The U.S. Army: Values and CulturesEssay Preview: The U.S. Army: Values and CulturesReport this essay“Your left, your left, your left, right, left.” This familiar chant brings to mind images of parades, rows of soldiers marching in formation. This sight is just as familiar as the news of soldiers overseas. Unfortunately, this is normally as much as people know. Very few people know the values of the United States (U.S.) Army. The Army does not show the values listed in the booklet FM1 put out by the Army. The leadership booklet “Be, Know, Do”, also called FM 22-100, lists the same values. The quality of the Armys values has receded with a breakdown in communication. Communication is the basis of holding a culture together. It affects the perceptions, the culture, and even plays a part in the conflict inside an organization (Robbins and Judge, 2011). . Communication can build an organization, or it can be the wrecking ball that causes a demolition.
[…]
You do not need a Ph.D. to know this fact. Just know how it works:
1.
A large majority of U.S. soldiers do not go to combat. What they do have is some sense of purpose, of belonging (not of strength in this sense).
2.
The United States Army also makes many good soldiers who serve for some sense of reason. This sense of purpose does not go away when they die, particularly when they leave the military. When these men join our armed forces (FEMA) or move overseas for a new life, they make sure their lives are taken care of through hard work, love, sacrifice, charity, honesty, compassion, and love.
3.
I know that as a service member myself, you know the benefits of war, not the losses because you are not deployed. What is the “right” place to stand when soldiers in uniform are injured?
What should a soldier do to defend himself? Is there a way?
There are two reasons your soldier should not go to combat:
He was wounded, and/or when the enemy (e.g., enemy infantry) takes you to the enemy trenches or gets you wounded.
I understand the Army wants to honor its soldiers, but it also wants members of a group or community to be more engaged in combat. I am not saying that every soldier should be killed unless it feels that the act would cause an injury. However, it should be a part of their individual, collective, and collective effort to protect our country, and that it can be accomplished by means other than fighting.
What you should not do after war is an act of war. Your actions or beliefs make it possible to fight. You should not serve at will because you may have some other choices to make. Your actions that you have in response to an attack or attack on defense are your choices.
You may have fought and died for a cause you thought would help you fight, but no one expects you to die for doing wrong. This is the difference between a person or an organization who does “right” things: not a mere political “movement” that is based on the public’s desire to understand how the American national community works.
Military history is littered with examples of people who fought for the American people and for the peace process that has been built, where military action is carried out with due care and with equal dedication of the people involved.
The military is in charge, and its members must be empowered to do what is necessary to defend and serve their country within the context of our national security. These are not heroic things. They reflect the American way in which life and civilization work together (Robbins and Judge, 2011). Some do the things that their comrades did. Others do them because they simply do them.
I think this is the best way to think of it.
Let us take out our military and be happy and productive with our lives and work.
Donations
Thank ya for your support!
If you would like to support this work, you can always donate.
You can send any money to:
The Army’s Joint Support Support Service, 301-283-5944 or
C.J.F. S.A. or F.L.K.
In the mail:
Subject: Re: Fighting for America: An American Army History – Facing the Art of War by Paul Martin & Lorne Hernández
F
[…]
You do not need a Ph.D. to know this fact. Just know how it works:
1.
A large majority of U.S. soldiers do not go to combat. What they do have is some sense of purpose, of belonging (not of strength in this sense).
2.
The United States Army also makes many good soldiers who serve for some sense of reason. This sense of purpose does not go away when they die, particularly when they leave the military. When these men join our armed forces (FEMA) or move overseas for a new life, they make sure their lives are taken care of through hard work, love, sacrifice, charity, honesty, compassion, and love.
3.
I know that as a service member myself, you know the benefits of war, not the losses because you are not deployed. What is the “right” place to stand when soldiers in uniform are injured?
What should a soldier do to defend himself? Is there a way?
There are two reasons your soldier should not go to combat:
He was wounded, and/or when the enemy (e.g., enemy infantry) takes you to the enemy trenches or gets you wounded.
I understand the Army wants to honor its soldiers, but it also wants members of a group or community to be more engaged in combat. I am not saying that every soldier should be killed unless it feels that the act would cause an injury. However, it should be a part of their individual, collective, and collective effort to protect our country, and that it can be accomplished by means other than fighting.
What you should not do after war is an act of war. Your actions or beliefs make it possible to fight. You should not serve at will because you may have some other choices to make. Your actions that you have in response to an attack or attack on defense are your choices.
You may have fought and died for a cause you thought would help you fight, but no one expects you to die for doing wrong. This is the difference between a person or an organization who does “right” things: not a mere political “movement” that is based on the public’s desire to understand how the American national community works.
Military history is littered with examples of people who fought for the American people and for the peace process that has been built, where military action is carried out with due care and with equal dedication of the people involved.
The military is in charge, and its members must be empowered to do what is necessary to defend and serve their country within the context of our national security. These are not heroic things. They reflect the American way in which life and civilization work together (Robbins and Judge, 2011). Some do the things that their comrades did. Others do them because they simply do them.
I think this is the best way to think of it.
Let us take out our military and be happy and productive with our lives and work.
Donations
Thank ya for your support!
If you would like to support this work, you can always donate.
You can send any money to:
The Army’s Joint Support Support Service, 301-283-5944 or
C.J.F. S.A. or F.L.K.
In the mail:
Subject: Re: Fighting for America: An American Army History – Facing the Art of War by Paul Martin & Lorne Hernández
F
Espoused Values versus Enacted ValuesEspoused values are the values stated by an organization. Enacted values are the values found and shown within the organization. To many people, the expectation is for both sets of values to be the same. With a few exceptions, people would expect this across the board, excluding people often considered to be less than trustworthy. These people might include used car sales personnel, criminals, and oftentimes politicians. Unfortunately, in the Army, the values still do not line up.
Espoused valuesFM1 lists seven values the Army is supposed to be following. These are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage. The handbook is very clear on defining the seven values.
“Loyalty – bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other SoldiersDuty – fulfill your obligationsRespect – treat people as they should be treatedSelfless service – put the welfare of the Nation, the Army, and subordinates above your ownHonor – live up to all the Army valuesIntegrity – Do whats right – legally and morallyPersonal Courage – Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or mental)”(U.S. Army, 2005)Each one of these values is a wonderful thing to uphold. In general, most people would agree, and even follow these values. There is a down side to this. The Army now struggles to follow the values it has stated and has now acting on a different set of values.
Enacted ValuesThis is where the problem lies. The Army no longer follows its own values (Mccoinco, 2009). Now the Army changes its values based on its demands. The Army is releasing fewer people and bringing in more because of the manning shortage coming from the changeover to an all-volunteer Army. This does cause some issues with the values previously stated. The Army now accepts people who would not have qualified even a dozen years ago. Any soldier who abused substances was released from service with a dishonorable discharge. Now, these same soldiers are warned with a lowered level of discipline. One other interesting thing that the manning shortage has brought is convicted felons into the Army. Some court systems are giving convicted felons an option. They are able to choose either jail or becoming a soldier in the Army. While some people think this is a great way of cleaning up the felons personal lives, others are less sure.
It took over 50 years for the manning issue to get fixed, but the issue wasn’t fixed until much sooner. So what can we do now?
Today’s post goes over the issues discussed in this post. The manning problem can be addressed by changing a couple of fundamental principles. The first is that if you don’t want someone to become commander, move those who are already there or move the best available officer. The second is that people who are new in doing the jobs of officer in the Army should have no problems getting a good rate or experience. This is because they are already there, as the only ones that can put in a good amount of the hours. And as new officers get more valuable in the Army, their experience in their field of service should allow them to become the best officers they can be. The other two are that it would be unfair to change the training. The training is what makes a good commander to do the job so that it’s a better officer. The training also has benefits when a person is trained up to be more experienced than they are, so that it gives it out to all. As a general rule, a person has to put aside a long-term commitment or commitment to work long hours in order to get the job done. Many people are learning to train and continue to put in hard time. That training is what keeps them employed and allowed for them to earn a living.”
The Manning Debate on Military Today
Here again, the changes discussed in this post are based on the principles outlined in the Manning Issue. This post will help you see what can be done to improve the Army. • The Army is now open to new hires. • The military has added several new jobs, many of which have positive benefits for the military, such as making soldiers the best they can be. • And the Army now has many new specialties to improve performance in. • The Navy is continuing their growth. • The Marine Corps is continuing in an expansion. • The Air Force has added its new specialties and the Army is continuing in a small but significant way to broaden its service.
While we don’t know what the Army expects from its new officer class, we do see some things. It doesn’t expect it to give its service people the opportunity to do the things they want them to do while living in the Army. One suggestion is that the Army would welcome new officers into the service, but not just at the current rate. That would be the same for all new hires. What the Army is going to do with these new people is to expand the existing corps of civilian personnel, and that would make it more likely they would be joining new positions. The Army will be offering a full-time position only to new recruitals, as they might find that the military isn’t ready for them. That would also reduce the Army’s manpower level, which would reduce the military’s capacity for training the people new to the service in the service.
I hope that people will keep reading these posts for now, and get back to thinking about the Army’s values. For people who were hoping to get to know this new officer class, this post will be a great place to start learning. The Army has its own officers, and the manning issue isn’t the only issue they would like to solve. The next two posts will cover all of the issues covered in this post.
Communications