|
Abstract:
The U.S. Constitution mandates that to provide for the common defense, Congress shall have the power to raise and support Armies. It also states in Article II, section 2, that The President shall be Commander in Chief...he may require the opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each...Department...relating to the Duties. As professionals, U.S. Army senior leaders not only have a constitutional requirement to both Congress and the President, they also have an obligation to the force to engage in dialogue with these branches. This often creates an ethical dilemma for leaders that is inherently designed to keep the process adversarial to prevent dominance by the Army, the executive branch, or the legislative branches. The conflict does not end with these two elements. Army senior leaders are stewards of resources; the profession demands winning our nation's wars. These circumstances collide as a decade of war has persisted. Therefore, the U.S. Military must have an ethical and comprehensive strategy to address the probable issues of conflict termination and future warfare. This paper will examine the relationship among Congress, the executive branch, and the profession of arms as it conflicts with future warfare scenarios and the military's Constitutional and professional obligation: to fight and win our nation's wars.
| Limitations: |
 APPROVED FOR PUBLIC RELEASE |
| Description: |
Research paper |
| Pages: |
42 |
| Report Date: |
06 Apr 2011 |
| Report Number: |
A775065 |
|
|
|
|
|
Keywords relating to this report:
Email This Abstract
