Don M. Snider

Få utomstående har insyn i militär verksamhet. Det är ett förhållande denna bok syftat till att ändra på. I de tre föregående Uppdragsböckerna har militärer med egna ord beskrivit vad de gör, när de gör de som de tränats för. Vilka uppdrag ska hanteras? Vad möter dem, och vilka utmaningar ställs de inför? Hur ser det yrkeskunnande ut som härbärgerar både förmågan att bruka dödligt våld men också förmågan att skapa relationer, förtroende och samarbete? I den här boken bidrar elva olika forskare utifrån skiftande perspektiv, med sina reflektioner över militär yrkespraktik, dess möjligheter och dess utmaningar.

Over the past 5 years, the War on Terrorism has produced many unforeseen results for the U. S. Army, something not unexpected by those who study war as we do here at the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI). One event, however, was truly unexpected-the participation in 2006 by several Army flag officers in the "Revolt of the Generals." It was unexpected because the professional ethic of the Army in the modern era has held that, in civilmilitary relations, the military is the servant of its Constitutionally-mandated civilian leaders, both those in the Executive branch and in the Congress. Thus, as Samuel Huntington noted over 5 decades ago, "loyalty and obedience" are the cardinal military virtues. This precept has remained embedded in the Army's professional ethos to this day, especially for the strategic leaders of the Army Profession. An act of public dissent is to be exceptionally rare, undertaken only after the most careful analysis and determination of its absolute necessity.

This monograph is the 6th in the Professional Military Ethics Series; it addresses an issue about which little has been written. It intentionally plows new and difficult ground. The larger issue it addresses is the cultures of the military professions which currently serve our Republic and the role of the Stewards of the Profession in the evolution of those cultures, in particular their moral and ethical core. Since our Armed Forces exist as military professions only by the trust they earn from the society they serve and the trust they engender among professionals who voluntarily serve within them, this issue is of no small import. If the Stewards are unable to lead the professions such that both the external and internal trust relationships are maintained, then the military institution reverts to its alternative organizational character of a big, lumbering government bureaucracy. Since there is no historical record that such government bureaucracies...