ARMY I,I5AI)lSIWIII' I)OCYRINI? ISXAMINIW: '1'1115 CHAM I?LISON EFFEC'I'?

School of Aclvariced Military Studies IJnitetl Slt~tesArmy Colnn~aacli~n

1. AGENCY USONLY IluwYmU 2. REPORT DATE 27 May 1999 4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 6. ~NOINGNUMBERS

- 6. AUTHORlSl

7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAMEIS) AN0 AOORESSIESI Command and General Staff College School of Advanced Military Studies Fon Leavenworth, Kansas 66027

0. SPONSORINGIMONITORING AGENCY NAMElSl AND AODRESSIESI 10. SPONSORINGIMONITORING Command and General Staff College AGENCY REPORT NUW School of Advanced Military Studies Fon Leavenworth, Kansas 66027

11. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES

1Za. DISTRIBUTION IAVAILABILITYM STATEMENT

17. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION 18. SECURITY CLASSFICATION OF THIS 18. SECURITY CUSSFICATION 120. LIMITATION ff ABSTRACT I OF.. .REPORT...... I PAGE I OF ABSTRACT-~ ~ I UNCLASSIFIED---- ~- I UNCLASSIFIED I UNCLASSIFIED I UNLIMITED I I I I NSN 7540.01280~5500 Standnd Fwn 298 IRr. 2.801 Rwribld by ANSI Sld. 230.18 288.102 SCHOOL OF ADVANCED MILITARY STUDIES

MONOGRAPH APPROVAL

Lieutenant Colonel Kim L. Summers

Title of Monograph: Army Leadership Doctrine Examined: The Chameleon Effect?

Approved by:

Monograph Director

William J. Gregor, P~~.Q. 1,

fl&&?4OL. Director, School of Advanced LTC Robin P. Swan, MMAS Military Studies

Director, Graduate Degree philip J. Ehookes, Ph.D. Program

Accepted this 27th Day of May 1999 ABSTRACT

ARMY LEADERSHIP DOCTRINE EXAMINED: THE CHAMELEON EFFECT? by Lieutenant Colonel Kim I.. Summers, USA, 53 pages.

Do recent changes in leadership doctrine reflect social values articulated by our civil institutions or military functional needs, and if they reflect social values rather than functional needs are the changes likely to inhibit the solving of critical functional problems?

Congressional investigations into moral turpitude within the services gcncrated solutions acceptable to society. Army leaders instituted changes to leadership doctrine incorporating social and con&essio~aledicts as well as theirbwn solutions. The revisions encompassed a change in Army values. The social value, equal opportunity, is thc banncr under which congressionally mandated changes were instituted. As a result scnior Army leaders have sanctioned personnel policies, instituted educational programs, and revised traditional values that are intcndcd to address the issue of sexual harassment.

Traditional values of duty and selfless service, as defined in US.Army leadership doctrine support military functions. This study documents the role these values play in supporting Army purpose. Army action plans aimed at fixing scxual misconduct are compared against congressional, societal, and Army values constructs. The comparisons illustrate leader actions are affecting core purposc, core valucs and ultimately core idcology.

The chancesu to doctrine reflect social values articulated bv our civil institutions. Socially palatable value of individual autonomy is heightened because of the new Army value "Respect". Dual standards are a consequence and accclcrate the demise of warfighting functions. Traditional values: dut; and selfless service are subordinated to individualism. This phcnomcnon emerged because of doctrinal modifications and a unclear understanding the role traditional values play in maintaining Army purposc.

iii TABLE OF CONTENTS

TITLE PAGE

MONOGRAPH AI'I'KOVAL PAGE

ABSTRACT iii

IT. LIBERALISM, CIVIL CONTROL, AND 1NDIVIDUAL AUTONOMY

Ill. VARIOUS VIEWS

Political Views on Values Society's View Review of Policies, Regulations, and Training Regulations are Revised and Values Redefined Individual Autonomy and Traditional Values

IV. INSTITUTIONAI, VIEW

Army EthosICore Purpose Institutional Functions Institutional Values: Duty and Selfless Service Institutional Solution to Sexual Harassment

V. SIJMMARY

VI. CONCLlJSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Congress's Role Revitalize Standards as a Measure of Success Warlighting Ethos

ENDNOTES

BTBLIOGRAI'HY A captain and tuo sergeants training >oung fcmalc recruits at r\hcrtlccll Proving (iround in Mar! land had coerced them into hating sex. One non-commissioned ofliccr called it a "wnc" to scc b\ho could bed the most bvomen. A sergeant bras suhwquently convicted of rape and sent to prison; I:! were ultimatel! reliercil oftheir duties.

The pursuit of'tlie Aherdeen sc;lndal soon led to widespread accusations of sexual

inquiry and puhlic Congressionid I-learings decried thc cri~ninillhchnvior and extollcd the principle of fair treatment of uomcn. their pronouncements showed a puhlic and internal split in hou the protagonists \ icbbcil military discipline. valucs. Army purpose, and hou to wlrc the perceived prohlem.

Despite the split. the .Army Secretary and Chief of Stall'sought to preclude anticipntcd puhlic criticisnl of the Army's response to fhc Ahcrdcen nccusetior~sby announcing steps to extend the inquir! to all training installations. T'llose steps. cspeciall!. the creation ot'a I'rntagon Sexual Harassment Ti~skForce quickly nlade the invcstigi~tions of military crimes i~tone post into a \\idesprei~dexanlination of the treatment of women

The t\rmy's self examination took scverul ti)rn~s:;In invcstiga~ionof indiridu;~l allegations ofcrin~ini~lbeha\ ior. a spccial conmission on Army training. and reports generated from sexual hiirassment hot lines. fhe pentagon "hot line" protluced liu~~drctis ~Ii~llci~tions.I ollcI I t c ~ i I~~rtliri inctig~ti~i. :\i;I rciulr of these ft)r~11115.senior lc;dcrs s~~r~iiiwilce1.tai11 l';ictor> ncrc rclatcd to he issues UI~chose to instittire re\ isions to :ir111! \ i~lt~cba5 tlic priniar! sol~~tio~ilo tlic prohlcni.

I'hc <\my has sought to fix the sexual liarass~l~cnlproblem b! cmpliasi~ing ducation and reeniphi~siringconcern and respect for soldiers. The military h;is had tlil'licdt> inculcating the solution. I lie tlilficulty rctlccts the coniplcxity and social il! naniics of gentler integration. 'l'hc. :\rniy's action pliui assumes the meaning of"gc11dcr intcg.ration" and its relationship to :\r~ii! \i~l~~rsis \\ell delinctl. Thc pli111~roceeds ;IS il' el'h t\ to pro~iiotein~liviclnal success arc c~)nlplctclyconipatihlc nitli service 11cccli. The

:\rrny senior Iei~dersassume that "tfi~ditionalvalues" arc well known tlnd that those

\dues include he i~nporti~nccol'thc intli\ idunl soldier. A5 \\.ill l)c slio\vn. these kc! clcme~it.;of the ..\rni!'s ;1ctio11pl;m arc nor conlpletcl! ~~ndcrstoodand the \;~luestlclinccl

I)! senior 1e;icicrs diffcr from those of rank and tile. The challenge. therefore, is not to devise ncw values or belittle ;iction plans. hul to identill discrepancies between the views of the institutional decision-makers antl affrct the action plans will haw on achieving

.4rniy functional needs.

The Arniy leadership has focused on the actions ot'the trainers at :Iberdcen and on their in;lhility to adhere ro tradirional values. Senior leaders concluded these training inst~ucror.rsacriliccd Iioneht! i~ndinrcgrir!. 1)eci1~1setliq did not ~I~OM\vlli~t.-\rn~y \i~l~~es nicitnl antl certainly did not adhere to them.' l'hcse same Army leaders helieve sexual

Ihilfi~smcntis isolated and hey. tlicrcforc. see no need to support current personnel policies. the modified etlucational process. and gender integtxtetl training' Nevertheless. Icatlcrsliip'\ a\\cbsniclit ol'this ccin~lilc\social challcngc is :~llcgctll! wliliorlcil Ii!

IILIIII~SOLIL,i111diIi~pii~:~t~ i~iq~~ircs co~~i~nissioncd to ~it~~ily the .;c\LI;II hi~r;~ss~ne~itprolile~n.

I'hc p~ohle~~li~~I'wwnl harossnicnt and nhusc ore hclw. iowl nhnorniulitic~;~bsoci;~tcd s itg~er intcgrtio~i.T'o isolate esplicit heha\;ior such as sesuul misconduct fiom the gender integration issue over simplifies ;I ~nuclili~rger problem. Any solutions ilr;~wn from this ovcrsi~nplilicd\,iev, uill treat only the s!~iipton~snot the illness.

O\w siniplil).ing creates ;I conli~singpictl~re ol'tlic prohlenl. Nt)nethclcss. Arm! scnior Icatlersliip sccs clarit! and has taken action ~o~isistcnt\sit11 th:~t\ ic\\ . :In esaniple

~I'thcirclear vi.;ion and tllu resulting confusing outcomcs can be ti~und\vitl~in the Army's personnel practices and policies of promoting individual autonomy. a \;alucd social attribute.' Also. Iiy pder norming perliirmi~nccstandards and establishing lenient prcgn;mc) policies for single ~nilitarymothers the .Arm! has instituted douhle .;taidards hosed on sex6 'I hese personnel policies can be interpreted as ;I departure fiom military rccluirenients. such as preparing for war.' Thc policies will he explored latter in greater detail ,just to illustrate dichotomies that gender integration con create, but it is helpful here to postulate effects. For cxmple. it is possible that by cn~phasizingindividual autonom), personnel policies uill dermine traditional military norms of subordination and. theldq. crodc unity and teamwork, an essenti;~lelement of military performance. In tIi;it case. \ ;\lu he ilicrc.ased cmphahis of social goals. Army leatlers haw testified the current sexual miscues are isolated and the recent cIi:~ngesin V~IILICSarc mi o~~tgronthol'ethic;d ~iioilcr~iix~~tio~lmid naturd organizational maturation. Reconciling social goals. like individual autonomy. with 111iIit:ir) Ii~nc~ion\~such :I$ narli:!l11ing. :we ~icccssir~p:wt oI'111i1it:iryors;111i/:11io11:il

LI! namics. I kspitc the enorn~it! tjf the nlisco~~duct.the rcwlting action p1;ins must hc. in~l+d1)) their c.lIccts. lot I>! their intcntionx l'hei-c is reason to tlouht uhcther 111t.x' plan\ can succeed.

Value revision anil education arc esscntiall! tl~eArn~y's action pli111. 'lie ~Irnl>'5 iicti(111pliul ~sscntii~ll~rests on revising \;dues through education. 1'11s pl;in retlccth the

Y - ,iudL!~ncnttlli~t Ici~dcrsill all lc\,els itre tlishoncst. unt~~usr\\orth!.2nd lack intcgrit!. I hr.

~I~IIIISot i o I n ren~inilstctl in ~~~odilic~tionto Iciidcr~hipdoctrinid

111:1nuuls.rctlclincd ~alucs.and an overhaul ol'r\rnl!. proli.ssional ideolog!. I hest. cl'li)rth. although nell intentioned. seem destined to miss thcir mark. Doctrinal authorities haw over simplitietl the issue hy making assumptions ahout values and traditions. and the inll~or~:i~lccol'individual wccess. anil they hare nlininii/ciI the c~mplexities;~nd d! namics associated mith gcnder integration. The over simplification is evident in testimony before congress. Senior leaders htve rcfused to address integrated triiining as a possiblc source of friction betwen the scxes. (iLN I-lartzog. Com~nanderof Training and

Doctrine Co~nmandstated during a recent appcelxnce hrli~re('ongress that current integlated training is successfi~lin inculcating male and Fe~nalesand there is little evidence to support the Army's training method is n cilusc ol'thcsc inciclents. His opinion

IS con~u-!to the ihcts. I he recent sexual n~isco~irluctin\cstiqtions. uhich dmou esclusi\dy center on basic training installations. rdiws (;EN llartzog's viem." O\:er sinlplit'! ing has caused senior leiitlers to ~nanipulntethe organimtio~lanti doctrine ~irhout full knowledge of the problem. ( her the IWI ~l'ciiile niiin! ha\ c pcrcci\crl that ;iJlicrcnce tt) tr;ditional vnluc\

\\ithi11the :\r~n) has lwcn .;teadil! dcclini~~g.'"I~unil~les the erosion in t~.;iilitioniil i~r~n!

\iiIucs ;ire cnc;i~~sul~~t~~il\vitlii~ichi~ng~s to ;\rniy \;ilucj. ~~iodilic;~tio~~sintc~iilcil to rcdrchh the perceived nioriil crises found iit ill1 levcl?~of niilitiiry iiutliorit>. These niornl indiscretions and act3 of misconduct are reverberating throughout the military,I I l'hc situation within the ilcl2n~eest;iblisIin~e~lt see~iisethically bankrupt. (It~rrent:\rniy iiction pliins thilt i~~cl~ilccriniini~l in\csti~@ions. redrlining \:ilucs. and values tri~ini~~g. are the solutions senior Icadcrs Sccl will fix the problem. Out (lo these wlutions niltlrc\s the co~nplesityol'gcndcr integration and sexual harassment'.' Are senior Ic;~lcrsanarc 01' the effect of increasing indi\,idual autonomy on values that support military requirenicnts and li~nctions'?"h>\vcrs to these questions can he li)und hy runlining the Army's initial plan<.

Iltlucation and \;;due training is a mqior port of the Arn~y'splan. The leader development process uses the Army educational system to inculcate values as well as institute managenlent's solutions." At first glance. this process appears to haw made great strides in resol\ ing problems ot'nloriil turpitude. But when the policy shifts and regulatory changes are investigated the outcome hecomes qucstionahle. Institutional doctrine tlctines li)r the :\rm! and the puhlic the purpose ofthe Amy and explains to the

.4rn1y the institutio~~d\iilucs that hrlp intli\idu;~lshpe their heha\ ior to :\my and lLS. needs. fo understand tlie in~pactof recent changes in Army institutional doctrine. especi:illy lender \nluc tri~ining,it is necessary to unclcrst;~ntltlie relationship hctucc~ithe values ofthe social culture, the traditional institutional \;slues of the Army tind the role tliiit :\~III! JII~politic;il l~xl~r\liippI+ in llo\\ tlic :\r~it! rq101ids to c~tcr~i~ilprchwrc\

:~rltlint~~nal dit'lict~llich. I o illiril\el tllcw i~~rcrcstingpcr~jwli\c'i it is II~CCSS~I~>to

cs;~~iii~~cwcict! 'G \aIucs mil lio\v they inipxt tlic ~iiilitaryand to contrast those KI~LI~, nit11 thc :\rmy's institutional v;ilucs. Once that has heen done. it \rill then be possihlc to ewmine the Army re\ isions and cliimges mid to coniparc those changes with congrchsit)~iallymandated equal opportu~iit)goals a~itltlic al'li.c~sof Army perwnnel policies. The rcsultin~conipariwlis make it possible to \ icu clearly the di\.crgcncc hctivcc~~chpot~scd :\r~ny \sluts md tlic societal \i~lucs~nil~iilkht in Arnly policy.

Dclinil~ggder i~~tcgriilion.traditional vnluch. and i~iili\idualim is central to identifying tlie contlict hct~ecn~Zr~ny functional needs and public social goals. [flit! itre the tbcus ol'tlic nc~tscyncnt ol~tlicstud!. conlpi~rin~viirious views and their i~nptict on ..\rm! corporate ~li.ci~ioni~liat rc~ultcd in hignilicont \aluc rc\ isio11.l As prc\-iou\l! outlined. over simplification led the Army to cmbrxx prenlature conclusions and to adopt false or incomplctc conclusions causing the Arniy to identil!; action plans when only some aspects of its p~.oblenihave heen identified. The issue is better understood by examining gender i~~tcgtxtionchallenges, efforts to achieve indkidual autonomy. and acconipan! ing cliangcs in \alucs. Over simplifying sxual h~i~xsn~cntled to solutions adtlrcssing one or tuo s>nlptolnsof unacceptable beha\ ior. I'rohlems like sexual l1. ,il'ihsnictit.. . thar arc ah\ocia~cJ\\it11 gentler intcgation arc comple~socii~l plieno~~~cna.

Cataloging the problerns as a consequence of poor integrity or a lapse in discipline suongl!. suggests the Army chose to avoid a tleeper il~quiry.I'I) deterrninc tlic actual cause and a viable solution. it is necessary to explore thoroughly gender integration \\itliin the n~ilitar):its itr.c i crcctins I I recccnts. Once gcndi.~.

intcgriition in the milit:~ryi\ thoroughl) untlcrdood. ~vccan colnpnrc the current iiiilit;~~~~

i~lcolog!. to Iiighligl~tthe causes thar continue to hestall a resolution of the prohleni.

The Army exists to gualxntcc the Niltion's security. hat goal defines the purposc

and military lilnctions ol'land li~rces." The Army's ethos is embodied in its leadership

tloctrinc. \ alucs. and lcilder.;. If scnior Iecdcr.; deeni it nccessi~r! to change doctrine and

\.alucs solely to solve the problcnl of se\ual liii~xslncnt.there will be iidditional cffect.;

that alter the r\r~ny"ietl~os iind functions. In other tvords the overarching question is. "(lo

rccent changes in vducs 1~1rsucthe wcid goal> i~rtic~~laledby our civil institutions at tlic

expense of military functional needs. and if they do. are thc changes likely to inhibit

solving critical functiolial problc~ns'!"

11. I..II~:R:\LIS\I. (:I\,II. CON.I IW.. .\xr)wIwr)u:\L, .A[!T~VOMY

Samuel Huntington asserted in his hook Soldier trrldlhe S/rr/e, "Military

institutions, which reflect only social values, may he incapable of performing effectively .. their military functions. I luutington ohserved the lil~ictionof tlic military is to '-provide

for the security of the state". He also observed that the ideology of the l!nited States was

liberalism." I-luntington iirgued liberalism, with its inherent anti-military ideology. ran

counter to military funclional needs. 11e concluded:

. . , Or the \\cAc~~ingol'lihcri~lisni cim in the long run. relieve the te~lsion hetireen the tleninntls ot' military security iind the \dues of American lihcralis~n. 16

l'hc concept of ci\ ilian control e~nplo!;etl by the I!.% government is deriwd fiom the tenets of American liberalism. American society's distrust of strong standing armies is lu\ic to die liI>ctxlsocial pliilo\opli~ :\~iicrica~isocict>.s Io~ig~tdingwyicio~i ot'

;ir~iiicsib \\ell doc~~~iic~itc'd;id ih coclitic~lill tllc ('o~istil~lion.S~il~orcli~ii~tio~i iind control are plai~iI>deti~ied in the ('onstitution.'' ('i\ il co~itrol;inlollnth to finding a ~nethoilof s~~bortlinatinyitigthe military to the government \r hile rnai~itainingit large enough to deal cft'cctivcl> mith thc threat. Huntington supported this concept \vlicn he wrote. "[the niilitary rt!jrct>l i~idi\.itlunliniportance. replacing it w it11 co~nmunalisnithat mhordiniitcs the good ol'tlie indi\.idu;il 1i)r the good ol'wciety." t le tlelined ohjcctivc civilian control as. subordinating the militar! to a clcarl! tleli~ieilci\,il a~~tliority.I'lic key to ohiccti\c control is i~~stit~ition;ds~ibortlinatio~i

To maintain ohjcctiw civil control the government estohlishes lbr the military an indclwdent sphere ol'action. .An i~itlependentmilitiir! sphere of action permits the

.Irniy. or any ;~r~iicdservice. to clc\clop internid v;il~~esalig~i~d \\it11 its V~~~ictiorihxid makes it possible li~the military to avoid involvement in national politics. Interrerenee by civil leaders in military aShirs undermines objective control only when civil leaders supercede military ,jutlge~nent.'~

Recent political invol\:enient is an o~~tgrowthot'the Army's ethical problems.

C'i\;il leaders have scrutinized Army sexual hivass~nentissues and directed investigations and reli)rms. As a result ol'tlie i~i\~cstigatiorisand heightened concern over what it percei\e~as a total lack ol'liiir iind cquitahlc u.cat~iic~itol'\romcn. ('ongrcss has heco~ne an actii'e participant in militar! affairs. I'he Congress' preoccupation with Fdir treatment ol'women has given rise to the congressional assertion that assert li~irtreatment ot'\\o~nen would eliminate sexual harassment and end direct involvement of Congress. Menihers of eq~~all?.will they he treated fiirl):. And not until the): are treated fiiirl! \\ill they cease to he trratcd as sex oh.jccts"'" The solution iippeiirs compatible \\it11 society's view of equal .. opporrunity. It cmbri~ccsthe tenets of .4mcriciui "liheralisn~. and asserts civil control o\cr tlw .-\rm!. i~ndit li~rtlierssocict!'~ eniphasis on the i~nportanccol'the indi\idu;d.

Intli\ itlu;d autonom!. is a goal of gwcrnmcnt and society. I;3ut is it pr~lcntli)r govcrnlnent to inipose social edicts on the Amiy ~~nderthe guise ol'citil control if those goals are counter to security lirnctions'? In an attempt to find ii solution and to respond to conyrcssional prodding the .Army management has re\ isctl core v;~lucsin the helief that tlic .ioci;~lcor,cerlis ol'tlic C'ongehs arc not ir~con~p;~tiblc\sit11 rh? lil~~ctionof the rnili~;~r!.

Whether this action plan will prove successful rests with the plan's ability to solve the problem of sexual harassment while cohering to military functional responsihilities.

Personnel Policies: Individt~alAutononiy~inil Standards

Sexual miscontlnct and inappropriate behavior arc prohlems associated \\itli gcndcr integration. '1'0 better understand the scope ot'tlie problem it is necessary to detinc exactly what is gender integration. Wcbstcr's Collegiate Dictionary dctines gentlcr as one sex. 21s in ti'ni;~le.'" Integralion is detinctl ah [lie incorporation i~stqui~lh

.I into ;in organization of individuals of ditl'crent groups. The Army's current view is u liiglihrcil of tlicse definitions. (icntler i~~teyrationin the n~ilitar! is focused on lkmales and their incorporation into all aspects of service. Due to differences physici~lly. cn~otio~~;~ll!.idp! clwlogicall! ~ li~llintcgri~tio~~prcs~lts ch~~llcng~~ ~111iqw to Ihc

, ~ i i r :\[I clcnlcnt ol'thitt cl~;~llc~~gcis the ph)$ioIogicaI ~1ifli.rcncc~Ilet\\ec.~t II~CII i~nd

\\omen adits i111p;tclon the ;hilit) ol'\\x~~nento lpcrlixm nlilitar) tahkr. Stutlieh hn\c s11ountlii~t\+omen are limited in their ability to huiltl muscle mass. \lusclc nlass is ilnport;trlt tiw nweting the high strength demands and end~~rancercquircmcnls associated

I cnht hlilitary liu~cticu~and task colnpctcncy ought to he bused on conthat pcrti~rrn;tncc.11cc~l5 hecxw \\.hat ntattcrs is not \\ ho perli~rmsthe task hut ri~tllerIlo\v \\dl the taA \\;I.; il<)11~.I'hc :Irln!.'s gentler integration polic! ha.; estahlishcd ;I arict! ol' ph! sical btandards in ortlcr to iddress physiological dil'fcrcnces het\vcen nlen ;~nd\\o~nen while continuing the integration proccss. The Army's approach to this socially charged issue 1x1s hecn to continue integration ~hilemaking cllongcs to doctrine \\ithont

;tshch~ingthe gc~ltlcrtl! nanlics that hq~ethe ~prohlcnl. 111otltcr i\ord<. tl! c4di~hi1y dill'erent ph)sical requirclncnts fi)r the suuc job the Amy has made soldiers anere ol' difference hctwccn male and female abilities instead of decreasing sensitivity to thosc difkrences. The! have estitblished tno mcasures of success for indi\;iduals perlimning the same function. As a consequence men perceive uomen as having to do less yet rhy receive the sanie rc\wrds.

hrin?. his testimony in Fehruery 1997, the ('hicf of Stiil'l'ot'tlle Army suh~tantiatctlthC rift bet~ccnti~sk ~IIKI stitndilrd. Ilc siiid, "135. ~nitlcsimil ti'nl;tlcs doing

..>I . the same thing to standard this increases unit cohesion, ctc. - This is impossible when the standard is set by gender. Gender intcgrution has presented issues that do not tit senior leader experience. The Chiefof Staff is correct in his helief'that pcrfornming the witllol~tthc 1'1111 integratio~iol'w~nen.Nevertheless. women in the services inahc up no

Inore than I;'% t)I'tlic o\ criill I'Orcc. WOIII~II tcnil to score higher on aptitude tchts antl cause fcucr disciplinary problcnis.'" There are. noncrheless, costs to increasing the prcscncc of\romcn in the niilitary. Female integration has ;~d\.ersclyaffected readiness h! incre;~\ing i~lhcncc\ilw to prepancies. creating ilouhle st;~n~l;~r~lsrcgxding pli!xic:~l requircmcnts allkctiny unit morale. and instituting gender discriniinatio~lthro~~gh job quotas and personnel floors for women where none exist for men." These divergent aspects of gender integration make assessment difficult in increasingly chaotic policy environnlent.

Ill. TIIE VAIIIOIIS VIEWS

(iendcr integrarion is unquestionally a complex and conti~singissue. Ihe

Abcrdcen sex scandid has gc~lcratetla p~~hlico~~tcr} id hils led thc hrni! 10niilhe changcs in the prot'rssional ideology in the hopcs ofsolbing thc problem. The ('hicf'ol'

Staff tcstilicd tht intli\.idual soldier antl leader behavior hy adding the core \;due rcspcct. can bc modified. Soldiers huild respect for each other through shared hardship and hy acco111pIis11in~niiIit:~r) t:~sL\ to llw unit ~td:irdl'lic ('l~icl~ofSt;~fl'~ti~tc(l.-I

Yet ~lic~pli! ical ~quiren~c~itsfor integrating \\OIII~IIin con~txt~units :ire dilTercnt iu~l personnel policies horone scu owr anothcr regardless of task performed. I low can respect grow \\lien the premise on \tIlicli it is founded is hlse'? The answer is explained in socict! 's hscination M ith equality and opportunit! .

(icntlcr intcyxtion is attri~cti\:tIwi~usc socitty has a conipellillg hire ro Lmurc equal opporlunit). .,, ('onlcmporary wcial v:~luesanti legal rights stipulate that hi~n pli!.sical cl~afi~ctcristics~l~oultl never hc allo\vcd to prohibit solnconc fiom puhlic sen ice

Applying the general rulcs that govern public ser\.icc to the military. tiiir treatment and non-discrimi~~i~toryopportunities crcatcs prohle~nsin the Army. Certain civil lcatlers scc an! rule.; that ;dJrcss male fc~~laletli1'~crcnce~ discriniinator). all uniustilied ol~xlcto the equal participation ol'wo~nen.'" Others see the rulcs as necessary qualifications tied to performance expectations: individual ;ind organizational. Both points of view haw merit. Lsarnining past dcalings with gender issues highlights the complexity of the problem and the diff'crcnces in social expectations.

Political Views on Vitlu~

tlistoricoll~~.the c\lm)'s handling of gentler issues has varied. .A quick synopsis ol'\\o~ncn111 the Arm! pro\ ides a historicid peryxcti\c ot'gcndcr intcgratioll and illun~inatcsits politicization. I'olitical influences and definitions directly and indirectly mold .Arm!. pcrso~lnelpolicies. 'l'hc linking of defense 1cgisl:uion and i~ppropriationsto ~endcri~~tcgra~ic~n has heell linhed to ~leknwlegiblatio~~ and has crcatctl >!stc~nic political i~~tl~~cncc.

Mornen haw hecn i~socii~tedv.ith tI~cI:S '\r111! in ol'licii~li~nd ~mol'ticii~l na!s since the :\meric;~n Revolution. Scsual hnrnss~nentand other gender related heha\ ioral issues have esisted equally as long. Prior to World War II.women servcd ill ;in official capacit! in gender specilic militar! unib. such as lhc Wonlcn's :2uxiliurics. L)uring i111iI aticr 1VLV11 the 1L'o1ii~n's:Irnly ('orps (\V:\C') orgi11ii7;1tio1iiillydefined fe~niilcservice.

Since then. C'ongrcss has gratlu;~llyincrti~scd thc cniplo! nlcnt of \\-omen. In IO-IX. the

1Von1cn'h ;\rnlcd Scrviccs Intcgri~tion:\ct (02 S~atule.350-75) hro~~ghtnomcn into the regular military ser\.ice hut set strict limits on their nuniher and assignment. Ilnder th:lt statute. \\omen could makc up no morc than 2 percent of an? one sen ice and could rlot i s I I ilrt i itcnntcolonel L\'OI~~CIIucrc illso proliihitetl fro~ntl! in? coniht~tplanes. Ifservice women later adopted children. ninrried someonc with children. or becanw pregnant, they were discharged. In 1967 the Women Officers Act (1'1.90-130) remo\,ed the 2 percent female content ceiling. The Stratton Amendment to fiscal 1076 defense iluthoriZation hill (PI. 94- 106) opened the Army. Navy and Air Force xaclcmies to uonicn The fiscal 1070 defense a~rtliorizationact (PL 05-485);lllowetl women to serve on non-cornhat Navy ships and do temporar!; duty on warships not on combat missions. 1 he 1.Y 07-L).; dcli.nse i~~~thorili~tio~~act (OI'L 102- 100) lifted restrictio~ison assignment of nonie~ito combat aircrafi in the ;Zir Force. Ann!. anti Navy. Women \\ere perniittctl to pilot cornhat aircralt. including Arniy attack Ilelicopters. The fiscal 1004 defcnsc authorization act (PI. 103-160) lifted the bon on women serving aboard combat i s 111 1004 the I)'t;.n\' lI)~y~:trt~ticn~iswed ;I rule tlii~tc\;clutl~xI\volwli t'roni direct runlcnilt I I I t i I reI oIcn1 IIic progre>sion of sti~tutcs openi~igpositions to \\o~iic~tin tier! ticct of [lie :lrni> ha5 lwcn dclilw~~te.purpo>cli~l. and accompanied by grouing pains. ..\I ertch stageccctitai~isociolosical or cultural incidents spurred the integration of nonlen and subsequent statute."

1:ollowing Ll'orltl LVar II. the iitilitar> emancipation of \romeli was undcniahlc.

In~lustr>'5 rcliancc on "Rosy the Rivetel." anti tlic wrtimc use of wonicn as krr! pilots. instructors. ant1 staffot'liccrs pro\ ed that \\onien \vc'~L.it \ iithlc itltcr~ii~ti\;cso~~rcc of li~hor.

['he 1948 U'omcn's ;lrmcd Sen ice Inregration ..\cI. Icgislation ol' 1007. ant1 tlefensc authorization hills liwn 1074-78. are undeniable evidence the civil support for gender integration in the ,\rmy. I.cgislation like that pre\.iously mentioned, is a strong indicator ol'a gro\\i~igp~litical sc.nsitivity to rapidly c\ol\ ing social mandates. The cultural upheaval in thc 60s and 70s set the precedent for politicians to use the military for implementing social agmdas. The political platforms of the democratic administrtttion in the early 00s cleared the last rc~naininghurdles for gender intcgrtltion under the guise ot' equal opportunity." By including gender integration mandates in defense appropriations. the Congress tied militerq li~ntlinyirrevocabl) to gender issues." Linking social values to niilititr! funding allocations required senior military leaders to espouse thc same social

\dues ;is the politically sensitiw C'o~~gress.

The process of gentler integration has been long and arduous. It brings with it a rnidtitude of sociological challcn;cs ranging from motherhood to sexual hiuass~nent.

Sexual abuse and harassnicnt itre facets of gender integration that are pi~bliclyvisible itnd ~nilit;ir>\\it11 the c~~lli~~ilcspcctation 01'"cq11i1lopportunit)" and hi~sc:i~~sciI [lie i~istitutionto iiddrcss il ~wohlenii~s ueII a:. proni~~lgi~tciniplicit rdcs li)r Arn1~corporiltc decision-makers. Once knlale integration became lashed to defense funding disagreements hetween the military and the Congress could produce significant resource repercussions. The pu1)lic's \ ieu ot'tht. militar? institution \\;IS also fr:lnletl during these changing timc.5. Socier) could lime an equally Strong, direct inlluc~lceon Ar~ii!.

Icadcrship ;ictio~is.

Societv's Vie\\

Sexual halxssnlent is a negative kliavioral aspect of gender integration. even tlio~1gI1sewid hiiri~ssnicntis not ii nc\\ ~SSLIC.The i~ttentionpaid to the problcrn by the nlctlia iind Dc.prt~~icn[of Dcf;.rlsc i\ .on~c\vhotinore coiiqiicuous in this tlccade. Scwcrl har;~ssnlentand abuse is a reprehensible violation of social nornw and values. When [he defense establishment discovered the incidents of sexual harassment at Aberdeen. a telling chain of evcnts was set in motion and public reaction was not unpredictable.

The first public reports of scsual hilrassment surfi~cedin Decemher 197'1, the five women \\ho reported ahuse then trstitied hefore Congress in Fehruq 1080. However. it was not until 1988 tlii~tthe 1)ct'ense Department issued iin ofticial policy mcnioranduni staling. '.Sexual liarassmen[ bvill not he concloned or tolerated in any t~a!;"'~ Scnsitii ity to sexual h;u.assnienl (rend knlalc issues) in the nineties can he traced to the Navy and the so-called l'ailliook scandal. Thc: accusations of20 \\omc.n concerning the co~~ductof naval officers at the Tailhook Association Convention and the suhsequent fided Navy in\e\lip;itions I~rou:ht iii~tion;~l;111d ~o~~~ressi(~~~;~I intcrc\t in 110n the scr\ ice, \\

Ihandling gcndcr integration and sl)~rrrcilthe .;cr\.icc\ to re\ isit their policies. :I,

('o~~grcssionalinquiries into the :\r~ny's sesual misconduct inrestigations are poignant csamples of heightsned gender awareness. In I906 the Army announced that 55 percent of Army nwncn reported having heen sc~uidlyh;~rassetl." Then Ahertlecn

Pro\ ins (iround scs scandal surf iced. T,'ort Ji~climnand Fort I .eon;lrd Wood training

Ii;~scs11ad had similar incidents of sexual improprict!. Kest. the Sergeant Mqjor of tllc

.Army \rns axuscd ofscxu;d hariissnlent. ,An !\rn~>yncral olliccr in Turkcq \vns c~ccusedol'abusing his conmand position h) s~)licitingsex ti.0111 the wives of subordinates. Officially, the Army mas outraged at the incidents.

Army leaders \\ere so concerned about puhlic reaction that releasc of a sti~dyon the sul!jcct \+as po.;tponcci until soIuti~~nscould he lirc~entcd.:)iI'uhlicl!. co~igrcssioni~l leadership expressed grave concern. Social org;rni;c;itions such as women's rights groups were worried this would allow conservatives a chance to punish females by increasing segregation."' Thc civil populous wondered. "mho is in control'!"'" To complicate an already chaotic situation, Army scnior leadership reactcd to the criticism in a confused and inconsistent manner. Senior leaders announced. '.,justice will be served in the cases of the training bases. yet allowed the general officer to retire quietly." Congress imn~ediatcl! c:illcd li)r in\wtigations. I)OD precn~~~tcdc011grcssio11~1 inquiries hit11 its own probes. 'l'he Army initiated hot lines for sexual h;u.assment. A full-scale criminal investig;~tiontask force tws set up to root out hct fiom liction. Over 7000 calls poured in generating 1.074 cases." Senior letlders were convinced these incidents were isolated. retribution. In order lo insure the public spotlight dimnictl a shotgun lilast approiicli was take11 ro sol\,e the proldeni.

Not hatisticti \\it11 ferreting out criminal cliargcs alonc rlic :\rtiiy leaders lookctl for Incihurcs to ;~lle\.i;irethe ~iio~ilaho11iin;ltion i~nd rcco~icile tl~c wciiil iiliindiitc. I'lie

;\r~ny'ssenior ~iiat~agctiic~itscrutinized its doctrinal li~unhtions.training. a~idperso1111i.l policies and arrivcd ;it a conclusion, leaders liad in gencrnl fi~iled.

.-Review o1'1'oIicies, Reg~~liltions,iind Trainin!!

I'lie ;\r111!. ;~~~ionproym1 rcvi~cd,\~III> ~or~\;IILICS iin~l i~~sti~urcd;I cliiiin- teaching progriini adtiressing sexual harassment awarenrhs and sensitivity rules went. I4

A "Consideration of Others" program &as initiated. All policy letters addressing sexual harassment wcrc rewritten. The Character XXI developnient program was bor~ito mirror

Forcc XXI organizational progress.'" I..eadcrship manuals i~icorpori~tetlthe revised Army core \alucs during the re\ ision of I'M 22-100 Militar\. I.eadcrshi~.:\I< 600-100

I..e;~dersliip.and C)Al'rltvI 3x5-50 Ixader L)~\.rl(~mcrittiw .4mcrica's~.Changes to tlic IciiJcr de\elopnicnt c~~rriculun~in service hchwls. including the :\my Senior Si.r\icc

Collcge. eniphasizcd the ~ie\vl! sanctioned values."' ~fheleadership sensed the growing tiustration of politiciiins \\ it11 ge~~dcrissues. 'fhe clrniy being a can-do institution. extremely sensitive to declining resources and readiness sllortcomings sumiiscd that if In I902 Secretarb ot'C)cll.nw Cheney articulated the special nature ofthe military when he said.

The blilitar! is. h! ~icccssity.i~specidizcd society [separatej fron~ civilian socict) . . . The military nus st insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline ~itlioutcomtcrpart in civilian life. in order to prepare for and perlbmm its vital role. . . The essence ol'the military service is the suhortlin;~tionofthe dcsirc..; illlii inlercsts ol'the individual to the needs of the >~r\.ice.'~

I'hc Army and its icleologicel precepts arc unique and rocused towards that specialized society: dedication to duty. discipline, and the "proud history as successful warriors."

Senior leaders hwc st;~tutorylesponsihility for cultivating the professional ideology and its unique precepts. Thin unique rcsponsibilit!. has been supported by the Supreme Court decisions on seven different occasions."'

The history of the court deferring to the judgment of military leaders on matters affecting the Armed Forces is one ol'the most consistently upheld principles of constitutional law."

Responsibility for maintaining professional purpose. values, and functions rests squarely on the shoulders of senior Army lenders. Senior leaders must have an understanding of the .Arnl>'s uniquc~~essin order to appreciate fi~ll! the magnitude any change to its valucs

\\.ill have on the service. Appreciating the service's unique qualities requires the senior

leader to distinguish hct\vcen what is acceptable to society and what may he counter to the purpose of an army." !\rm~publications delineate philosophical precepts that are ot'scnior leaders. rc\cal the ;\r11iy Icatleriliip's \:ie\\s on what values ncc~lcdre\ iion and

nl~ctlicrtliosc revisions xwu~ikilhr the u~iiqucqudities 01'1niIitq 1112. If~nili~iir!i~nd civilian wlucs are tli\ergcnt then incorponlting the social v;~luesof tlic Iiiryer culture could ha'c ;I negative cl'fcct on Army perlbrmancc.

Ficltl hlan~lal100- I praises the .Arni!.'s ethos ant1 cstols i13 ~III-~(I>~.-\r111> regulation AR 600-100 detities institutional \;alucs and precepts. Field klnnual 22- 100.

Army lxadcrship, outlines tlie fi~ndamentalsof lexlersliip and liow Army ethics and values guidc le;~tlersin csccuting their duties. These three Army docutnents are. tlicreli~re.the ofticial repository for the tlrniy's detinition of its ethos. llu;lmining those documents provides ;I way to discovcr liow tlie Arm) Ieadcrship has haloncetl its li~nctionalrequiren~ents mil its institutionid \:;~luesor as mill be shown. how the Ann) has lailcd to conqd~cnd!lie wntrxiictiw hetween its p~~hlicwluch an~lpublic ~iuties.

lab1 100- I. .June 04 is the Army ~nanualthat provides tlic basic doctrine explai~lin: tlic Ar~iiy'sp~rpose im~l li~~ictio~i in the Dcpi~rl~~icntof I)etk~lse. l'lic purpose state~iicnt contained therein tlates to 1790 when President George Washington stated. "To he pro\icli~~g:I co~nn~~~itlienlc. he prepared to antl ifnecd he tight antl \\in wm." FJ,l IOO-

I articulates the foundations ofthis ethos idtlescrihes on page 47 the purpose. \dues. and li~nctionsofthc i\rm!:. The manual catalogs the Arm! ti~nctions:deter war. prolnotc peace. ;lnd nhcn required. gain \ ictor! on the hattleticld. 'I his is the Arm!.'?; core purptw 'I'lic revised 1:M 12-100 in co~it~xstpaqs special attention to indivitlu;~l autonom!. 'frci~tmcntol'individuals is rc\cred as n treasured virtue antl the mark of qu;~lit! Ic;~dcrsliip." Indi\.idudism outlined liere is counter to team building. o necessar! charncteristic for effectiw combat units. :I tlicliotomy begins to emerge. When indib idual autonomy asccnds in importance suhordination starts to descend.

IJolitic:d leaders chan~piontlic intlivitlual and extol his importance. hut championing the individual presents tlifficultics for military institution^.'^ The success of the Anny relies upon the individual being subordinate to the institution. By subordinating his personal concerns to the unit's mission the soldier adv:~ncesthe organization's purpose and in turn serves society."' But Army management has explicitly promoted individualism through its si~nplisticassessment of gender integration issues and has implemented progralns focused on pcrsonid autonomy. individual self-worth. end nlcthotls that change s~:~ndi~rdhin tivor ot'tlie indi\:itluiil." lhe n~l!tlclincrl \aluc

"respect." codifies the Army's rccoynition of the iniportance ot'the individual. The Chief of Stnl'l'stated that in his testimony to C'ongrcss. What lie has not calculated is the :d\c.r\c L.I'I>CI inclii iJu:il ii~~~ononi!ci111 lii~\ c. 011 1\!0 o11ic.r\ iilucs .'I ht!" and "Sc.IIlc\s

Sen icc".

..Inilivitlu;~l-- .\litonom\ ...... -. idl'~.;~ditioni~l ... L'i~lue\

Indi\id~~iilism'hcncroach~iicntinto .Arniy doctrine is nor confined to doctrinal manuals. Thc personnel >!stern M itli its yuoras on recr~~itnicnt.gender norniing policies and st~lihc.ilucntdolhle ~~i~ncli~ril:,i~~stit~~~io~iilli~c ~ceni~rio:.tlli~tpr01110te the hchii\:iors senior Icidcr.; arc tlespc~atel! Ir! in2 ro lis. '' Instiluting i~ndexecuiing pcrso111ieIpolicies pro~iiulga~d10 cqwtlizc lit~~ili~ndi I'ferc11cc.s. :,LICII ah gender nor~iii~igphysicid rci~irc~iicnts.i inlicil cli~gintr~ili~ioiil i I I I S I'olicies tliiil attempt to make indi\;iduals equal ignorcs the orpnizationiil comniit~nentto objective pcrforninncc nornis ilnd the rciison sti~~idilrdsbyere devised in the lirst pli~cc.Sti~ndi~rds arc ~iiei~si~rcs01' li~nctionalpcrforn~ancr and success i\ ilclinctl as meeting nhsolutc task req~~ircn~cnts.

Gender norniing physicol dil'ferenccs slights the relationship between functional physical performance standard and the physical requirements set by military tasks. An analogy is appropriate to explain why a personnel systenl that ignorcs physical limitations based on sex vice functionally related st;indards. is a flawed concept.

Socie~)has come to expect a certain quidity froni medical professionals hut yet 50 percent of all metlical school gratluiitch \+ere in the loncr hall'of their class. That does not nican 3)pcrwnt ol'all inetlical ~LI~CII~Siirc i~iconipe~e~it. Setting c~1rc111cIystringcn~ star~tlilrdsand ~nininiurnco~iipetencirs ensures society that medical srudcnts are competent. Sell-policing is anoher characteristic ofthc medical profession. Internal medical professional procetlures providc thc capability to quickly elirni~~ate21 doclor if hc 1: '11'1> 10 lncet 111~high ~ta~ltlartlsoI'~>crli)r111i11~ce. <, :\long \\it11 its tliscipli11i1r! ~>rocctl~~rcs. co1111~roci~s 11c I liicrch ospccilicl c~lilitics.For so~nco~ic\vho aspire.; to a ccr~i~illaspect ofthe medical ticld. ;I gcncri~ll~lilctiliol~er \,ice it sur~con.the i~lstitutionitleologically ml organimtionaIly accommotlates the choice. 'I'lle constant remains prokssional standilrds li~rpatient treattnent and cm. Ilegartlless ofa medicid stu~lenr'saspilxtio~is. il'hc clocs not ha\c the i~~~ellcct~~alaptitutle tbr biology or the dexterity ol'a co~lccrtpianist. hccoming a ph! siciiln or surgeon is out ofthe question.

Thc logic ol'tbc sptcm is esqui~itc.It is this logic ol'ol+cti~c stantlards li~rnlctlici~l care thtyilrtl 111c quality oftrcntrnent and ph! siciim expertise.

The antithesis to the logic ofobjective pcrli)rmance standards is the Arnly's personnel s) srenl's practices ofsender norniing physical 5tandards in order to minimi~e the clf>ct ol'pl~+~l dil'l'crenccs on the perforncvalui~tion of incn ;inti \+omen. Ifa nli1itar.y task requires a certain physical cepdilicy and men must rnert that conditioning level: for example. a fuel handler MOS 77F. then it is logical to require everyone who is a he1 handler to meel that physical standard. Yet this is not ille case. Males and fctnales with the same military occupetional specialt) 771- have tlil'ferent physical fitness requirements. 'The Chief ofStaff has said. "Soldiers perlimning the same task to standard will dinli~~atethe environment that promotes sexual h;~rasstnent." Gender norming rct~~~iret~~c~~i~\\l~iclii~ttc~npt to %\ el.' the p1;1! ills licltl to l'i~ciliti~tc"li~ir" co111pctititm makes it impossible for males and femilles to achieve the same stantlard hcci~osetheir p11ysic;ll stantlards have been redctined to acconinlodate gender. Another personnel polic! th;lt runs counter to setting common perfo~in;~nccstandards is the Arnmy policy r~yirili~igII~~~IXIIK!, Prcgn:inc! r~11c~:11Ion ~OII~~IIto \\xi\c liciglit'wcight rcqi~irc~iic~its i~ttenili~~icc:it tllc ('o~ii~il:~ndi~nd (kner;~I St:~l'f ('(~llegc >cI~ooI i~ttc~ldi~~icc. Vi~lc ol'liccrs i t it Iii i t t~~iilirtlo r t i re.II'tllc! do not Incet tllohc. stimd;~rtl.;.me11 arc ilenietl ad~nittancc. I'hcsc rules tli.;co~inr.ctthe physical st;lnilartl from pcrfor~liance."'(icnder I)aseiI rules serve nlulost entirely to tileilitate individual aspiration%.Iiot the pcrl'(~rn~ancc~~ecds ol'the ;\~miy. :\s i~res~11t.\i~lur.h wch iIS SCII~CSS service tht pli~cci~prc~liiunlon inili\ idi~i~lsi~twrdini~tio~~ re ignolul I'ci~cllingthe valuc rtspcct in well nli en\ ironmelit drives ;I \\ctl~vbct\vcc~i the‘ sews in tlic iimc ol'lhir and ci~it~llctrc~ict I'Iic. neil~eexists hcci~~~ethe senior .Ar111! Ie~~dcr~Iclinitiol1 01' rcspcct and acmal prog~moiltconm are ditkrcnt. Senior leaders belicve respect tilr the gender ililkre~lcesmill help 111cni~ntl \\m1c11 iiiinin~i%cfriction withill the .Arniy. But

;~ctualoutcolncs point to huilding malc!kmale resentment hccausc respecting the individual means adhering to double stantlards that deem women si~cccssfi~lewn when they cannot perform the tasks corresponding to their occupational specialty. This difference results in friction hctwcen the scxcs. 'The friction enhances a perception that some individuals are more iniporti~ntdespite their apparent inability to perform their ilutics. Intlividuul importance t1iercli)rc implies a diminished adherence to duty. htyis defined as "perli~rrningArniy li~nctions"i~hove id1 ~Ase,"'Yct the ~mpllilsison intlividualis111hi~ggcsts the \tishes ol'tlic wlilicr must Ihc co~~sitlcrcil\r llc~ defining military duties.

.Army senior leadership's attenipt to lis scsual niisconduct by instituting values training niiy actually diminish the probability of i~chic\;ingthat goal. Thc slogans such as Ar~iiy'sc:ipacit!. to pro\ idc national security is like\vise diminished. Decrcascd pcrti)r~nanccresults l'rom tuo fi~ctors:an o\erly zealous response to political edicts for

solution tiir scuual hwass~ncnt.I

1'11~1s.a ci\ ilia11\\IN) icc.hs pcrwnal a\\ards is rcspcctcd by socict\: a soldier ullo ~LI~SLIC:, pcrsonal r;rtlier tlian unit achievements is wifllout Jionor. In thc iirst i~~stance.;I civiliiln is not exp~tcclio socrilicc Iii~nsclf:In the sccond. the soldier gains rcspcct by suhortli~intin~hinisrlfto hi5 duty. I'he issue. thcreforc.. is \\hat are the rcquirc~ncntsof duty'?"'

IV. INSTITIJTIONAL VIEW

I luntington states. "Military functions iire the miuiagement of \;iolcncc and successfill armctl combat. ..,,i.I'he Army performs these fi~nctionswhenever and wherever the security of the nation is ilireatcned. That is the Army's duty. Esecuting co~nplcx military fi~nctionsretl~~ircs kno\\ledge. expertise. and competence. Cliulse\\it~.in On

prosecute \r ar n hen he urotc,

Thr elements of our vision. direction. and future are i~nheddeilin our histor!, knowledge, and experic~icr.Lducation. anal!.sis. study. critique are methods hy which we solidify the strategy of a campaign or organizationi~lphilosophy. He went on to say. consideration of all li~nctioltalcupertisc. They Inuht also ~~n~lr.rst;tndthe i~ltcrrcl;ttionsl~ipof purpose. \slues. and ideology. I'he llarvaril I\i~sinessllc.\ie\\ tlatctl Scptcmhcr-October 1006. outlined these organi/;~tion:iI precepts. Ihc prcccpts that dclinc an org;inization arc its core purpose plus its corc \;~lucstha~ cq~~als its core itleology. Core pilrpose does not change.

It is not to he conli~scd\\ it11 n~ission\.(.'\~rc ~;I~LICS s~ipportcore p~~rposc;111d dso hmc

~"""'1n"lcy. I,<

Security requiremer~tsare the rcsults of fi~ndmmcntalcompetition betwen

~latio~ls!~ti~tcs.'*:\rmy professionals suhcrihc to an cthos or core purpose that places sccurit> ol'the stare and ~arlightingahow all things. 'I'\\o corc v;~luesthat support thc

Army cthos and fiinctions are duty and scl tless ser\,ice. Military pn)fessionols own the core valucs through mcmbcrship, scholarship. antl experience. They implore all niembcrs to never place individual nccds ithow thcir dut>. War is nl\wys likely and is i~ltimatcly inevitable."' Lhity end selflcs< service i~rcthe corc val~~cssupporting military perfi)rnlance. Maintenance of those values is the explicit responsibility of Army leaders.

She value> ol'an orgaui/ntio~~are rlic Iutcons of co~~duct.conscicncc. i~nd commitment by which officers live their professional lives."' I'he ideology ot'thc Arn~) is the sum of its corc \alucc antl corc purpose. Together thc corc values and purpose

Ibrm thc prol'rssional ethos. Values reflect acccpt;~hlc hclia\,ior as nell as desired OLI~~~III~Sivhc11the orgi~ni/:~tioni5 p111to task. lnili\ idui~lsiind orgi~ni/alio~harc suhordinatcd to that cnil.""

I3> suho~dinatingindit iil~~alh.lllc :\r111! i~lwcsfi~nctions.duty. hceo~netllc tbciil point ot'scrvice. The ethos provides all explanation for accepting si~bordinntion. I'he hod! politic expects the Arm! to succccd wlicn cdlctl to duty. Values are the houndaries that dctinc acccptahle pcrformancc i~nclsucces~.

13ccausc the Army ilrans its mcnihcrhip from society i~tlarge. each individual enter5 the Arm) \\it11 his o\rn set of ~aluesthat ni11\1he t~.i~nsli)rn~edto corrcslx~ld with those ot'tlw Ar~n!. The indi\ iilual's \.alucs are i1111)ol-tan1bccnusc the! rcllect a varict! 01' social influences: society and those values clarify how the institution tvill colnmcnce its indoctrination. training. and education. Through the process of military training. inilivi~lualvalucs arc admonished to the extent they interfere \\it11 inculci~tionol'!\rm! functions and values. -1, Ifsocial \:elucs. such as the individuid's desire for autonomy, are not admonished the soldier's concept of selfless service and duty will rellect that of society instead of the Army. T'he institution's core \.nlues are proportion;dly diluted and in the eyes ol'the soldier his militar) Ihnctions hccome less important.

To ensure that the Army's va1~1r.sare co~nnlonlyheld within the force nianuals that tletine iind explain Army values ouy111 to conti~ini~ consistent vision of the Arnly's etI105. l\'lii~tthese niiul~~i~l'i;ictui~ll! illu\triltc :lrc the i~lt~llect~~iilconllict$ het\\ccn senior leader action plans and the outcomes of those plans. I .ca~lcrshipand \\illiiig ohcdicnce to coinnia~itl.;are hilt on a shared wt ol'val~lcs.;in ethos. The ..Irnl) ethos is s~~ccinctly~Icscrihed in one \\ord. I t . The liiniiamental purpose is to light and win the Notion's $tars h> cs~ahlisliingcondition> ti)r lahig peace tliro~~ghluid force doniinnncc.

Lht! >tanils :ipart as the value that hcst describes nhat the Army prizes most. The

each .\rm! professional has a duty to prcpurc li)r \bar in order to kccp the peace and when that thils. a dut? to fight ;lnd \\in. Iht! is the v;iluc on \vliich tlic ;\my huilds its

Institutional Functior~

In the puhlic's mind !\rin! li~nctionsarc somc\\liat \.ug~~checiuisc there me r i interpretations ol'\vhat rlie Army docs. I'rol'es>ion;il constructs ol'ethos and purpose provide the institution with direction. Soldiers are the mciins to achieve the

Armj's ends iind thcy ni~lsthe comrnittcd to those ends in order to honor their societal contract. The doctriniil stiltemen1 of Army fmctions ser\;cs two purposes: tirst it dclines the scr\;ice the Army pro\ides society iind second the doctrine instructs the professional mcnihership on what thcy must do to serve. The .Army's service provides for the defense

the niltion's intarniil scc~lrit!;." Arm! smite is fi~rtherdetailed in I%I 100-I. "Support national security I?! deterring \bar iind pronioting ~CIIC~.To do this the Army must .. . maintain high qualit!;, trainctl and renil> force.;. I'hc second aspect ot'hrni! functions \tipul;~tcsolliccrs ~iiustIci~tl in pcxe to I)c pscl)i~rcdti)r wi~r.tIe!elop indi\ idui~lIcildcrh.

.> and tlc\clop lc;idcr~liiptearns. Tlius. the :\rniy has clearly itlcntilictl its lp~~r~osc,I'Iic nest iisuc i'; ho\r- Iiah the Army relilted its p~~rposc10 its \.;dues.

Institutional Values: I)w and Scltlcs:, Service

The Army has dcli~ledits values in ,\mi) Regulatioli 600- 100. Army ltegulation

600- 100 announces to thc Army the institution's ethic.

rlie essential ..wlucs of ow pl.ofkssional ethic are: l.oya1ty. Ih~ty.Scltlcss service. and Integrity. '

I'lic ethic cnlhraccs the core p~lrposcof'tlie :\~III>.to tight illid win the Ni~tion's is.That ethic is fundanlcntal to everything the Arm!; stands for and wh) it exists. Values haw played e rnajor role in iiiaintaining a firm foundation in which to build an el'l'ectivc force able to perform its military li~nctionsunder i~icreahgl)~trcsst'ul conditions. 1'0 change those \alucs or realign their importance requires absolute certainty the values replacing them continue to s~~pportsociety's cidl to duty. Leaders play tlic pivotal role in instituting these changes.

Strategic leaders are protectors of institutional values." They incorporate end subscribe to the Arniy's ethos. They are the statutory caretakers ofArmy values and rcy)o~~sil>lchr iicliicvi~y :\r~iiy Ii~nctions. Senior ,-\r~ii! l~!i~tlersare ico~is01' tlie institution. lit ing the ethics they have sworn to uphold. Senior lciitlcrs arc n li~calpoint ot'en~ulationproviding direction, setting the course. and steering the organization toward acconiplisliing its l'unctional responsihilitics. 'l'hcir personal and professional lives arc hand creates the ,-\mi> uniqueness. It requires soldiers to ojcrcome their habic surviwl instinct3 in order to perform military functions. C'onihat veterans are euaniples ol'self- sacr~lic~I>ccausc ~hc! ha\c ~pcriormctltheir tlutq in spite ot'~~lcredil>lcmo~i\ation tc~do t i i Senior Ici~ilcrsc~liihit these traits by csi~niple. heir decisions ought to rei~~forccthe >ig~iilic;l~iccot'dut! ;lnd sclllcss swice. I:or this rcason ,Army corporate nlaliagenlcnt mu\[ clcurl! undcrstiuid the relationship hctv,ecn the :\rmy's p~wp03c;inJ the \,;due structure of the :\rni~.

Ncvcrtlielcss. senior Arlny leaders haw instituted an action plan to advance gentler integration that alters or redctines :Irniy values. The action phn was formulated horn their assessment of the causes of sexual haressnient. However. modifying wlues, no matter how subtle. in a direction contrary to the Army's purpose will diminish the

Army perti)rmance. and that is precisely what has been done.

1nstitut.ional Solution to Sexual I 1iu.a~-

I'he Arniy's redefined lt.;~der-valueprogram reduces. probably unintentionally. the Arniy's ~~llpliii~i~on \i;~rIi:liting, Dc-emphasi7i1igthe Army's stated purpose by

~KILI(I~\II>remo\ i~igt~-xlitio~ii~l n;~rIiglitingctllos l'rt1111lc;~dcrsliip iloctrine ih ;I subtle change in values. Page \.ii in 13112-100. 1900, listed nine traits leaders need to exhibit.

On pay iu of Drali IW 22-100. 1008 there arc onl! eight. The trait missing from the OX version is. "have an aggressive will to fight and win.'' FM 22-100. 1900 page vii outlines personal courage. On page 2-5 i~nd2-6 of the tlwtt. rcspcct is dcfined as treating people

;IS the! should hr trcatcd

Respect li)r the i~di~icluallimns the basis for the ride of law. the very csscncc of‘^ hat iiiiilres .+\niericii. Ikhsoldier has a11ahsolute dignity as a 1ium;in king and leaders act to honor that individual worth.-"

The addition and ofticial definition of "respect" as a core value dcmonstrates the evolving importance of individui~lsand infers an ethical lesson for dl leaders. The 1090 1:M 22-

100 does not atldres the indi\idual as having a prccniirient stilnding in xlii~tIeadcrs do.

That manual did recognize tlic impolTancc of soldiers as members of a team: fix example. as menihers of a greater orchcslra. Hie soldier's individual well being was important l~c~i~i~~!tile! playcil tl~cinrlrunicnts. not hccaubc tliq ncrc t:~lcntcd mi~sician.IHiesc dil'ferences are not signilicant in isolation. I3~twhen compared to other changes in le;rtlcrship doctrine the ~xdualcffcct on tlic hdance hetween duty and indi\;idual respect hecomes apparent. Klictllcr preparing for ;I fiiir. lighting it nar, or supporting a war. 1c;tdcrhip >kills. kno\\leclge and attitudes inust he consibtent fiith the wartigliting tloctrit~cof thc I;S Arm!;. l'liat same polic! p;~ragl'apl~in the rc\ised 1008 rcgulatio~tonly speaks to irarligl~ti~lgin passing. The tl~csisol'tlie rcvisctl policy is \alucs. attributes. skill.;. actions ofinclivicluals nntl iltc Ik-l(no~-l)t)itlea from 1:bl 21-100 Lhli. Paragraph 1-8 "Values." Al< 000- 100.

I003 dclines tlic proli.ssio~ii~l.-\r~n) clliic. It include:, ;I requirement li)r "stcatlti~st .. adherence to standards. The 19% drali regulation's values paragraph 1-0. mtkcs no mention ot' stantlards but docs state in subparagraph a. "the .L\r~nyis an institution of pcoplc. e:~chunicluc with enduring vnlucs. values c~nhctldetlin the helia\iors ol'lnen imd .. W0111c11.

The 1993 version of AR 600- 100 had givcn warfighting paramount importance,

;~ndcorresponding by empl~asizedthe Ic;~tlershiptraits and skills necessary to tkilitiite warfighting. The current draft rcgi~lationese~mplities a shift toward individual focus. lnakcs no nie~ttionofstandmk. and reduces the emphasis on warfighting.

I'lic Army's purpose :III~f~~rictions.as defined by current doctrine. are supporteel h! value\. I Iiiw \;1111csperfor111 t~o \ itid scrvicc\ ncccwry to ni~~int;~intlic rclc\ mx $11' military purpose. First. values guide senior stewards in making colnplex. ethically conflicting decisions. This yidancc maintains ideological direction. Nest ahpect of values set li~rththe purpose of an institution. As Janowitz stated. continual reewluation ih ~icc~-wr>:IS 1011:~. :I\ ilic in~ti1~1tio11'spr~~t'c~\ion:~l r~wo115 for c\istc~icc(p~rpo~~~ ml tic ice (I~nctionto its liereii~is I Rcc\;~lu;~tingtlic VIIILICSthat wpport

I fictois r~iitio~ihe~l~li. Iiut changes to \due5 that are not ;I rcwlt 01' changes in the institution's p~~rposcor li~nctions11111! pr~duccd~~ndesil.i~hlc o~~tco~i~es.

Value changes made witliout regard to lllc Army's core values are subtly invalidating traditional Army values ;~ndtl~crehq lcopardi~ing pcrli~rnianc~.. I'rohlcnis incident to gentler integl.ation arc rclnctlicd at the e\pcllse ot'proltlssional competence because the scnior caretakers of :\r~n!\.alwh Ilaw hccn careless iihout thc cl'li.ct tlic cllanycs \\ill have on core ethos and tl~c;hilii! to pcrt'or~~lthe tlrni!'~ fi~~lctions.

The Army's ininlediatc intent was to climiiiate both ;I hostile military environment cnusctl b! sexual li~~lxsmcntml to reduce ;I liostile political clim;~tcthose incidents crcatcd. I-lowcvrr.no\\ soldiers are told that ifthe! rcylarly lind tlic~nsclicsin uncomforttlble situations or hos~ilecnvironmmts tlicy are to voice their ohjcction. Army

Pamphlet, "lluman Dignity. 'The prevention of scxual harassment," 1098 version. page 5 reads. "Harassing behavior may involve one of the following conditions: # 3. C'rcatcs ;in intimidating. hostile or oH't.nsi\;e environment." But the military environment. h!. its very nature. is hostile and intimidating. Senior leader intent was to reestablish the dignity of the soldier. Instend. their solution retlrcts ;in owsimplification and lack of the institutional setting.. C'LI~~~IIIlei~ilcrsliip dtlitri~iei~nd the !\rm! fimctionol c~i\iromncnl recognizes the hostile situation and violence ilssociated uith military action. Senior

Army Icadcrs apparcntl! tlo not. The cli;~ngesthey are ahout to make to lcatlership doctrine will result in greater sociid acceptability of gender integration chdlenges while I'cstimon: hcfore congressional committees pro! ides n record of Service views and their prop)sed solulions to ws~~iilI~~I~~SSIIICIIL problellis. T'hi~ttestiniony ill~stratcsIci~~Icr scnsiti~it! to political prcssilrc. I'liey arc so hensitive to political criticism Army leaders arc willi~igto nlort:!ngc :2rn1y V~~LICSto INIpoliticid peiicc.

Each scnior Arni!. decision-muhcr liiccs ii dileninla. (ii\cn the :II)S~IICC01'ii WC'II- ddincd threat. dwindling rcsoi~rces,i~ntl increasing opelations. the Army must still i~ppcal to a skeptical congress and apathetic public for the support needed to fulfill its duties.

The competition lix scarce dcli.n.;e tlolli~rshas nlatlc Ar~nyleaders hypcrscnsitive to negative publicity because the) fear fiscal retribution during the next budget cycle. Ci\.il leaders have bound their social agendas to the budgetary process and have, in responsc to recent events. increased legislative oversight of militar> policy. This in turn has made the

Arnq even more sensitke to ('ongression;~land social priorities. The Arm>'s internal examination only compountled the problem. ,\my lcatlers are desperately trying to deline their place in the li~tureduring an accclcrating cycle of change. Senior Arni!

Ienilcr.; lime str~~gglccluith the causcs ot'scsual hal-ahsmtnt. I'heir rcsponx to ~hcsc socidly charged issues was based on faulty ~1ctinition.sand s!strnlic obstncles. In addition, decisions that accommodate socid goal5 are the result ot'po1itici;ling dcknsc spending. I la! ink! c\~11i1inciIgender intc+tio~i

XI~OIIOIII! i111i1n~ilitary t't~~ictio~is. it i\ c! iilc~ilstrategic lcxlers lii~vcii clo~~dcd\,ie\v ot'tlie cl'lh their ilction plan \\ill Iii~w.Scnior Ic;~tlcrsdo not unclerstarld tradirioni~l..\r~ny values. c'c~l though tlie Army's ethos is outli~iedin current doctrine. Contributing to the dilcnl~lii~is their incorrect asscss~iicntot'tlie j)rohleni. competing s~ciologici~lviews. conslitulio~~idrquire~lienls. hriglitcnctl polittcal i~ni~rc~icsh.~IKI the ,4rniy's ass~~niption that tradilional :\rm!. Ii~lucsarc universally apprrciatrd. 'l'lie .Army tlecision-makers c:~nnother tlitse cont~.iidictio~isohjecti\cI!

I'hc ;\r~ny'sohligation to the ililtio~lrequires the ;\r~n>to pcr1i)rrn specific functions. I'llose functions detine the filntlaniental characteristics of the Arnly. Ikh cI1:iriicteristic hi~s~~wcii~tcd :I clei~r sti~niliird \bit11 wliieh to 111eas11re:~eIiieven~ent. The standards are necessarily tlifticult to meet hccausc the duties are important. If pertbrmance standards were set as measures of competency. soldiers. male and kmalc, would be required to acquire the neccssar! expertise. In such an environment standards woi~ltlnot he nor~nedby sex. Suhordination. espe~tisc,knowlcdgc. and service uodd be the soldier's ethos throughout the institution. Traditionally. duty and selfless service minimizctl individual ailtonom). and. thereb!. tnaintained sta~ldartlsfor fi~nctional compelence. Standards were articulated in Army doctrine and applicable to everyone.

13111 LIUC to ~niisgui~ledintcntiolis. indi\ idual perli)rniiince stan~lardslii~\e heen tri! iali/cd in hvor of intlivitlual equality.

Senior leaders hair changed tlie fi~nclanlrntalpurpose ofthe Army by nlotlifying core values. The changes were initiated with the best of intentions hut could hnvc tlis~\tr{~usresults Ll! ni;lnipuIatilig traditional values wnios Ieiidcrs haw

~~i~tir~ltionaliccdconcern 1i1rintli\.idual autono~n!;. I~icli\itlualis~iiconllicts ~iththe pr~c~nincntcore values ol'dut! ;inJ ~;cltlcshrcr\ ice. I:urtllcrn~o~.e.policies that were nici~ntto clinii~~iltcsexuill lii~s~~~~~iie~itha\c cmcc~~hi~tcd tlic prol)lcni. Without questii~n. social oals have wpplantetl militar! filnctions antl h;cve inhibited solving lilnctional ls\Llcs.

VI. O I S O SNl101lI'I~)NS

It is the philosophical iintl ethical constructs ol'our conititution, tlic hrliel'in the i~prfliifi~ol'llau. lihert! ;~ndjustice that ni;~int;iilihtlic sul>rur\iencc 01' our militilr> to the go\ ernment." The founding lilther's sought to create an environment th;it providcd equ;ll opportunity. security and tlic rule of law. It is the niornl tibcr. built tiom knoaing what is right that hinds each niiliiary prolissionnl to his duty ;ind miikes him willing to nuke tlic supreme sacrifice.

Selfless service and duty are hallninrk traits of a wartighting military. Respect for the intlividuel. ewn ihough well intentioned, has a negative clTect on the Army's warfighting fimctions. Army leaders continue to focus on "respect for the individual" and tind that value compatible with military filoctions. It has hccn shown that in

insr;incr.s uhcrc personnel policies establish doublc s~andardsas a result ot' programs intmlcd 10 1)ronio1ethe \\ell Ihcing of ihc indi\ itlual. riti.; I~t\\cc~i\oldiers Iiii\e tlcvelopcd. Senior Army leaders ilid not intend this to happen. l'hcy expected the value

"respect" to cure the problems ol' yrntlcr integration antl ~xualharassment. Instead soldier commitment to warlighting and duty may have been degraded. Army leaders girlI \ I' orroc vhc~I cl~i~~~glt~ilitio~ii~l I \ I C I

~iiilitaryis dilhui~lioni wict) mi even tlio~~gliits ~i~c~iihcrsi~rcs\vorn to ~let'e~iilthe

I!ntietl States. their personal ethic must remain separate from tlic society they serve.'S

Tl~eA~my must operate in its "Sphere of Military Action." Wlic~iArmy decision makers niininii~ctlllic niililar)'~f~~~iiIi~nient;~l specii~li~i~lio~i I)! rc\ising values in a manner that i~ttc~iiplcdto Iilcnil the institution \vitli society. corc itlcolog!. \\as changed :1m1 sc.~~i~l liar;~ss~~icntreni;~inetl. -,I Senior 1e;dcrs arc nor solving the ethical prohlems tieing the

.\r~n>.I Iiq can't lis the prohlem hccmsc the) have incorrcctl! tlelinccl the prol)lcn~.

C'oniplici~tingits resolution is systemic pressures timi Congress. Congressional leaders think they're doing the right thing. hut arc in hct pcrpctuitting the mistake. Continued modification of Arniy v;ilucs will o~ilyilccclcrate the erosion of iiiilitary functions hecause their solutions are counter to Army purpose.

(iender integration issues normally manifest themselves in revisions to leadership doctrine. Women iittending service x;deni'ies. lifting the ban on promotions li)r uomcn. women in combat aircrali. iuitl opening dlbut ground comhat MOSS to women. gender integrated training. and anti-sexual harassment programs ;we protl~lctsol'gentler integration. 'flicse iictio~isid issues ore the results of sociologicalico~igressio~iiil niii~idatcs:~itiied ill sol\ ing \ario11>gender integration prolilc~~is.ltccc~it prohle~ii~ publicized by the nicdia and pulilic opinion generated political involvement in the

~iiilitary'sinvestigations. III c;~chcase. the Army altered lcadcrship Joctrinc and niovctl awl! lion1 \varfigliting as a corc focus. They hew ignored traditional values and misrc;d the 4 na~nic.;ol'gcnilcr inte!y;~tion. 'llie moment doctrinal ;~ltclxtionshcciimc policy. ;I social wluc replaced ;I nlilitar! v:~luc. :\rnlies designed to achir'\c social qnls may tind it dil'liculr to meet its milit:~rygoals.""I'his \\;is c~identin IOT? when political pressure resulted in opening comhet aircrali positions to women." I'his study is not an craminntion ol'niornlit) or the capahilit) of women. It is an illustration of military ti~nction;dneeds being hypnhwtl ill fivor of social goals. Social change is not nccesiril! hail. It hccomcs a liahilit) for the .Ann! \+lien tlccisions are made in fihich social nli~~idi~tcssuppli~~i~ ~nilili~ry I'LII~C~~OIIS. Social goals ha\ c inlplicitl!. rcplocrtl :'urn! li~nctior~h.

Conrrcss's Role

In sci~rchingfor fiqs to deal will1 sociological problems regmIless ol'origin. the

;\rm!. is heed with n unique pnr;ldor. The Army's duty is summed up in the ot'licer'h commissioning oeth. "Support and Defend the Constitution." thus the oflicer accepts the authority of civilian leaders. Congress not only suggests items of political/social villue to be implemented by the Army. in a great many cases they demand it by statute. The Army is legally hound to oblige such n directive. Tht: authors of a statute may not, howevcr. hove the knowledge and expertise to direct such action. As long as American society does not urrderstand or appreciate the dyniimics of the r21.rny. its purpose and lilnctions.

Co11gcsh \bill contin~~cto niuddlc a11 orilcrly process tIi;~tilcds cliktiwl~with

problem^.^.' Furthermore. the interference could result in an irreparihle decline in ahility to ~>erfornlmilitary f~~nctio~is." ('ongrcs>' role in ~~~ilita~!polihry in IN) \\':I! 'xo~i~'ri~tcsthe .\~III! f'roni it\ rcqxm~iliilityto i~ill~~'sin~to its t~i~~litioii:~l \slues. ;lsn~!. corptisi~tclc:itlership ~iiusthe ii ci~tiiI>stfoi- pr~hlc~iirc5oI~1tio11. 13! rcniiii~iingpassive in its role as co11stit11tionidservant. the r\rm! is an accomplice to li~l-thcrthe decline of Army traditional viilues."

Re\. itaIi7c Sti~ndi~rdsiis i~Measure ol' Success

I'hc doullw~lrdspiral oI'~ir(~k!ssionitlst:lndi~rds II~LIS~be htopped. One \va) to 111111 out of the "Stanilartls I.)ciitli Spin" ib to settle the sexist tlchatc uitliin the .+\sni!.. (icndes intey.:~[io~~is but (we iswc lliat tlcgfi~clcs~nilitar? sta~itlards. The solution retluircb re\ italiling he in~portancct)I'hi~>i~~g sti~nili~rds on espcrti>c iud cornpetcnc>.

Ke-esti~hlishingprofi.ssional standards as thc measure of progress will eliminate the male-fenialc delxitc. It III~~IIIS clci~rl! iirtic~~liitingbtantli~rds related to perl'or~wince and logically defining the plly3ical and mental attributes rcquired to achieve those stantlards. The Army can ill ;~l'tiircldouble standmls. Invest in leadership doctrine that educates quantitiable. quality stand;~rdsas a measure of ability. Eliminate individualism hy e\,aluating members iipinst a hiittery of standards directly related to those traits necessary to accomplish ti15hsand functions. Ixader de\;elopment and professioni~l ctlucntion progralns must tiicus on standards of excellence. Those that can't achieve intcllect~~almastery or ph>sical standards should be restricted tiom service in that capacit!

When establishing prokssional standards emotional hi% towards the sexes must

Iic aliscnt. Tlic leadership doctrine oi'clioice is the ideology that eliminates restrictions based on gender and utilizes the strength of gender diversity. l'lle standard must be the wme tiw :ill that aspire to tltiit tirnction. (icneral Colin I'owell dated. "Skin color (like .. gcn~ier)is benign. ~it)n-hellii\iorolcharncteristic. It sh~~~ldnot hc considered uhrn

Xf! deciding \\liar it ih the Arty needs.

(icnder norming of basic standards such as physical litncss. proniotcs

individualism and degrades unit cohesion. The Army has cultural challenges to address

concerning total inlegration 01' fenlales. The institution needs to learn the complcuitics ol'

thc gendcr debale. its history. and social roots. (icntlcr is but an aspect of im individual

not thc tlelining clm;iracteristic for professional melnbcrship. Standards not yendcr are the

nicasure of proli.>sional csccllcnce. 'l'lic .-\rm! niust rccstihlisli its dedication to

standards. Equal opportunity does not conflict with Arnmy purpose. It is the qualities of

libcrty. freedoni and equal opportunity the .4rm~is obligated to dcfend. When st;tndards

arc established based on perforniancc requirements the entire issue of gender integation disappears. Ncver Ibrget the words of (icncral Max 'l'hurnlan, "War is not an equal opportunity endeavor."" Equal opportunity does not eqwate to double standards within

the Army.

Warfighting Ethos

When senior lenders affect change within the army, a message is sent. When

change deals with values. all in the organimtion know it is a change in icieology."

('hanging ideolog! is more than rcmriting ;I nlanual. It implies understanding tllc logic: 01' a decision, the reason for a modification. or the expectation for results. Those affected by a neu policy mill intcrpret why the change took pl:icc and its ultimate impact. 'l'lie more conservative the institution the longer it takes for change to be accepted. Complications

ENDNOTES

'Gruenwald, J., "Women in the military: Mission in progress." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 16 August 1997, 1963.

2"Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidcnts at Aberdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD." Committee of Armed Services United States Senate, 4 February 1997.

'"Hearing on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Matters." Subcommittcc on Personnel of the Committee of Armed Services United States Senate, 4 June 1997,49.

4Feaver, P., 'The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces and Socicty ,New Brunswick, NJ: Winter 1996, 10.

'Ibid., 8. and Gabriel, R., To Serve with Honor. A Treurise on Military Ethics and the Way ofthe Soldier. Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1982,88-94.

"'Hearing on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Matters." Subcommittcc on Personnel of the Committee of Armed Services United States Senate, 4 June 1997,23.

RMersereau, A., "The Military Should Fight Wars, Not Sexism." The Wall Street Journal 17 Mar. 1998, news: A18. Kroesen, F. GEN (RE?'), "A Second Version of the Army Story." Army Magazine, September 1998: 9-12. O'Brien, C. CSM, "Why I am Getting Out." The Army Times, 26 October 1998: 3 1.

9'' 9'' Hearing on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Matters," Subcommittee on Personnel ofthe Committee of Armed Services Unitcd States Senate, 4 June 1997, 34.

I0Mersereau, A., "The Military Should Fight Wars, Not Sexism," The Wall Strect Journal, 17 March 1998, news, A18.

"Owens, M., "It's Time to Face the Gender Paradox." United States Naval Institute. Proceedings July, 1998,43-49.

I2Feaver,P., "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington,- Janowitz, and thc Question of Civilian Control." Armed ~orccsand ~dciet~,New Brunswick, NJ: Winter 1996, 8. 'Wish, F. editor in chief, Merriam Webster 's Collegiure Dicrionury, Tenth Ldition, Springficld, MA: Merriam-Wcbster Inc., 1997,484.

I5Feaver,P., "The Civil-Military Problematique: 1-luntington,Janowitz, and thc Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces and Society ,New Brunswick, NJ: Winter 1996. 8.

17Ihnilton, A,, Madison, J., & Jay, J., The Federalist Papers, cdited by Gary Wills, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1982.

"Fcaver, P., "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control." Armcd Forces and Society ,New Brunswick, NJ: Winter l996,9.

I9"Gender Discrimination in the Military," Hearings before Military Personnel and Compensation Sub Committec and Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armcd Scrvices, Mouse of Representatives, 29-30 July, 1992: 103. Gen. Sullivan's testimony: "Must have care of the Individual!!" Congresswomen L. Lloyd, "Accept women as humans, not sex objects" said to all officers at the panel.

2uMish,F. editor in chief, Merriam Wehster '.F Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Springficld, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1997,484.

220wens,M., "It's Time to Face the Gender Paradox," United States Naval Institute Proceedings, July, 1998,43.

23WilliamJ. Gregor, Ph.D., LTC (RET), "Feasibility and Prudence of Gender Integrated Training during Army Basic Training." Statement to the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues, 2 Deccmbcr, 1998,6.

'4"Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidcnts at Aberdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD." Committee of Armed Scrvices llnited States Scnatc, 4 February 1997: 12,29. General Reimer outlines his guidancc on the problem solution. (core values) "Respect comes from the fact that male and female have all done the same thing to standard." He then equates integrated training is accomplishing and enhancing this respect. What is not discussed is the lowering of standards to accommodatc gender nornling or having a double standard as a possiblc reason for institutional stress. Nor is thcrc rccognition the impact of lowering standards to accommodatc womcn has on men. 25McConnell, J. V., Understanding Human Behavior, An Inlroduclion to psycho lo^. New York, NY: Holt, Kinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974, 793. "Social psychologists study the behavior of groups. Groups are living systems, characterized by having a common goal; and by having inputs, processes, and outputs. They also establish norms, acceptable behaviors. Such groups typically give feedback on behavior and reward movements towards and punish movements away from group norms." Besides being illegal, sexual harassment and abuse is unacceptable behavior for American social groups.

Z6Ciruenwald,J., "Women in the Military: Mission in progress." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 16 August 1997, 1965.

''Owens, M., "It's Time to Face thc Gender Paradox," United States Naval Institute. Proceedings, July, 1998, 46.

""Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidents at Aberdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD," Committee of Armed Services IJnited States Senate, 4 February 1997, 12,29. Gen. Reimer outlines his guidance on the problem solution. (core values) "Respect comes from the fact that male and female have all done the same thing- to standard." He then equates integrated- training- is accomplishing and enhancing this respect. What is not discussed is the lowering of standards to accommodate gender- norming- or having- a double standard as a possible reason for institutional stress. Nor is there recognition the impact of lowering standards to accommodate women has on men.

2YCiruenwald,J., "Women in the military: Mission in progress," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 16 August 1997, 1965.

"Ibid.. 1962-1966.

''Ibid.. 1964.

"Ibid.. 1967.

34Ibid., Defense appropriations summary: -1973, the Supreme Court rules that dependents of military women can receive the same entitlements offered for the dependents of military men. -1974, Women are allowed to enlist without parental consent at the same age (18) as men. (I'L 93-290). -1975, Stratton Amendment to the fiscal 1976 defense authorization bill (PL 94-106) opens the Army, Navy and Air Forcc academies to women. -1978, Fiscal 1979 defense authorization act (95-485) allows womcn to serve on all non-combat Navy ships and do temporary duty on warships not on combat missions. - Fiscal 1992-93 defense authorization act 9PL 102-190) lifts restriction on assignment of women to combat planes in Air Force and Navy. Women now authorizcd to pilot in combat, attack helicopters as a result. -1993, Fiscal 1994 defcnsc authorization act (PL103-160) lifts ban on women serving aboard combat ships. Congress requires 30 days notice of policy changes on assignment of women to combat units or ships not already open to thcm and 90 days notice of any changc in ground combat prohibition .

"Gruenwald, J., "Womcn in the military: Mission in progress." Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report. 16 August 1997, 1965.

"Phillips, A., "Answering the Call." MacLeans's, May 25, 1998,25.

37Gruenwald,J., "Women in the military: Mission in progress," Congressional Quarterly Weekly Report, 16 August 1997, 1965.

"Ibid., 1962.

"'Owens, M., "It's Time to Face the Gender Paradox," United States Naval Institute. Proceedings July, 1998,49.

""Hearing- on Army Sexual Harassment Incidents at Aberdeen Proving- ground- and Sexual I-larassment Policics within DOD." Comrnittcc of Armcd Sewiccs Unitcd States Senate, 4 Fehruary 1997. Hunington, S. P., The Soldier and the State, Cambridge, MA: IIarvard University Press, 1985,73.

"Mitchell, B., Women in the Military, Flirting wilh Disaster, Regencry Publishing, Washington DC, 1998,309. " '"caring on Army Scxual Harassment Incidents at Abcrdccn Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD." Comrnittcc of Armed Services United Stales Scnate. 4 Fcbruary 1997, 35.

"'"Hearing on Army Scxual IIarassment Incidents at Abcrdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment I'olicics within DOD." Committee of Armcd Services United States Senate, 4 February 1997, 12.29. Gcn. lleimer outlines his guidance on the problem solution. (corc values) "Respect comes from thc fact that male and female have all done the same thing to standard." He then equates intcgrated training is accomplishing and enhancing this respect. What is not discussed is the lowering of standards to accommodate gender norming or having a double standard as a possible reason for institutional stress. 451bid.,13. Programs instituted as u result of Aberdeen testimony before and after congressionaVSenate hearings. Before -After - During PCC a talk by CofS - Leader development cum. changed (p. 12) reference scxual harassment - Reviscd core values (p. 12) - Division and Corps Cdr.'s EO course. - Chain teaching programs initiated (p. 13) Consideration of others program (p13) Character development XXI Revised policy lctters on Sexual IIarassment. SSC curriculum change ( p. 15)

4"'Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidents at Aberdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD." Committee of Armed Services United States Senate, 4 February 1997, 16.

4n"IJresidentialCommission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces." Report to the President, 15 November 1992,43. Secretary of Defcnse Cheney's statement to commission.

"Gabriel, R., lo Serve with Honor. A Treatise on Military Ethics und the Way of the Soldier, Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1982,91. GEN Kenvin's quote.

'*FM 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 14 June, 1994, v.

53"PresidentialCommission on thc Assignment of Women in the Armcd Forces," Report to the President, 15 November 1992,45.

"FM 22-100 (Draft), Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 22 June, 1998, 1-2.

"FM 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Officc, 14 June, 1994, v. Gabriel, R., To Serve with Honor. A Trcutise on Militury Elhics and the Way ofthe Soldier, Westport, CN: Grecnwood Press, 1982, 88.

'"bid., 88-94. 580wens,M., "It's Timc to Face the Gender Paradox." United States Naval Institute. Proceedings, July, 1998,43-49.

"Gabriel, R., Ib Serve with Honor. A Treatise on Military Elhics and the Way of the Soldier. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1982, 84.

"Mitchell, B., Women in the Military, Flirting with Disu.~ter,Regenery Publishing, Washington DC: 1998, chapter 9.

"FM 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: U.S.Government Printing Office, 14 June, 1994,6.

62Hunington,S.P. The Soldier and the State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985, 17.

"Clausewitz, C. V. On War, edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Parcl, Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1989, 141,147,156, 165, & chapter 5,789. Boldness from the intellectual senior is a trait that is established through intellectual freedom. Professions have a characteristic that allows for that freedom by embracing high-risk thoughts and ideas. Not to gamble the future of the profession but to guide the devclopment of that future the environmental change without compromising the foundations and ethics of thc profession.

65Collins,J, and Porras, J., "Building Your Company's Vision." Harvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA: September-October 1996,65-77.

""Iluntington, S. P., The Soldier and the State, Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1985,65.

"lbid.. 65.

"AR 600-100, Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Officc, 17 September, 1993,2.

6YFM100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: 1J.S. Government Printing Oflice, 14 Junc, 1994, 13.

7nJanowitz,M., The I'rc&sional Soldier, New York, NY: 'l'hc Frce Press, 1971, 7. "FM 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 14 June, 1994, 14.

'*FM 22-100, Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Officc, July, 1990: p. vii.

""Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forces." Report to the I'resident, 15 November 1992,45.

'"bid., 40.

lSFM22-100 (Draft), Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 22 June, 1998,7-22.

'"bid., 2-5 and 2-6.

"Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J., The Federalis! Pupers, edited by Gary Wills, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1982,350.

18Gabriel,R., To Serve with Honor, A Treatise on Military Ethics und the Way qf the Soldier, Westport, CN: Greenwood Press, 1982,87.

RoIlunington,S.P., The Soldier and the Stare, Cambridge, MA: Harvard Ilniversity Press, 1985, 17.

""Gender Discrimination in the Military." Hearings before Military Personnel and Compensation Sub Committee and Defense Policy Panel of the Committee on Armcd Services, House of Representatives, 29-30 July, 1992, 103. Gen. Sullivan's testimony: "Must have care of the Individual!!" Congresswomen L. Lloyd, "Accept women as humans, not sex objects" said to all officers at the panel.

"Stout, D., "An Army as Good as Its People, and Vicc Versa," The New York Times, 26 July 1998, section 4,4.

""Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidents at Aberdeen Proving ground and Sexual Harassment Policies within DOD." Committee of Armed Services United States Senate, Feb 4 1997,35. Gen. Reimer responds to Sen. Smith's abuse question and talks of safeguards for individuals. Sexual harassment is illegal as defined by rule of law and regulation. The following is my commentary not Gen. Keimcr. It is based on this rcscarch and readings: There are instances when what appears to be harassment is not. Wc must be cautious in separating thcm. The issuc is how to react to societal demands cxprcssed by the mcmbcrs of the Senatc. The senators feel this type of behavior in which action is takcn to inculcate an ethos is abusivc. The organization sees it reinforcing a military function. Mistreatment of soldiers or officers is unacceptable to civilians. One only has to clcarly dcfine what is meant by mistreatment to solvc the problem. Is it mindless harassment or a stress producing technique to improvc performancc? In some cases physical and mental abusc is warranted in training bawd on military functions such as fighting. An example: force protection1 aggressive self-defense. The essence and purpose of our land forcc is to fight. Fighting involves violcnce and in the case of the Army that violence is extremely personal. Wars are the application or that violence in a controlled manner to produce an outcome satisfactory to the nation. No wherc is violencc, death, injury, dismemberment, crippling or the perpetuation of such acts, minimized becausc socicty wishcs it so. Instead, reality dictates for those who arc not prepared to efficiently prepare or engage in combat with absolute violence, they arc destincd for failurc.

"Ibid., 29-35.

"Ibid., 35.

"Y"esidcntial Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armcd Forces." Report to the President, 15 November 1992,283. Addresses duality outlined by 'l'ocqucville in Democracy in America: "The American preoccupition with placing conflicting demands on itself with organizational structure requiring one action but having an cthos that mandatcs the opposite response."

8"oore, W. "Thc Military Must Revive Its Warrior Spirit." The Wall Strect Journal. 27 October 1998. Quotc: "Anyone can be a warrior if standards are lowered cnough, and silver-bullet technology turns warfare into just another video game anyone can 'play.' Thc attitude toward the warrior ethos is pervasive and dangerous. War itself is losing its meaning among thc current crop of both uniformed and civilian leaders. Military leaders, it seems, havc been co-opted by social engineers whose agenda is to promotc "equality" rather than to prepare forces for the next war. There is no question that training standards have been lowered."

H9Hunington,S.P., The Soldier and the Slate, Cambridgc, MA: Haward Ilniversity Press, 1985, 17.

9uStout,D., "An Army as Good as Its People, and Vicc Versa." The New York Times, 26 July 1998, scction 4,4. Ibid., 73

"Owens, M., "It's Time to Facc the Gender Paradox." United States Naval Institute, Proceedings, July, 1008,43. BIBLIOGRAPHY

Books

Abrahamsson, B. Military Professionalization and Political Power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, 1972.

Clausewitz, C. V. On War. Edited and translated by Michael Howard and Peter Paret, Princeton: Princeton University Prcss, 1989.

Fuller, J. F. C. The Conduct of War. New Brunswick, NJ: Da Capor Press, 1961.

Gabriel, K. To Serve With Honor: A Treatise on hfilitary Ethics and the Way of the Soldier. Westport, CN: 1982.

Gaston, J. and Hietala, J. B. editors. Ethics and National Dclfense. Washington, DC: National Defense University Press, 1993.

Goldman, A. The Moral Foundations ofProfessiona1 Ethics. Totowa, NJ: Rowman and Littlefield. 1980.

Hamilton, A., Madison, J., & Jay, J. The Federalist Papers, edited by Gary Wills, New York, NY: Bantam Books, 1982.

Hartle, A. Moral 1ssue.s in Military Decision Making Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas. 1989.

Ilauscr, W. America's Army in Crisis: A Study in Civil-Military Relations. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1973.

Ihmington, S.1'. The Soldier and the Stale. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Prcss, 1985.

Ignatieff, M. The Warrior's Honor. Ethnic War and the Modern Conscience. Ncw York, NY: Metropolitan Books, 1997.

Janowitz, M. The Professional Soldier. Ncw York, NY: The Free Press, 1971.

Josephson, M. Power, Politics, and Ethics: Ethical Obligations and Opportunities of Government Service. Marina dcl Rey, CA: The Institute, 1989.

Kelly, K. Out 9fControl. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley Publishing, 1995. Matthews, L. and Brown, D. editors. 7he Parameters ofMilirury Ethics. McLean, VA: Pergamon-Brassey's lntcrnational Defense Publishers, 1989.

McConnell, J.V. Understanding Human Behavior, An Introduction to I'sychology. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc., 1974.

Mish, F. editor in chief. Merriam Webster 's Collegiate Dictionary, Tenth Edition, Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster Inc., 1997.

Mitchell, B. Weak Link, The Feminization of the American Military. Washington, 1)C: Regnery Gateway, Inc., 1989.

Mitchell, B. Women in the Military, Plirting with Disaster, Kegcnery Publishing, Washington DC, 1998.

Moskos, C. and Wood, F. editors. The Military: More than Just a Joh? London: Pergamon-Brassey's International Defense Publishers, 1988.

Preston, R. Perspectives in the Hi.story 9fMilitary Education and Professionalism Colorado Springs, CO: US Air Force Academy, 1980.

Rest, J. and Narvae~,D., editors. Moral Development in the IJrofessions: Psychologv and Applied Ethics. Hillsdale, NJ: 1,. Erlbaum, 1994.

Sarkesian, S. The Profissional Army Officer in a Changing Society. Chicago, IL: Nclson-Hall, 1975.

Snider, D. and Carlton-Carew, M., editors. U.S. Civil - Military Relations: In Crisis or Transition? Washington, DC: The Center For Strategic and Intematio~~al Studies, 1995.

Sorley, Id. Thunderbolt: General Creighton Ahrums and the Army cfHis Times. New York, NY: Simon and Schuster, 1992. l'ocqueville, A. de and Heffncr, R., cditor. Democracy in America. New York, NY: Mcntor Books, 1956.

'Toner, J. H. The American Military Ethic: A Meditation. Wcstport, CN: l'raegcr, 1992. Articles, Journals And I'eriodicals

Brinsfield, J. "Army Values and Ethics: A Search for Consistency 'and Relevance." Parameters, Carlisle Barracks, PA: Autumn, 1998.

Collins, J. and Porras, J. "Building Your Company's Vision." Ilarvard Business Review, Cambridge, MA: September-October 1996.

Feaver, P. "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz, and the Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces and Society, New Brunswick, NJ: Winter 1996.

Goldich, R. I... "Thc DO11 Service Academies: Issucs for Congress. CRS Report for Congress." Congressional Research Service, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 6 February 1997.

Gruenwald, J. "Women in the military: Mission in progress," Congressional Quarterly Wcckly Report. Washington, DC: U.S. Governmen1 Printing Office, 16 August 1997.

Harrell, M. and Miller, L.. "New Opportunities for Military Women; Effects Upon Readiness, Cohesion, and Morale." National Defense Research Institute, Washington, DC, Rand, 1997.

Kroesen, F. GEN (RET). "A Second Version of the Army Story." Army Magazine. September 1998.

Mcrsereau, A. "The Military Should Fight Wars, Not Sexism." The Wall Street Journal 17 March 1998.

Moore, W. "The Military Must Revive Its Warrior Spirit." The Wall Street Journal. 27 October 1998.

O'Brien, C. CSM. "Why I am Gctting Out." The Army 'rimes. 26 October 1998.

Owens, M. "It's Time to Face the Gender Paradox." United States Naval Institute. Proceedings July, 1998.

Phillips, A. "Answering the Call." Macleans's, May 25, 1998.

Ricks, 1'. "Proceedings: Is American Military Professionalism Declining?" United States Naval Institute, July, 1998. Riemcr, D. GEN. "Nobleness of our Profession." CSA 98-20, Random Thoughts While Running DTD 15 Dcc 98. Online. Information Access. 17 December 1998.

Stout, D. "An Army as Good as Its I'cople, and Vice Versa." The New York Times, 26 July 1998.

Sorensen, fl. "New Pcrspectives on the Military Profession: 'The 110 model and Esprit de Corps Reevaluated." Armed Forces and Society New Brunswick, NJ: Summer 1994.

Volker, F. "Warriors for Peace: 'I'hc Next Generation of U.S. Military Leaders." Anncd Forccs and Society New Brunswick, NJ: Fall 1997.

Ulmcr, W.F. "Military Lcadership into the 21st Century: Another Bridge too Far?" Parameters Carlisle Barracks, PA: Spring 1998.

Army Publications

FM 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, 14 June, 1994.

FM 100-5 Draft, Operations, Washington, DC, U.S. Government Printing Office, July 1998.

'I'RADOC PAM 525-5, Force XXI Operations, Ft. Monroe, VA: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1 August 1994.

DA PAM 350-58, Leader development for America > Army, Washington, DC: U.S Government Printing Office, 13 October 1994.

"The Secretary of the Army's Senior Review Panel Report on Sexual Ihrassment, Volumes Onc and Two." lJnitcd States Dcpartment of the Army, Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Officc, 1997.

FM 22-100, Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Ciovcrnment Printing Office, July, 1990.

FM 22-100 (Draft), Leudership, Washington, DC: US. Government Printing Officc, 22 June 1998.

AR 600-100, Army Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Officc, 17 Septcmber, 1993. AR 600-1 00 (Draft), Army I.e~der.ship,Washington, DC: IJS. Government Printing Office, August, 1998.

Leader's Handbook 1998 edition, Human Dignity--The prevention of sexual harassment, South Deerfield, MA: Channing L. Bete Co., 1998.

Congressional Testimony

"Hearing on Army Sexual Harassment Incidents at Aberdeen Proving ground and Scxual Harassment Policies within DOD." Committee of Anned Services United States Senate. 4 February 1997.

"Hearing on Gender-Integrated Training and Related Matters." Subcommittec on Personnel of the Committee of Armed Services United States Senate. 4 June 1997.

"Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Forccs." Report to the President, 15 November 1992.

"Gendcr Discrimination in the Military." Hearings before Military Personnel and Compensation Sub Committee and Defense Policy Panel of the Committec on Armed Services, I-Iouse of Representatives. 29-30 July, 1992.

William J. Gregor, PhD., LTC (RET). "Feasibility and Prudence of Gender Integrated Training during Army Basic Training." Statement to the Congressional Commission on Military Training and Gender-Related Issues. 2 December 1998.

Lectures and Briefings

Franks, F. GEN (RET). "Soldiering Today and Tomorrow." IIugh K. Clausen Lccture, IJS Ammy JAG School. Charlottesvillc, VA: 23 March 1998.

Briefing, HQs, Department of the Army, Deputy Chief of Staff for Operations, Senior Servicc College Fellowship Briefing, Washington, DC: August 1998.

Briefing, IIQs, 111 Corps, Commanding General, Battalion and Brigadc Commanders Briefing, Fort I-Iood, TX: February 1996.