Military Review English Edition September-October 2013 | Page 8

The evidence so far could easily lead one to believe that recent congressional oversight is only related to sexual assaults in the military. However, Sen. Patty Murray of Washington introduced similar legislation aimed at overhauling the Department of Defense’s mental health and suicide prevention programs.28 One could conclude that Murray, and the rest of the U.S. Senate that passed the amendment, has lost confidence in the military to handle the issue on its own. The executive branch of government flexes its oversight muscles too by forcing military leaders to take a hard look at themselves in light of acts of indiscipline by senior members of the military profession, including prominent retired general officers. As chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey recently stated, “If we really are a profession . . . we should want to figure it out before someone else figures it out for us.”29 In the aftermath of misconduct by some of the military’s senior leaders, in effect, he warned that if the military does not get its ethical shortcomings under control, then those who control the military will. At the time of this statement Dempsey was responding to the Secretary of Defense’s direction to look holistically at the military’s ethical training programs to determine if those programs for senior officers were satisfactory.30 This is evidence the executive branch’s confidence is waning, and Dempsey’s review of ethical training standards is an attempt to quickly fill newly forming cracks in the foundation of trust. As in any foundation, cracks do not just happen, they indicate deeper ethical issues that have to be addressed. Snider contended with this point by saying— The Army’s client, the American people, gets to make the judgment of the extent to which the Army is a profession, and they will do so based on the bond of trust created with them by the effective and ethical manner in which the Army continues to build and employ its capabilities.31 Said another way, America’s trust is the lifeblood of the profession. If the Army loses that trust then the profession could cease to exist. Fortunately for the Army, as it moves forward, it already possesses solid mechanisms to help restore withering trust. A significant outcome of
6

The Army Profession booklet, Center for the Army Profession and Ethics, 2012.

the Army Profession Campaign is the advent of the 2013 “America’s Army—Our Profession” education and training program, developed by the CAPE. The program officially began at Joint Base Langley-Eustis on 3 January 2013 when TRADOC hosted a professional development workshop designed to introduce the program.32 The education regimen includes quarterly topics Army leaders must address within their units.33 From October to December 2013, the fourth quarter focuses on trust, the bedrock of the profession. During that period, the Army will emphasize those trust-based relationships both within the institution and with society in general.34 As the CAPE’s leaders develop educational packages that address trust, they should incorporate vignette-based scenarios that demonstrate how misconduct becomes the agent that breaks down the Army’s foundation of trust. In developing these values-laden educational scenarios, they must incorporate sound pedagogical models, likely requiring immediate research about how to best use such models. However, beyond 2013’s fourth quarter, the Army must make certification in all aspects of
September-October 2013 ? MILITARY REVIEW