Character and Ethics in the US Military

Article Review

Kohn, Richard H. "Tarnished Brass: Is the US Military Profession in Decline?." Army History 78 (2011): 27-31.

Thesis: To face the enemy today, the US military needs to consider the intellectual, political, and moral challenges that have prevented it from achieving success on the battlefield, in recruiting and retaining personnel, and in maintaining its authority around the world.

Main Arguments by Author:

· The military needs to develop and maintain “the ability to wage war successfully in a variety of circumstances without wasting the lives of soldiers or their equipment and supplies (which are always limited, even for a superpower at the zenith of its relative strength).”[footnoteRef:1] [1: Kohn, Richard H. "Tarnished Brass: Is the US Military Profession in Decline?." Army History 78 (2011), 27.]

· Another problem is “the absence from the officer corps of partisan political divisions, its subordination to the legally constituted civilian authorities in charge of the state, and its ability to establish an effective working partnership or collaboration with the civilian political leadership regardless of party or faction.”[footnoteRef:2] [2: Kohn, Richard H. "Tarnished Brass: Is the US Military Profession in Decline?." Army History 78 (2011), 27.]

· The third problem facing US military professionalism is moral and ethical: “the honor, integrity, honesty, and self-sacrifice of the officer corps, the commitment of individual officers to the norms and values of personal and organizational behavior that permit them to lead, and their subordinates to follow, in the heat and stress of battle.”[footnoteRef:3] [3: Kohn, Richard H. "Tarnished Brass: Is the US Military Profession in Decline?." Army History 78 (2011), 27.]

Who is the author? Academic/work background? Other writings?

Richard H. Kohn is an expert in the field of military history. He is a tenured professor of history at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and has served as the head of Air Force history for the United States Air Force from 1981 to 1991. Kohn has also edited and co-edited several books on American military history, including "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789–1989"[footnoteRef:4] published by New York University Press in 1991, and "Soldiers and Civilians: The Civil-Military Gap and American National Security" published by MIT Press in 2001.[footnoteRef:5] He has also written numerous academic articles on the military, civil-military relations, and American culture. He is a well-known name in the military studies field and an accomplished scholar and academic. [4: Rohr, John A., and Richard H. Kohn. "The United States Military under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989." Naval War College Review 47, no. 2 (1994): 19.] [5: Feaver, Peter, Peter Douglas Feaver, and Richard H. Kohn, eds. Soldiers and civilians: The civil-military gap and American national security. Mit Press, 2001.]

General reflection about the article. How does it relate to your understanding of the role of the U.S. Military? Did the author make a clear argument and provide adequate evidence. Would you recommend this article? Why or why not?

In his article "Tarnished Brass: Is the US Military Profession in Decline?," Richard H. Kohn discusses three major problems facing the US military profession: the need to develop and maintain the ability to wage war successfully, the absence of partisan political divisions in the officer corps, and the moral and ethical issues of officer conduct. By focusing on each of these three problems, Kohn has helped me to understand the major issues facing the US military today.

The first problem discussed by Richard Kohn in his article is the need for the military to develop and maintain the ability to wage war successfully without wasting lives, equipment, and supplies. In other words, the military needs to be able to fight and win wars while minimizing casualties and preserving limited resources. The way I understand it now is the military must be more efficient in its use of resources. This requires a focus on cost-effectiveness and resource optimization. As Kohn explains, the military must find ways to accomplish its objectives with the minimum amount of resources possible, while still maintaining its effectiveness. To achieve this objective might involve prioritizing investments in areas that are critical to the success of the mission and reducing investments in areas that are less critical—but the overall point is that the military is way too wasteful currently.

The second problem involves the political neutrality of the officer corps, which is essential for maintaining the trust of civilian leaders and the public. Officers must be able to work collaboratively with leaders regardless of their political affiliations or beliefs, in order to effectively execute military strategy while remaining accountable to civilian authorities.

The third issue is one of morality and ethics. This to me was the most interesting and most important point. Kohn explained that officers must exhibit a high level of honor, integrity, and self-sacrifice, and adhere to the norms and values of professional behavior both on and off the battlefield. This requires a strong commitment to personal and organizational values, as well as the ability to lead and inspire subordinates in stressful and challenging situations. But, more importantly, why is morality so essential? The answer is that morality forms the character of the soldier and the corps of soldiers. If the character is lacking, the fiber of the unit will not be tough enough to succeed at any mission. The recent history of US military losses could be evidence of a missing character in today’s military. The culture of America is something Kohn likes to write about and discuss, and it should be no surprise to anyone that culture in the US has gone completely south in terms of how it compares to traditional standards of decency, morality, ethics, and family values. Many people today seem to be operating from a standpoint of egoism rather than from a standpoint of virtue ethics or duty ethics. Egoism is simply rationalized selfishness.