Leads Question

Description

Read “Profession of Arms White Paper” and write an Essay addressing the importance of the role of Human Resources Sergeant in the Profession of Arms. Format- APA to include title page, abstract page, main body (at least 2 pages), and reference page.

Unformatted Attachment Preview

An Army White Paper
THE PROFESSION OF ARMS
I AM AN EXPERT
AND I AM A PROFESSIONAL
9TH STANZA
SOLDIER’S CREED
CG TRADOC Approved
8 December 2010
Authority:
This White Paper has been approved for distribution on 2 December 2010 by the Commanding General,
Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), under his authority granted by the Secretary of the Army
and the Chief of Staff of the Army in the Terms of Reference dated 27 October 2010 for TRADOC to
execute the ‗Review of the Army Profession in an Era of Persistent Conflict.‘
Purpose:
This White Paper serves to facilitate an Army-wide dialog about our Profession of Arms. It is neither
definitive nor authoritative, but a starting point with which to begin discussion. It will be refined
throughout calendar year 2010 based on feedback from across our professional community. All members
of the profession and those who support the profession are encouraged to engage in this dialog.
Distribution:
Distribution is unlimited. Yet, the material in this draft is under development. It can be referenced, but
not referenced or cited as official Army policy or doctrine.
Feedback and Participation:
Comments on this White Paper should be sent to the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE),
Combined Arms Center, TRADOC.
To get engaged in this review of the Profession of Arms, visit the CAPE website at
https://www.us.army.mil/suite/page/611545 and click on the Campaign link. The website will also
provide links to professional forums and blogs on the Battle Command Knowledge System to partricipate
in this discussion.
Authorized for distribution 8 December 2010:
Martin E. Dempsey
General, U.S. Army
Commanding General
Table of Contents
Introduction: Why we Need a Campaign to Understand the Profession of
Arms and the Professional Soldier
1
Section 1 – The Army as a Profession of Arms
2
What does it mean to be a Profession?
2
Refining our Understanding of the Army as a Profession of Arms
2
Maintaining the Army as a Profession of Arms
4
The Key Attributes of our Profession of Arms
5
A Broader Framework for the Profession of Arms
6
The Practice of the Army Professional
7
The Balancing Role of the Profession’s Leaders
8
Section 2 – The Army’s Professional Culture
9
Army Culture and Its Influences on the Profession
9
Levels of Army Culture
10
The Functional Utility of Army Culture
10
Section 3 – At the Core of Culture, the Army Ethic
11
The Heart of the Army: The Ethic
11
Why We Fight – Foundational Values
12
How We Fight – With Values and by Ethical Principles
13
Developing Character to Enable Use of Ethical Principles
14
Organizational Level Influences on Ethics and Virtue
15
Section 4 – The Army Ethic and External Relations
16
A Moral Conception of Subordination
16
Norms for Civil-Military Relations
16
Section 5 – Conclusion
18
Adapting the Army as Profession of Arms after a Decade of War
iii
18
The Profession of Arms
“I am an expert and a professional.” – The Soldier‘s Creed
Why do we need a campaign to understand the Profession of Arms and the Professional Soldier?
Ten years ago, references to the Second Battle of Fallujah, Sadr City, Wanat, Abu Ghraib, IEDs,
the so-called ―revolt of the generals,‖ the ―lost art of garrison command,‖ modular brigades, combat
outposts, mission command, and ARFORGEN would have been virtually meaningless to most, if not all,
American Soldiers. Today, these references are instantly recognizable to us all and comprise just a few of
many profoundly important influences on the U.S. Army over the past decade. In the face of so many
challenges, we have demonstrated great strengths such as the determination and adaptability of our junior
leaders and their dedication to service shown through numerous deployments. Yet we have also struggled
in some areas to maintain the highest standards of the Profession of Arms. As we have at other times in
our history, we assess that it is time to refresh and renew our understanding of our profession.
With this in mind, the Secretary of the Army and the Army Chief of Staff have directed that CG
TRADOC lead a review of the Army Profession. They have issued ―terms of reference‖ in which they
state that, as a profession, it‘s now ―essential that we take a hard look at ourselves to ensure we
understand what we have been through over the past nine years, how we have changed, and how we must
adapt to succeed in an era of persistent conflict.‖ To do so we must answer three critical questions:
1. What does it mean for the Army to be a Profession of Arms?
2. What does it mean to be a professional Soldier?
3. After nine years of war, how are we as individual professionals and as a profession
meeting these aspirations?
We don‘t know the answers to these questions yet. In 2011, we will conduct an assessment and
encourage a discussion about our Profession. By the end of the year, we hope to have learned enough to
clearly articulate what we believe is foundational to our Army as a profession. Undoubtedly, the Army is
considered a profession today. But, we must remember that the Army is not a profession just because we
say so. The military services are well respected and are highly rated in every poll of public trust — we can
be justifiably proud of how well the Army and our Soldiers are shouldering the heavy burdens they have
borne over the past nine years. However, we can‘t take our approval for granted. Our client, the American
people, gets to make the judgment of the extent to which we are a profession and they will do so based on
the bond of trust we create with them based on the ethical, exemplary manner in which we employ our
capabilities.
In adapting to the demands of combat in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as to the new strategic
realities of the 21st Century, we have been so busy that we have not consistently thought through how
these challenges have affected the Army as a Profession of Arms. We now need to consider how well we
are self-policing ourselves both on the battlefield and in garrison, the extent of our ability to care for
Soldiers and their families, and the broad development of Army professionals. We need to assess our
personnel management systems to ensure they are focusing on and capitalizing on the exceptional talents
of our junior professionals and broadening them for future service. We must assess our civil-military
relations as we interact with and support the Nation and its elected and appointed officials. These and
many other factors need to be assessed and then addressed to enable the Army to succeed in this era of
persistent conflict.
1
The questions the Secretary and Chief asked are serious and deserve serious answers. To help
frame the discussion, this paper is intended to introduce terms, concepts, and some proposed definitions.
This is the beginning, not the end, of what should be a year of rigorous analysis and vigorous debate.
Section 1 – The Army as a Profession of Arms
What does it mean to be a Profession?
Professions produce uniquely expert work, not routine or repetitive work. Medicine, theology,
law, and the military are ―social trustee‖ forms of professions.1 Effectiveness, rather than pure efficiency,
is the key to the work of professionals—the sick want a cure, the sinner wants absolution, the accused
want exoneration, and the defenseless seek security.
Professionals require years of study and practice before they are capable of expert work. Society
is utterly dependent on professionals for their health, justice, and security. Thus, a deep moral obligation
rests on the profession, and its professionals, to continuously develop expertise and use that expertise only
in the best interests of society—professionals are actually servants. The military profession, in particular,
must provide the security which society cannot provide for itself, without which the society cannot
survive, and to use its expertise according to the values held by the Nation.2
Professions earn the trust of their clients through their Ethic – which is their means of motivation
and self-control. The servant ethic of professions is characterized as cedat emptor, ―let the taker believe in
us.‖3 The U.S. Army‘s professional Ethic is built on trust with the American people, as well as with
civilian leaders and junior professionals within the ranks.4 That trust must be re-earned every day through
living our Ethic, which incidentally, can‘t be found now in any single document – a doctrinal omission
this campaign will help change. Because of this trust, the American people grant significant autonomy to
us to create our own expert knowledge and to police the application of that knowledge by individual
professionals. Non-professional occupations do not enjoy similar autonomy. A self-policing Ethic is an
absolute necessity, especially for the Profession of Arms, given the lethality inherent in what we do.
Lastly, other organizations motivate their workers through extrinsic factors such as salary,
benefits, and promotions. Professions use inspirational, intrinsic factors like the life-long pursuit of expert
knowledge, the privilege and honor of service, camaraderie, and the status of membership in an ancient,
honorable, and revered occupation. This is what motivates true professionals; it‘s why a profession like
ours is considered a calling—not a job.
Refining our Understanding of the Army as a Profession of Arms
“The preeminent military task, and what separates [the military profession] from
all other occupations, is that soldiers are routinely prepared to kill…in addition to killing
and preparing to kill, the soldier has two other principal duties…some soldiers die and,
when they are not dying, they must be preparing to die.” – James H. Toner5
Among all professions, our calling, the Profession of Arms, is unique because of the lethality of
our weapons and our operations. Soldiers are tasked to do many things besides combat operations, but
ultimately, as noted in the quotation above, the core purpose and reason the Army exists is to apply lethal
force.6 Soldiers must be prepared to kill and die when needed in service to the Republic. The moral
implications of being a professional Soldier could not be greater and compel us to be diligent in our
examination of what it means to be a profession, and a professional Soldier. This is an ambitious
2
undertaking, but a good start point for understanding our profession is the legal foundation of the U.S.
Army as established in Federal Statute, Title 10, U.S. Code, Section 3062 (a):
“It is the intent of Congress to provide an Army that is capable, in conjunction with the
other armed services, of:
1. Preserving the peace and security, and providing for the defense, of the United
States, the Territories, Commonwealths, and possessions, and any areas
occupied by the United States;
2. Supporting the national policies;
3. Implementing the national objectives; and
4. Overcoming any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace
and security of the United States.”
The Army has now been an established institution of our federal and state governments for some
237 years. And notice that it was established with the intention to provide an Army that is capable of
producing certain security conditions enumerated in the statute. In fact, like many other organizations in
America, the Army is a producing organization—producing ―the human expertise, embodied in leaders
and their units, of effective military power for land campaigns.‖7
Before a standing federal Army was created in 1803, the colonial militias were under close
supervision of the colonial legislatures.8 The Army Officer Corps was later professionalized in the late
nineteenth century through professional military educational systems such as staff schools at Forts
Benning and Leavenworth and the Army War College. With these reforms, bonds of trust between the
Army and the American people began to grow. For many years some believed that only officers were
professionals9, but in the aftermath of Vietnam while rebuilding the ―hollow‖ Army, professional status
was extended beyond the officer corps and was earned through professional development by warrant
officers, NCOs, and many Army civilians.
The Army‘s degree of professionalism has waxed and waned over the years, sometimes
displaying more the characteristics of an occupation than a profession—more professional in periods of
expansion and later phases of war and more ―occupational‖ in periods of contraction after wars, e.g. postWWII into Korea and post-Vietnam. This trend continued even after the establishment of an all-volunteer
force in 1971 and the rebuilding of the Army NCO Corps post-Vietnam. It was highly professional in
Desert Shield-Desert Storm and less so through managerial practices over the next decade of force
reductions, the exodus of captains, and other talent.10 A recent report suggests that today‘s operating
forces after nine years of war, exhibit more the traits of a profession than the force-generating, or
institutional, side of the Army.11 Learning from our history of post-conflict transitions, we must not allow
these professional traits to suffer—because today we are in an era of persistent conflict. There will be no
―peace dividend‖ or ―post-conflict‖ opportunity to relax our guard
As the Army reflects now on what it means to be a profession in midst of persistent conflict, a
central question frames the major challenges now facing the Army‘s strategic leaders: the sergeants
major, colonels, and general officers. How do we create the specific conditions for, and achieve those key
attributes that ensure that the Army is a profession – one in which all Army professionals recommit, in the
words of CG, TRADOC, GEN Martin Dempsey, ―to a culture of service and the responsibilities and
behaviors of our profession as articulated in the Army Ethic‖?
3
Maintaining the Army as a Profession of Arms
To remain a strong profession in the face of today‘s challenges, Army leaders at all levels need a
solid understanding of what it takes to earn our status. We then need to reflect on how well we are
meeting these requirements, what strengths of the profession have sustained the Army, and what
weaknesses and friction points need to be addressed. Toward this end, we need to agree on two important
definitions:
 THE PROFESSION OF ARMS. The Army is an American Profession of Arms, a vocation
comprised of experts certified in the ethical application of land combat power, serving under
civilian authority, entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the
American people.
 THE PROFESSIONAL SOLDIER. An American Professional Soldier is an expert, a volunteer
certified in the Profession of Arms, bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of
sacrifice and service to the nation and the Constitution, who adheres to the highest ethical
standards and is a steward of the future of the Army profession.
Obviously, these two definitions are inherently linked—to be a professional is to understand,
embrace, and competently practice the expertise of the profession. It is clear that professional Soldiers, as
defined above, must be immersed in the environment and culture of the profession of arms, particularly in
their early career. Soldiers must be led and inspired by exemplary role models to become experts and to
assume the identity, character, and capabilities of a member of this profession. Soldiers must always feel
that their role is a calling and not just a job or they will lack the inspiration and find it difficult to meet
their aspiration to be an ―expert and a professional‖ as stated in the ninth line of the Soldier‘s Creed.
The key components of these definitions describe the specific conditions that must be created by
Army leaders on the ground—in every Army unit every day to maintain the Profession of Arms. They
merit careful reflection, individually and institutionally, as this campaign proceeds.
“The Army as a Profession of Arms is a unique vocation.” Professional Soldiers are “volunteers…
bonded with comrades in a shared identity and culture of sacrifice and service” Army leaders establish
a professional identity and culture rather than one of government occupation. This culture sponsors
altruism, selfless service to the nation, and ethos toward the Army and its mission. It sponsors continuous
self-assessment, learning, and development that together enable the Army to be an adaptive, learning
profession. Within that culture, members of the profession create a Soldier‘s identity with a sense of
calling and ownership over the advancement of the profession and the exemplary performance of its
members, and serve in a bonded unity of fellow professionals with a shared sense of calling. Army
leaders establish a culture where effectiveness prevails over efficiency and place primary importance on
maintaining the profession through investing in the development of its Soldiers.
The profession is “comprised of experts.” “An American professional Soldier is an expert…in the
Army Profession of Arms” Foremost, the Army must be capable of fighting and winning the nation‘s
wars. Thus, the Army creates its own expert knowledge, both theoretical and practical, for the conduct of
full spectrum operations inclusive of offense, defense, and stability or civil support operations. The Army
develops Soldiers and leaders throughout careers of service to aspire to be experts and use their lethal
expertise, both as individuals and as units, with the highest standards of character, for the defense of the
Constitution, the American people, and our way of life.
The Army profession and its professional Soldiers are “certified” in the “ethical application of land
combat” and the “Profession of Arms” To maintain the effectiveness of the profession, the Army tests
and certifies its members to ensure each meets the high standards of the profession (both competence/
expertise and morality/character) required to ethically apply land combat power before being granted
4
status as a full member of the profession; and recertifies each professional at each successive level of
promotion/advancement. It therefore maintains systems to train and educate individuals in a trainee or
apprenticeship status where they are mentored and developed until professional standards can be met.
The Army and its professionals are “serving under civilian authority” The Army has no purpose except
to serve the Constitution and the American people and thereby their elected and appointed
representatives. In all aspects of its existence and operations the Army Profession advises with disciplined
candor and is willingly subordinate to, and a servant of, the American people through their elected and
appointed civilian authorities. Further, members of the Army clearly understand and accept the
subordination of their personal needs to the needs of the mission.
The Army is “entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people”
Through exemplary duty performance, the Army maintains a trust relationship with the American people
and earns institutional autonomy and high vocational status by demonstrating both effective military
expertise and the proper and ethical employment of that expertise on behalf of the Nation. This is how the
Army earns its legitimacy to operate under Joint Command, as negotiated with senior civilian officials, in
Major Combat Operations, Stability Operations, Strategic Deterrence, and Homeland Security.
The profession practices the “ethical application of land combat power” and an American professional
Soldier “adheres to the highest ethical standards” The Army establishes and adapts an Ethic that
governs the culture, and thus the actions, of the profession and the practice of individual professionals,
inspiring exemplary performance by all members. This Ethic is derived from the imperatives of military
effectiveness and the values of the American society the Army serves. Further, the Army self-polices such
that all leaders at each level guard the integrity of the profession inclusive of both its expertise and its
Ethic. They set standards for conduct and performance, teach those standards to others, establish systems
that develop members to meet standards, and take rapid action against those who fail to achieve standards.
The duty to set the example for others falls to the greatest degree on the most respected and qualified
members of the profession.
Each professional Soldier “is a steward of the future of the Army profession” The profession is
maintained by leaders who place high priority on and invest themselves and the resources of the
profession to develop professionals and future leaders at all levels. Leader development is an investment
required to maintain the Army as a profession and is a key source of combat power. Leadership entails the
repetitive exercise of discretionary judgments, all highly moral in nature, and represents the core function
of the Army professional‘s military art, whether leading a patrol in combat or making a major policy or
budget decision in the Pentagon. Discretionary judgments are the coin of the realm in all professions;
foremost the military.
The Key Attributes of our Profession of Arms
We can now identify those attributes, at least an initial offering for debate and dialogue, which we
as an Army should consider ―key‖ as we seek to reinforce the profession during this transition. They are
key in that while not inclusive of everything it means for the Army to be a Profession, they are inclusive
enough to serve as ―guideposts‖ for the development and stewardship of the profession. It‘s important to
note that these attributes must be developed at both the organizational (the Profession) and the individual
(the Professional) level:
THE PROFESSION
Expertise
Trust
Development
Values
Service
THE PROFESSIONAL
Skill
Trust
Leadership
Character
Duty
5
The rationale for this short list is straightforward.

The Profession of Arms requires expert knowledge (i.e. expertise), and that expertise is
manifested as unique skills in the individual professional and by Army units.

The profession exists only through a relationship of trust with the client; and that trust is
the same trust that enables the individual Soldier to develop within the Army as a
profession, for Soldiers and units to bond, for Soldiers‘ families to trust the Army through
myriad deployments, and for Army leaders to engage effectively in civil-military
relations. In fact, that is why trust is clearly the most important attribute we seek for the
Army. It is equally applicable and important in its simplest form to both profession and
professional. It is our lifeblood.

To maintain that trust, the profession requires the continuous development of human
practitioners, (i.e. experts) who hold high levels of knowledge, adaptability, resilience,
and other attributes that make them effective members of the Profession of Arms. That
development is manifested in leadership by professionals at all ranks.

The profession requires unwavering, deeply held values on which to base its Ethic.
Those values, when well internalized, are manifested in the character of individual
professionals. Such strength of character would include internalization of the Army
values and ethos amongst other aspects of the Ethic.

Finally the profession provides a vital service to American society and does so in
subordination. That service is manifested in the duty of the individual professional.
A Broader Framework for the Profession of Arms
Having specified the attributes that define the Army as a Profession of Arms and its members as
Professionals, we can turn to a discussion of a broader framework for our discussion. Modern military
professions have a unique character, a moral and legal foundation, that reflects their nation‘s heritage,
values, and culture. In addition, all modern professions display at least three other common traits: they
create and maintain internally their own expert knowledge and practices (expertise); they apply that
expertise in an external situation or arena wherein their client wants it applied (a jurisdiction); and after a
period of time, depending on their virtue and effectiveness, they will have established a relationship of
trust with the client (legitimacy).12 We will briefly discuss each of these in turn.
The moral and legal foundation of the Army is the uniquely American values now embodied in
our Constitution and subsequent statute, including Title 10. We are the American Army, we are American
Soldiers, and that uniqueness shapes our soul, both institutionally and individually! Thus our Ethic, our
regulations, and professional standards are based on these larger moral and legal foundations. Our Oaths
of enlistment and service, the Soldier and NCO Creeds, the Warrior Ethos, and the Soldier‘s Rules,
among other expressions of our moral underpinnings, all express the will of the American people for their
Army. This foundation answers the core questions such as: Why does the Army exist? Whom does it
serve? Why does it fight? How do we fight? These topics are taken up in later sections.
Expertise. The first key attribute presented of the profession is its premier expertise—the art and
science of ethically applying coercive or lethal land combat power to establish a more just peace, thus
upholding and defending the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. To do this, the Army
must continually build the expertise needed to be effective in future conflict and then develop new
6
professionals certified in that evolving expertise of the profession. Given the demands of the Army‘s new
doctrine of Operation Adaptability, the range of knowledge and expertise needed in the future will remain
broad and include more than purely military tasks. To better understand the Army‘s professional expertise
we can conceptually group it into four fields:13

MILITARY-TECHNICAL EXPERTISE enables the Army to conduct effective offense,
defense, and stability or civil support operations on land at each of the tactical, operational, and
strategic levels. This includes expertise in doctrine and TTP, our knowledge of the employment
of combat power, the employment of weaponry and equipment and systems, as well as our
knowledge and capabilities in science and technology, research and development, and acquisition
to develop those tools of the profession.

HUMAN DEVELOPMENT EXPERTISE enables the Army to socialize, train, educate, and
develop volunteers to become Soldiers and then to develop those Soldiers to be leaders within
and future stewards of the profession. This includes training, education and development systems,
human development, and mental and physical fitness.

MORAL-ETHICAL EXPERTISE enables the Army to fight wars and employ combat power
morally, as the American people expect and as domestic and international laws require. This
includes expertise related to ethical combat principles, ROEs, ethical culture and climates,
individual moral development, and institutional values.

POLITICAL-CULTURAL EXPERTISE enables the Army to understand and operate
effectively in our own and in other JIIM cultures across organizational and national boundaries.
This relates to the fields of civil-military relations and media-military relations and includes
language and cultural proficiency, negotiation, and civilian advisement.
These four broad areas of professional expertise enable the Army to generate and employ ethical
combat power to achieve operational adaptability across the full spectrum of operations. Such capabilities
extend beyond merely having knowledge in each area. It also includes the motivations of individuals and
groups, their psychological and physiological attributes, culture and climate, and larger management
systems and processes that must be synchronized to create each of the four fields of expertise. Further,
each field of expertise has individual, organizational, and institutional level components. For example,
Soldiers require sufficient moral-ethical expertise to guide their own conduct, yet at the organizational
level, ethics need to be reinforced through leadership and unit culture. Furthermore, processes and
systems must exist at the institutional level to enable moral-ethical practice and the development of
individual professionals. Therefore, each of the four fields should be looked at as a multilevel system,
with each level necessary but not sufficient by itself for the Army to be considered a profession. Again,
the Army is not a profession just because it says it is. That prerogative rests with the client, the American
people, who judge for themselves whether the Army is expert and virtuous.
War is a human event, a contest of wills between human groups. Therefore, it is the development
of human knowledge, skills, abilities, and attributes associated with each field of expertise that are of
most importance to the profession.14 Therefore, a robust leader development system is the sine qua non
for a professional Army. While every professional must have a sufficient level of expertise in all four
fields to be effective, they don‘t need to be equally qualified in all. Development of professionals is a
career-long process through training, education, and experience which should be managed to create the
varied talent pool needed by the broad Army. Furthermore, the relative importance of the four areas of
expertise changes across operational environments. Stability and support operations, for example, have
shifted the need for political and cultural expertise to earlier in the career of many Army leaders.
7
The final element of this framework is the external environments in which the Army operates—
where it applies its expertise with effectiveness and virtue—thereby earning the trust and confidence of
the American people and its claim to status as a true profession. The Army practices in the JIIM
environment in four general external jurisdictions, negotiated recently with our civilian leaders and the
other services in 2006: major combat operations, strategic deterrence, stability operations, and homeland
security.15
The Practice of the Army Professional and Trust
To understand the Army profession, we need to understand that the actual ―practice‖ of the Army
professional, irrespective of rank or position, is the ―repetitive exercise of discretionary judgments‖16 as
they employ their professional skills. The essence of this definition is that true professionals control their
own work. Most often no one tells the professional what to do or how to do it. Their actions are
discretionary. Think of a leader on patrol in Iraq or Afghanistan, or a senior leader in the Pentagon
making policy decisions. Each exercises discretionary judgment—not solved by a formula, rather drawn
from years of knowledge and experience. That is the practice of the military professional‘s art. It is what
the American people trust us to do.
Second, most of these discretionary judgments have a high degree of moral content, where
decisions directly impact the life of other human beings, whether Soldier and family, the enemy, or an
innocent on the battlefield. Such judgments must therefore be rendered by Army professionals of well
developed moral character and who possess the ability to reason effectively in moral frameworks. As
America trusts the Army‘s character and competence, no one tells us what to write in doctrinal manuals.
Leaders have wide discretion in setting policies to educate and train Soldiers with that knowledge, and
field commanders execute operations with wide discretionary authority. The nature of war requires this,
even more so now under increasingly dynamic, decentralized operations.
The Army‘s operational successes and transparent attempts to learn from its challenges and
failures (e.g., efforts to abate suicides, to care for wounded warriors, to develop resilience, etc.) have
reinforced the trust relationship with the American people. However, just as we can build a reservoir of
trust, we can also deplete it. There have been times in the past when the Army lost autonomy and some
legitimacy with the American people when it failed to abide by an Ethic approved by the client. These
incidents caused the Army to lose both legitimacy and autonomy, and external regulations were imposed.
In the 1980‘s, an investigation revealed Drill Sergeants at Aberdeen Proving Ground were systematically
abusing trainees. The abuse was long-standing and widespread. Because the Army failed to self-police
adherence to an appropriate Ethic, Congress passed legislation with very specific language on how to
tra