2000•The US Army War College Quarterly ParametersOpen access

The Future of Army Professionalism: A Need for Renewal and Redefinition

Don M. Snider, Gayle L. Watkins

Open full text 28 citations

Abstract

The Army that won the battles of the Gulf War in 1991 was one of the most professional ever fielded by America.As General Schwarzkopf commented, "We could have traded equipment with the Iraqis and still won."[1] And when that Army returned home, it was welcomed by a supportive, even adoring, public.Now, almost one decade later, the situation has changed dramatically.During the past nine years, the US Army has undergone radical changes--major force and budget reductions, revised modernization programs, and successive base realignments and closures.All were intended by design to adapt the institution to the post-Cold War geopolitical situation.But there are many indications that the result is an Army quite unlike the victor of the Gulf War battles.It is instead an Army of decreasing effectiveness, one which suffers from a weakening relationship with the American public and, of more concern, with its own members.The last decade has been one of massive change to which the Army profession has yet to adapt fully.Simply stated, the end of the Cold War, which roughly coincided with the culmination of other shifts in the organization of Western, postindustrial societies, has drastically altered the expectations of where and how the profession of arms will apply its expertise.Today, in this new interwar period, [2] the Army is expected to operate effectively across the entire spectrum of violence, from major theater wars to domestic disaster relief.Further, it must be prepared to conduct these varied operations worldwide in any physical and political environment, and to do so in very rapid order.With these shifts in society's expectations came the need for a huge expansion in the profession's knowledge base and in the application of that expert knowledge to new situations.Such growth in expertise should have generated changes throughout the Army's leadership and management systems--from organizational structure to applied technology, from measures of readiness to measures of effectiveness, and from military training systems to professional military education.

Open-access reader

About this research paper

What this paper is about

The Army that won the battles of the Gulf War in 1991 was one of the most professional ever fielded by America.As General Schwarzkopf commented, "We could have traded equipment with the Iraqis and still won."[1] And when that Army returned home, it was welcomed by a supportive, even adoring, public.Now, almost one decade later, the situation has changed dramatically.During the past nine years, the US Army has undergone radical changes--major force and budget reductions, revised modernization programs, and successive base realignments and closures.All were intended by design to adapt the institution to the post-Cold War geopolitical situation.But there are many indications that the result is an Army quite unlike the victor of the Gulf War battles.It is instead an Army of decreasing effectiveness, one which suffers from a weakening relationship with the American public and, of more concern, with its own members.The last decade has been one of massive change to which the Army profession has yet to adapt fully.Simply stated, the end of the Cold War, which roughly coincided with the culmination of other shifts in the organization of Western, postindustrial societies, has drastically altered the expectations of where and how the profession of arms will apply its expertise.Today, in this new interwar period, [2] the Army is expected to operate effectively across the entire spectrum of violence, from major theater wars to domestic disaster relief.Further, it must be prepared to conduct these varied operations worldwide in any physical and political environment, and to do so in very rapid order.With these shifts in society's expectations came the need for a huge expansion in the profession's knowledge base and in the application of that expert knowledge to new situations.Such growth in expertise should have generated changes throughout the Army's leadership and management systems--from organizational structure to applied technology, from measures of readiness to measures of effectiveness, and from military training systems to professional military education.

Why it matters

OpenAlex reports 28 citations for this work. Citation counts describe recorded attention and do not establish research quality.

Key contribution

A contribution statement is not available in the OpenAlex record.

Method / approach

Method details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Main findings

Findings are not separately available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Limitations

Limitations are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Applications

Application details are not available in the OpenAlex metadata.

Available abstract

The Army that won the battles of the Gulf War in 1991 was one of the most professional ever fielded by America.As General Schwarzkopf commented, "We could have traded equipment with the Iraqis and still won."[1] And when that Army returned home, it was welcomed by a supportive, even adoring, public.Now, almost one decade later, the situation has changed dramatically.During the past nine years, the US Army has undergone radical changes--major force and budget reductions, revised modernization programs, and successive base realignments and closures.All were intended by design to adapt the institution to the post-Cold War geopolitical situation.But there are many indications that the result is an Army quite unlike the victor of the Gulf War battles.It is instead an Army of decreasing effectiveness, one which suffers from a weakening relationship with the American public and, of more concern, with its own members.The last decade has been one of massive change to which the Army profession has yet to adapt fully.Simply stated, the end of the Cold War, which roughly coincided with the culmination of other shifts in the organization of Western, postindustrial societies, has drastically altered the expectations of where and how the profession of arms will apply its expertise.Today, in this new interwar period, [2] the Army is expected to operate effectively across the entire spectrum of violence, from major theater wars to domestic disaster relief.Further, it must be prepared to conduct these varied operations worldwide in any physical and political environment, and to do so in very rapid order.With these shifts in society's expectations came the need for a huge expansion in the profession's knowledge base and in the application of that expert knowledge to new situations.Such growth in expertise should have generated changes throughout the Army's leadership and management systems--from organizational structure to applied technology, from measures of readiness to measures of effectiveness, and from military training systems to professional military education.

Key concepts: Political science, Engineering ethics, Environmental ethics, Public administration, Law, Engineering, Philosophy

Related papers

Back to paper searchBrowse research topicsOriginal source
The Future of Army Professionalism: A Need for Renewal and Redefinition — Research Paper | ScholarLens