longer beuseful. If expertise to address problems in a jurisdiction can be foundelsewhere, competition may eliminate the need for a professionsparticular body of abstract knowledge and, hence, lead to theprofessions death.

    he uncertainty and challenges of the present era provide animpetus for professional competition. Other military services, othergovernment agencies and private organizations compete withthe Army to address American societys security concerns. Manyresponsibilities associated with the Army have been challenged andclaimed by others. Moreover, laudable service in missions that have

    little to do with the use of coercive force blur public understandingof the Armys core roles, thus making it easier to challenge otherroles. Strategic leaders of the Army profession must recognize thisdynamic, competitive context as they dene the appropriate role ofthe Army.

    he other military services challenge the Armys role todominate land combat with claims for battlespace dominance thatblur distinctions of air, sea, and land domains. Even regardingland warfare, the rapid expeditionary use of Marines challengescentral claims of the Armys relevance and importance. Contractingfor training of Army ofcers (within the ROTC program) and

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    25/38

    9

    the training of foreign armies represent further competition injurisdictions previously run by the Army. In a variety of MOOTWmissions, Army efforts compete with international governmentaland nongovernmental organizations.

    he core of the Armys map of expert knowledge is thedevelopment, operation, and leadership of a human organizationwhose primary expertise is the application of coercive force onbehalf of the American people incident to dominance in landwarfare. The jurisdictions within which this expertise apply areconventional war, unconventional war, military operations otherthan war, and homeland security. This section briey analyzes each jurisdiction using a framework based on Abbotts description of

    possible jurisdictional claim settlements.39

    he most important settlement claim is for full and completecontrol of jurisdictions (FULL). Next are those jurisdictions thatthe Army shares with other American military services and alliesDIVIDED). The other three forms of settlement (intellectual,

    advisory, or subordinate) reect lower priority jurisdictions relativeto the professions expertise. In descending order of priority,INTELLECTUAL jurisdiction is with the dominant professionretaining only cognitive control of the jurisdiction, while allowingpractical jurisdiction to be shared more widely.40 Another settlementis to allow one profession an ADVISORY control over certainaspects of the work.41 Last is the concept of SUBORDINATION. Inthis settlement another profession (or professions) retains primaryresponsibility. The Army may have skills that are applicable andcan therefore assist, but concedes control to other professions or

    agencies.42he most important reason to have an Army is to support national

    security, and, in particular, to defend against armed forcesirregular, uniformed, foreign, or domesticthat threaten thesecurity of the nation and it citizens. But the Armys utility and valuehas also been understood in a much broader context. Essentially,the Army as a profession emerged to embrace any tasks levied bythe American people that necessitated the deployment of trained,disciplined, manpower under austere conditions on behalf of thenation.43 This broader conception of the Armys utility beyondwar accounts for the extensive involvement of the Army in nation-

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    26/38

    20

    Jurisdiction Settlement Claim

    onventional War

    and War ULL

    oint Warfare IVIDED

    ombined Warfare IVIDED

    nconventional War

    ow intensity conict/guerrilla warfare IVIDED

    uclear War ADVISORY

    ilitary Operations Other Than War

    eace Enforcement (ground forces) ULL

    eacekeeping IVIDED

    umanitarian Assistance UBORDINATE

    isaster Relief/assistance UBORDINATE

    ilitary-to-Military contacts (withforeign ground forces)

    ULL

    omeland Security

    WMD response (chem, bio, nuke protection) NTELLECTUAL

    Law enforcement support UBORDINATE

    Table 3. Jurisdictions and Army Settlement Claims

    building tasks at home and abroad. This includes exploration of thecontinent (Lewis and Clark), development of vast civil engineeringworks, occupation and pacication of North American territoriesto include conicts with native Americans), as well as occupation

    and administration of territories abroad (such as Mexico, Cuba, thePhilippines, Germany, and Japan).

    he most important jurisdiction of the military professions is war.

    The war jurisdictions are led, if not monopolized, by the militaryservices. Leadership of people in the organized use of coercive forceon behalf of the state is the special expertise of military professionals.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    27/38

    21

    The increasingly intertwined effects of military operations on land,in the air, at sea, in space, and, according to many, in cyberspace,preclude clear distinctions between the domains of combat withinwhich the military services specialize. The overlap and interplayof capabilities optimizes for air, sea, and land operations permitapplication in the jurisdiction of other services, albeit it with varieddegrees of efciency. This situation makes interservice competitionpossible. This competition is a messy but ultimately very successfulmechanism for identifying, debating, and deciding issues concerningsociety as a whole.

    he Army profession competes with the maritime professionNavy and Marines) and the aerospace profession (Air Force) with

    respect to a variety of national objectives amenable to the use offorce. The Army is not always sufcient or even necessary to addressall challenges. The Army and other military professions offer amenu of capabilities from which American society can choose. Theperception of a particular professions utility is a function of themanner in which problems are dened, diagnosed, and suggestedfor treatment.

    o take a conventional war example, it is not necessarily clearin advance what strategy will prove most effective in compellingan enemy to do our will. Will naval blockade be sufcient? Willair power alone be sufcient? Will it be necessary to seize andhold portions of territory? Typically, all means that can contributeto success will be applied. The issue is to determine an effectivecombination. More broadly, effective diplomacy (the expertiseof Foreign Service professionals) can obviate the need for any

    military action. If there are a variety of effective combinations andpermutations, assessment of relative risk and cost effectiveness willinuence choices.

    he manner in which competing professions dene the issue willbe important. For war and preparation for war, there is not likely tobe one correct answer.

    Military science is not normally so exact as to rule out all but

    one school of thought on the question of how battles are to befought and wars won. As a result, military planners frequentlynd themselves uncertain or divided regarding the kinds of

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    28/38

    22

    preparations necessary to support the foreign policy purposes ofthe nation. There is, moreover, the additional complication thatsome purposes might alternatively be met through nonmilitarymeans, that is, through economic or diplomatic arrangements,or through the allocation of American resources to advance themilitary power of other nations.44

    Each American military service differs in its dominant concept ofwar and the best means to carry it out.45 In an uncharitable light, theseservice specic diagnoses and suggested treatments are groundedin organizational self-interest. This does not, however, mean thatthe professionals advancing such arguments are unpatriotic orunreasonable. They are all trying to achieve success for society. The

    services and their strategic leaders are responsible for articulatingthe appropriate ways that service capabilities best serve societalneeds. This competition is a healthy one that identies alternativesfor national leaders. The services sustain or create capabilitiesthrough a variety of methods. The government does not have inniteresources and must therefore constantly reevaluate trade-offs bothacross and within a variety of jurisdictions. There is nothing self-evident or exclusive about the claims the Army advances concerningappropriate national strategy and appropriate resource allocation.Strategic leaders of the Army profession must clearly articulate therelevance of the Armys expertise to appropriate jurisdictions.

    ociety aspires to attain policy goals in the most effective mannerat the least possible cost. The lack of objective criteria to determinethe relative value of one course of action or combination of meansversus another simply suggests that there is value to the advice of

    various professions leaders to clarify the relevance and applicationof their professions expertise.

    For MOOTW, the unique tasks for which the military is well-suited are those that require the use or possible use of coerciveforce. The Army should retain full jurisdiction for such missions.The Army is congured and trained to deter or defeat threats fromorganized military forces.

    With regard to peacekeeping, the Army has the capacity to deteror defeat paramilitary, unconventional, or guerrilla forces. Althoughduties may include actions similar to domestic policing activities,the situations are ones that could escalate to armed clashes. Where

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    29/38

    23

    traditional peacekeepers or police might be rapidly overwhelmed,combat-organized Army forces provide overmatch capabilities andthe potential for escalation dominance.

    With regard to peacekeeping missions, military-to-militarycontacts, peace enforcement, humanitarian assistance, and othernonwarghting missions, there is a strong case for the employmentof the readily available and robust capabilities of the Army toundertake missions that other agencies of the U.S. Government orprivate organizations are unable to accomplish. For some missions,such as humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, the issue is notunique Army capabilities, but rather the speed with which the Armycan respond and the ability to undertake such tasks in an austere,

    remote, or unsecure environment. In these situations, the valuableArmy capacity is rapid response. The capacity to support suchmissions is an inherent part of the Armys warghting ability. TheArmy is prepared for the exigencies of war to include destruction ofparts of the organization in combat. Hence, military units are capableof rapidly providing infrastructure and support mechanisms.Professionally, however, these are not unique Army jurisdictions.The Army can apply its skills subordinate to civilian governmentaland nongovernmental experts. These other experts should assumelong-term responsibility for these tasks as soon as possible.

    Dening Appropriate Jurisdictions: Practical Implicationsand Applications.

    he Army is expected to operate effectively on behalf of national

    security objectives within many jurisdictions. The Army must placethe greatest emphasis on those for which it should have full andcomplete controlthose relevant to leadership of Army soldiersin the organized application of coercive force. In particular, thisincludes all aspects of sustained land warfare (conventional andunconventional) as well as peacekeeping and peace enforcementmissions where the potential for coercive forceif not its actualuseis required. These are the Armys highest priority missions. TheArmy must articulate its relevant dominance of these jurisdictionsand must seek to sustain its professional expertise as the leadproponent for effective performance in them.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    30/38

    2

    ll other jurisdictions are secondary. The common element ofthese is the fungible utility of Army capabilities. Professionally,the Army does not possess unique expertise in these areas. Otherprofessions or agencies possess the expertise to lead or manageoperations. The Army may possess expertise or capabilities that canbe appliedbut at a substantial opportunity cost.

    Note that the relative priority of professional jurisdiction is animportant distinction. There are certainly many tasks that Armyunits or Army individuals will be well-suited to perform insecondary jurisdictions that create minimal, if any, opportunitycosts for the individuals or units involved. A more appropriateway to conceptualize this would be to note that Army capabilities

    may be borrowed (or lent) for application in jurisdictions outsidethe Army profession. Professionally, the Armys role is advisory orsubordinate within these jurisdictions, and Army strategic leadersshould seek to avoid accepting responsibility for them. Army leadersshould, however, maintain the expertise to manage effective liaisonwith those individuals or professions that do control or lead thesejurisdictions (political-social expertise).

    nother way to look at it is that turf battles to dene andcontrol primary jurisdictions are not only warranted but required.For secondary jurisdictions, such battles should not be joined.If conscripted to accept such secondary jurisdictions (a distinctpossibility for a profession also dened by loyal service to society)professional leaders should actively seek appropriate ways to handoff, or spin-off, the jurisdiction. If there is no way to do this, strategicleaders must explore adaptations to the profession that may involve

    segmenting a portion of the profession to handle the new jurisdictionwhile shielding the rest (e.g., the creation of specic constabularyforces for peacekeeping in benign environments).46

    o x problems with lack of clarity concerning appropriate jurisdictions, Army leaders must work with both the civilianpolicy leaders and with the junior members of the profession. Withregard to these junior members, the Armys strategic leaders mustarticulate the multifaceted demands for Army professionals. TheArmys strategic leaders must actively advise civilian leaders onhow to dene and clarify service jurisdictions. They cannot affordto be passive and merely accept civilian preferences. Can-do

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    31/38

    25

    acquiescence is a laudable trait when tasks are clear or decisionsalready made. It does not require silence in shaping decisions. Atthe other extreme, it is also unacceptable for military leaders to insiston controlling the denition of jurisdictions. Strategic leaders mustdraw on their experience and their vision for the profession to adviseand negotiate with civilian leaders.

    Ultimately, military leaders are beholden to civilian leadersdecisions about the Armys jurisdiction. On one hand, Army leadersmust ensure that the professions leaders and soldiers are aware ofthe tasks society may require. Continued emphasis on the ght andwin the nations wars mantra must be imbedded in a larger contextof service to the nation on behalf of national security objectives. War

    is only one, albeit the most important, professional jurisdiction. Onthe other hand, strategic leaders of the Army must advise civilianleaders on appropriate denition of the Armys jurisdictions andthe prospective costs of shifting jurisdictions capriciously. Thisis necessary to help maintain a consistent core identity for themembers of the profession and to sustain the institutions reliableperformance. Army strategic leaders play a critical role negotiatingthe professions identity at the nexus of its internally understoodidentity and its responsiveness to societys demands.

    OBSTACLES TO CHANGE

    Arguing with Success.

    signicant challenge to making changes in the Army profession

    is the fact that there is little or no evidence of Army failure in the mostimportant measures of Army effectiveness. This is certainly a goodthing. In combat, the Army has performed very well since the endof the Vietnam War. The most dramatic examples of Army successesare Operation DESERT STORM, Operation ENDURING FREEDOM,and Operation IRAQI FREEDOM. In operations other than war, toinclude Somalia, Haiti, Bosnia, Kosovo, and Iraq, the Army has alsoperformed superbly.

    Past success does not guarantee future performance. As GeneralDouglas MacArthur put it, We must hold our minds alert . . . Thenext war will be won in the future, not in the past.47 The Army

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    32/38

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    33/38

    27

    in supporting fundamental national defense. Bureaucratic structurescannot be allowed to dictate the principles of military effectiveness.

    Recommendations for Further Study.

    dditional study is necessary to rene the map of the professionsexpert knowledge and that of individual professionals. More workis needed to create the professional development pathways forindividuals. The principles that led me to suggest boundaries ofthe Armys expert knowledge may suggest different conclusions toothers. Ultimately, specic decisions needed to operationalize thisapproach are the responsibility of the professions strategic leaders.

    his framework can serve is a useful point of departure forexamination of subelements of the Army profession. Additionalstudy and application by leaders of the current Army branchesand functional areas would be useful to help dene the expertknowledge of branches and the jurisdictions within which theyshould appropriately operate. The focus of this monograph is at theArmys institutional level. Greater denition will help us to bettersee how these principles apply to the specialties that comprise theprofession. The future of the Infantry profession, Armor profession,Field Artillery profession, and other areas of Army expert knowledgewould be useful adjuncts to this monograph.

    lthough it contains broad implications for other members ofthe organization (warrant ofcers, noncommissioned ofcers, juniorenlisted soldiers and civilians), this monograph does not providedetailed analysis or recommendations for the transformation of

    these members roles. This is an area for fruitful additional study.48A key aspect of such an analysis would include the manner in whichwarrant ofcer and noncommissioned ofcer specialization mightincorporate tasks formerly expected of commissioned ofcers thatno longer require the application of abstract professional knowledge.Restructured warrant and enlisted occupational specialties mayprove an appropriate mechanism for assimilation of such skills.It may also be appropriate to restructure such tasks as part of theArmys civilian work force.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    34/38

    28

    Conclusion.

    rmy leaders must nurture a strong, healthy relationship betweenthe Army and the society it serves. To do this effectively, they mustthink strategically about the future of the profession. Strategic leadersneed a clear understanding of the nature of the Armys expertise andthe jurisdictions within which it can be usefully applied. Strategicleaders of the profession must negotiate jurisdictions with societyscivilian leaders from the rmest possible foundation derived fromwhat Clausewitz called the grammar of war.49 Military advice notderived from professional expertise compromises the legitimacy ofadvice in other contexts.

    Positions based on either an overly narrow or an overly broadconception of the militarys professional expertise couldultimately have negative consequences. The input of militaryofcers could come to be seen either as irrelevant to the needs of

    the policy-maker, or as having dubious professional credibility.50

    trategic leaders imperil the Army institution if they lose sight of

    the professional foundations of their role and allow themselves to bedrawn into policy and other debates that exceed their professionalexpertise and experience. It is a ne line between Clausewitzs wisecounsel for ofcers to be sensitive to the political context withinwhich they operate and actually stepping in to try to determineappropriate policy goals. The framework presented here can helpdraw that line more clearly.

    he security challenges of the future are complex, demanding,

    and uncertain. The territory may be difcult to negotiate, but manysound guidelines are available to map a successful course. TheArmy needs strategic leadership to determine the required expertknowledge for specic professional jurisdictions and to develop theindividuals to apply this professional expertise appropriately. TheArmys strategic leaders must also negotiate to bound and prioritizethe professions jurisdictions and expertise with the civilian leaders

    representing society. These efforts will more resolutely set the Armyon a successful axis of advance to meet the nations future securitychallenges.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    35/38

    29

    ENDNOTES

    1. FM 1, The Army, Washington, DC: Department of the Army, June 14, 2001,p. 32.

    . Don. M. Snider and Gayle Watkins. eds., he Future of the Army Profession,New York: The McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc., 2002, p. 538.

    3. Ibid., p. 543.

    4. For a description of the training revolution of the 1970s, see Rodler F. Morris,Scott W. Lackey, George J. Mordica II, and J. Patrick Hughes, Initial ImpressionsReport: Changing the Army, Fort Leavenworth, KS: Combined Arms Center HistoryOfce, Center for Army Lessons Learned, 1994. Available from http://call.army.mil/products/exfor/specrpt/sprptoc.htm, Internet, accessed May 25, 2002.

    5. Executive Summary,American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century,A Report of the CSIS International Security Program, Washington DC: The Centerfor Strategic and International Studies Press, February 2000, pp. xxii-xxiii.

    6.American Military Culture in the Twenty-First Century, and Army Training andLeader Development Panel, Ofcer Study: Report to The Army, May 2001, availableat http://www.army.mil/features/ATLD/report.pd Internet, accessed November 1,2001; Joe LeBoeuf, Three Case Studies on the Armys Internal Jurisdictions, CaseNo. 3: The 2000 Army Training and Leader Development Panel, Chapter 22, inSnider and Watkins, Future of the Army Profession, p. 487.

    7. Samuel P. Huntington, he Soldier and the State, Cambridge: HarvardUniversity Press, 1957.

    8. Andrew Abbott, he System of Professions: An Essay on the Division of ExpertLabor, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1988.

    9. Huntington, p. 7.

    10. Ibid., p. 8.

    11. Ibid., p. 11.

    12. Ibid., pp. 14-15.

    13. This is signicantly different than the expectation of warrant ofcers,noncommissioned ofcers, and junior enlisted soldiers. In Huntingtonsformulation, the difference between ofcers and other members of the force is thatofcers must be experts in the management of violence whereas other members of

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    36/38

    30

    the organization (warrant ofcers, NCOs, junior enlisted soldier) must be expert inthe application of violent means. Huntington, The Soldier and the State, p. 11.

    14. I acknowledge the help of Don Snider in crafting this wording for thenature of the Army professions core expertise. E-mail communication with theauthor, May 29, 2002.

    15. Huntington, p. 83.

    16. Carl von Clausewitz, On War Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976,p. 87.

    17. Abbott, he System of Professions, p. 318.

    18. Ibid

    19. Ibid., p. 35.

    0. Ibid., p. 20.

    1. Ibid., pp. 69-71.

    2. In this study, commissioned ofcers refers to ofcers in the rank of 2ndlieutenant and above and does not include commissioned warrant ofcers.

    3. FM 1, p. 21.

    4. Snider and Watkins, The Future of the Army Profession, p. 101.

    5. Ibid , p. 438.

    6. Ibid., p. 355.

    7. Ibid., p. 291.

    8. Ibid., p. 197.

    9. Huntington, p. 72.

    30. U.S. Army, Concepts for the Objective Force, U.S. Army White Paper,undated, p. 3.

    31. William J. Lennox, Jr., The Supes Letter: A Soldier of the 21st Century,Assembly, Vol. LX, No. 4, March/April 2002, p. 8.

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    37/38

  • 8/6/2019 Army Professional Expertise and Jurisdictions

    38/38

    44. Warner R. Schilling, The Politics of National Defense: Fiscal 1950, inStrategy, Politics and Defense Budgets, 1-266, New York: Columbia University Press,1962, p. 13.

    45. For an excellent treatment of these differences, see Carl H. Builder, heMasks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore: JohnsHopkins University Press, A RAND Corporation Research Study, 1989, especiallychapter 5, pp. 57-66.

    46. An historical example of this may have been those portions of the U.S.Army Corps of Engineers responsible for domestic duties such as river/oodmanagemen .

    47. General Douglas MacArthur, as quoted by Lennox, p. 8.

    48. As part of the Army Training and Leader Development panels, follow-onefforts to the ofcer study address warrant ofcers, noncommissioned ofcers,and Army civilians. The implications of this study could be used to modify theresults of these other panels.

    49. Clausewitz, p. 605.

    50. Suzanne Neilson, Rules of the Game? The Weinberger Doctrine andthe American Use of Force, in Snider and Watkins, eds., he Future of the ArmyProfession, New York: McGraw-Hill Primus Custom Publishers, 2002, p. 219.