Donald Muchow

RADM Donald K. Muchow observes that American society and the American military face a growing split: the volunteer force has replaced the draft; the Cold War has ended, reducing external threat, and the drawdown further reduces the military presence in American society. In the past similar conditions have resulted in military and societal values and goals becoming dangerously divergent. We see indicators of such divergence today with respect to the importance of sacrifice, emphasis on individual rights, the value of community, and the role of women and minorities. We must consider the logical possibilities for the extension of such trends. One obvious possibility is that the military will either lose the support of society or become militaristic-or both. Our objective must be to both retain and reinforce our uniqueness while remaining in dialogue with and in support of our society. Admiral Muchow recommends that we develop more presence and dialogue in the public sector, capitalize on community service programs and activities, in all venues emphasize the cost of ethical relativism, and become less timid in talldng about moral reasoning and ethics. .


May we succeed in lending a hand to those in our dear native land who are called upon to speak with authority on these matters, that we may be their guide into this field of inquiry, and excite them to make a candid examination of the subject.

                                                                                                                                                    --Clausewitz, On War 1



In examining "American Values of Life and Community," I approach the issue not from the standpoint of ethicist or academician, but rather as a pastor in uniform, a chaplain in the military.2 However, I hold an immense respect for all those who teach and engage in the art of moral reasoning and ethics, whether in civilian or military settings. It is equally encouraging to know that many in leadership positions of our Armed Forces participate in the JSCOPE meetings and dialogues.

I resonate with Clausewitz's view: "The moral forces are among the most important subjects in war."3 It is also my deep belief that the quality of one's character is derived from moral and spiritual values. Moral force is of critical importance not only to the profession of arms, but also to the living out of every human life. That belief is the reason for this paper.



Most Americans who visit a country ruled by a military dictator find such a nation neither politically healthy nor socially desirable.4 Most Americans expect that while the military should not be separated from civilian control, it should be somehow different. This paper is a preliminary analysis of the values of life and community held by the American military and American society at large. For me the topic is important for three reasons: first, an unhealthy "separation" seems to be developing; secondly, a sense of "suspicion" seems to be growing;5 and thirdly, the values of many young people now joining the Armed Forces frequently seem to be at variance with traditional military understandings of life and community.6



A growing sense of separation between "civilian" and "military" values has been developing in this country, and probably accelerating, since the Vietnam War. I suspect that some of this "separation" has resulted from several historical and societal factors.

First, with the establishment of the all-volunteer force, fewer American citizens have first-hand military experiences.7 Twenty years ago, 73% of Senators and 70% of Representatives had served in the Armed Forces, but in the new 104th Congress only 51% in the Senate and 33% in the House have had military experience.8 Many Americans and most veterans believe the Administration's low number of veterans and lack of familiarity with military life helped cause friction with the military over such issues as homosexuals in the military.9

Second, many perceive the growing sense of separation may be due to the present absence of a massive military threat. The collapse of the Soviet Union and the "end of the Cold War" give legislators reason to cut military spending and infrastructure, resulting in less military interaction between American industry and civilian communities.

Third, the downsizing of the military reduces the number of interchanges of uniformed people with the rest of the American public. Even the reservist "Weekend Warriors" are not as visible or as numerous as they used to be,10 and the full integration of the Reserve Forces with the Active Forces continues to be addressed.11

Fourth, the military requires a unique set of values to shape and sustain warriors. Their vocation is often misunderstood and, in some cases, poorly compensated. The value of their service is frequently questioned except during times of great national crisis. Even the morality of their profession itself is sometimes debated. Yet to be effective, they must train regularly and intensively. More importantly, they must be ready, and consciously willing, both to kill and to die. Their basic credo, as was once defined by Hannah Arendt, must affirm that "life is not the highest good."12 War veterans David Epstein and James Zumwalt addressed this value in a recent article. They argued that,

Only the truly desperate or deranged would be willing to go to death's door just for the compensation of a quite modest middle-class standard of life.13


Therefore, they concluded a special subculture is needed, ...to carry forward the military task -- a quasi-religious order of spiritually-minded warriors...[who] know and feel mysteries beyond the reach of those who do not bear arms in the nation's defense.14 Such values will frequently be at variance with those which motivate civilian society.



Not surprisingly, such differing values often evoke suspicion. Historically, Americans have looked askance at a strong standing army in peacetime. British author Rudyard Kipling captured a similar ambivalence in his poem "Tommy."15 An autonomous military very often becomes a threat to a democratic state, and this was a primary justification for the American Revolution.16 Consequently, the American experience has always provided for a system of checks-and-balances. A civilian President is elected to be Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces,17 and Congress is given both oversight and responsibility for funding.18 A civilian Secretary of Defense is confirmed by the Senate to supervise all military services, and to advise the President on all matters of national defense policy.19 Most Americans, including the military, would consider a military dictatorship unthinkable. Differences between military and civilian values need not signal danger, however, so long as the military ideal also recognizes the superior role of civilian authority.

Suspicion also arises from disagreement over the appropriate role for military forces. The military has long accepted "peace-keeping" as a role. But any attempt to reshape it into a primar-ily humanitarian social-service organization is boldly resisted by military leaders.20 Sending a trained warrior into a police action may result in atrocities; sending a trained policeman into a warrior action may result in disaster. To the military mind, "peace-keeping" is associated with police actions, while "peace-making" is associated with warrior actions. The latter is viewed as the more proper task for warriors. The difficulty is training an eighteen-year-old to determine and differentiate the level of force appropriate for accomplishing a given mission.

The civilian mind may not always understand or appreciate the subtle distinction. Some non-military people ask, "Why not make maximum use of an organization trained to deal effectively with violence, and disciplined to react efficiently in a crisis?" There are no easy answers.21 On the one hand, some military leaders fear that warrior skills erode when missions become primarily social and humanitarian.22 On the other hand, some civilians question the need for a large military in the absence of some clear mission, military or humanitarian. Military leaders then counter that modern warfare demands military readiness prior to the outbreak of hostilities. The result is suspicion on both sides.


Generation Gap

There is one more element which I believe is adding stress between America's military and civilian populations -- generation gap. Many Americans born after 1960, who now are entering the military, espouse some values which may be incompatible with an effective fighting force. Howe and Strauss23 have named this group the "Thirteenth Generation" because they are the 13th generation since the founding of the Republic. These young adults (30 years old and younger) often have some characteristics which give military leaders cause for concern:

    - 57% come from a fractured family24

    - 10% have been sexually or physically abused25

    - 20% (high school students) carry a firearm, knife,razor, club, or some other weapon regularly26

These teenagers and the culture out of which they come show:

    - 3 times higher suicide rate since 196027

    - 4 times higher rate of death due to homicide for teenagers under 19 since 196128

    - 2.5 times higher probability to be victims of violent crime than those over 20 years old29

Even among the religiously inclined in this age group, one survey indicated that they hold values at odds with the military culture. In a previous 90-day period,30

    - 23% had intentionally tried to hurt someone

    - 66% had lied to a parent, teacher or other adult

    - 59% had lied to peers

    - 57% doubted an objective standard of truth exists

Should it be so surprising then that not only recruits, but also Officer Candidates and students at military academies are encountering difficulties meeting military demands for truth-telling? The Barna Research Group reported that individuals were 48% more likely to cheat on an exam when they did not accept any objective standard of truth.31 In summary, the new generational values fuel the fires of separation and suspicion which affect relationships between our military and civilian communities.

The differences between military and civilian experiences are especially apparent in their views of LIFE and COMMUNITY. The following charts highlight some of the differences.


LIFE Issues


                                    Society                                                             Military


                                   - more supportive                                             - less supportive
                                   - easy to obtain                                                 - harder to obtain:
                                                                                                                -- CONUS: only if mother's life in danger
                                    - proposals for "fetal farming"                                -- OCONUS: only if host nation's laws allow
                                                                                                                -- minors: permission of parent, guardian or line
                                                                                                                    commander appointed by Admin Board


                                    - nationwide "ban"                                              - prohibition assumed even in "triage" settings
                                       weakening (Oregon)

Respect for Life

                                    - increasing suicides                                            - stable suicide rate
                                    - expanding drug use                                           - zero tolerance of drug use

Sacrifice for Others

                                    - culturally suspect                                               - culturally engrained & promoted
                                    - code of the streets                                             - Code of War
                                    - "wilding"/vengeance/                                          - rules of engagement/rules of targeting
                                        random violence
                                    - compartmentalized                                             - command support for families
                                       family life
                                    - increasing isolation                                             - buddy/shipmate system
                                    - privatization/polarization                                     - expanded sense of community, (unit, Service
                                                                                                                   military & country)





                                        Society                                                             Military


                                        - growing polarization                                         - policy fosters respect for diversity &
                                          of racial & ethnic groups                                     prohibits discrimination


                                        - no standard policy or                                         - policies to prevent sexual harassment &
                                          practice regarding                                                 discrimination
                                          sexual harassment &
                                        - varied pay standards                                         - equal pay
                                        - various advancement                                         - almost equal job/ advancement opportunities

Religious Parochialism

                                        - increasing polarization                                        - "Cooperation without Compromise"
                                                                                                                        -- provide for own
                                                                                                                        -- facilitate others
                                                                                                                        -- care for all

 Group Identity

                                        - litigious mind-set                                                - limited litigation
                                        - "rights" oriented                                                 - "responsibility" oriented
                                        - declining respect for                                           - respect for authority is sine qua non for
                                           institutional authority                                             military effectiveness
                                        - compartmentalization                                         - total institution
                                            & "Balkanization"
                                         - allegiance to specific groups/gangs                    - commitment/loyalty to unit/command


For me the most basic difference on the chart entitled "LIFE Issues" centers around "sacrifice for others." Recent events seem to suggest a diminished commitment to this ideal in American society. When Mrs. Susan Smith in Union, South Carolina, straps her two infant sons in a car, directs it into a lake killing both boys, and then falsely alleges her sons had been kidnapped by someone of minority status;32 when 1.7 million abortions are performed each year;33 when the State of Oregon atempts to permit physicians to place prescription drugs at the bedside of patients for suicide;34 when intentional and random killings of young adults now approach automobile-accidents as the primary cause of death for the 17-25 year old age group; then society has moved from "sacrifice for others" to "sacrifice of others."

In contrast, "sacrifice for others" may be the most common and valued military virtue.35 This sacrifice is not just an ideal. It is a fact every time a Sailor deploys, a Soldier dies in combat, an Airman executes a hardship tour or a Marine experiences increased Ops/PersTempo.36 The military "sacrifices" for its wounded and even its dead. Army Rangers in Somalia risked their lives to bring their wounded and dead back with them.37 The expectation of "paying the ultimate sacrifice" in the performance of duty has been, and is, engrained in the military culture.

It has been said that those closest to death may also place the highest value on life. The military's deeply held respect for life affects at least four areas of military operations. It affects "triage" on the battlefield, as decisions about medical resources and care are made to save lives.38 It precludes euthanasia even for the mortally wounded. It governs the conduct of war and hostilities.39 And it directs the humane treatment of prisoners.40 The military value of preserving life, even at its beginning, has thwarted various efforts for providing abortions to service members and their families. The vast majority of military health care providers don't want to perform abortions, or even assist with them.41 In summary, the military seems to place a higher value upon both "sacrifice" and the preservation of life than does society at large, despite aberrations such as the My Lai massacre.42

The second chart entitled "COMMUNITY Issues" contrasts some of the military and civilian perspectives on racism, sexism, religious parochialism and group identity.

Department of Defense policy is clear about racism and discrimination: it is unacceptable and will not be tolerated.43 Since President Truman's Executive Order of 1948 directing "equality of treatment" for all members of the Armed Forces, the military has set the pace for the rest of American society.44 The military seeks to eliminate institutional discrimination, not only because it is the right thing to do, but also because it enhances unit readiness, morale and effectiveness. For example, the Navy directive stresses not just the letter of the law, but also the "spirit of the policies...in their daily performance of duty."45

The policy of the military regarding gender discrimination and sexual harassment is similar: such actions are unacceptable and will not go unpunished.46 While some military people may have been slow in addressing this issue, I sense the Services are now aggressively and fully committed to eradicating sexism. DOD directives clearly state sexual harassment is prohibited and all personnel, military and civilian, "will be provided a work environment free from sexual harassment."47

Theologian Martin Marty speaks to America's growing religious parochialism in a recent newsletter. He quotes Arthur Miller's comment on the message of the playwright's new work, "Broken Glass":

I sense people withdrawing into all kinds of sub-societies....It's destructive, because, in their extreme wings, they all adopt the idea that any means of securing their aims or protecting themselves is legitimate. Just yesterday I heard on the radio of an anti-abortion organization that declares it has the right to murder a doctor who commits an abortion. Assassination, they claim, is right. It's what Hitler believed.48


The 78-year-old Miller was concerned because he saw a change in the attitudes and values of theater-goers since he began writing 45 years ago. When I started out, they were liberal in politics and their feeling. They cared a hell of a lot about what was happening to the world, to the country, to the city. It wasn't a cynical audience, whatever you might say for it. I don't have that feeling about an audience now.49


Marty adds, "his feeling and instinct are accurate."50 Recent acrimony between the "conservative" and "liberal" factions of various religious groups seems to bear this out.

Regarding group identity, civilian society has become what some authors call a "culture of separation."51 Some even say expanding individual rights, ethnic rights and the proclivity toward litigation are leading toward the fragmentation of America.52 Pulitzer Prize-winning historian Daniel J. Boorstin contends that "the menace to America today is the emphasis on what separates us rather than what brings us together -- race, religious dogma, origins and language.53 Such separation fractures the glue which holds our nation together.

But within the military, all members are taught from accession points onward that military group or unit identity must take precedence over individual identities. Civic, religious, racial, ethnic, gender and family identities are held in balance with the larger military group identity. Strengths found in diversity foster creativity, innovation, flexibility and survivability. Even those with ultimate loyalties to different faith groups "cooperate without compromise."54 This is vital to military effectiveness because, as former POW Vice Admiral James Stockdale reminds us, people committed to their country and bound by a common sense of duty win wars and maintain deterrence: "What our military needs is men and women whose sense of honor allows them to make do with less, and whose sense of country transcends ethnic or family allegiance."55

Racism, sexism, religious parochialism and group identity generate vigorous discussion, debate and even dissension within both the civilian and military communities. Some commentators suggest the military has dealt with these issues far better than the rest of society.56



Despite all these differences, I hold that the military and the civilian communities are, and need to be, as interdependent as they are different. Yet, this interdependency needs to be nourished.

First, it is nourished when the military is allowed to develop its own "core values" in accordance with its unique mission requirements under the U.S. Constitution. Anthony Hartle's book, Moral Issues in Military Decision Making, gives a good foundation for discussing such military values within the context of values held by American society.57 Second, this interdependency is nourished when civilians ensure the military is fully supportive of values which undergird the Constitution. Freedoms guaranteed to every citizen must not be curtailed by the military without substantial cause. As a Navy Chaplain, I am especially cognizant of the great efforts made to support the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion for military people.58 When the military remains intentional about its interdependency with the civilian sector, the Republic is strengthened. Just as the military and industry share technology to the benefit of both, so the sharing of values between the military and civilian communities benefits both.

How can the military contribute toward a healthy interdependency? It can take initiatives such as:

(1) Increasing media training at earlier officer and enlisted career points; seeking more opportunities to explain, through various media channels, its military ideals, values and roles.

(2) Capitalizing on community service programs such as the Navy Community Service Program's five Flagship Projects:59 "Personal Excellence Partnerships," "Youth Health and Fitness," "Environment Conservation," "Campaign Drug Free," and "Sharing Thanksgiving." These collaborative efforts between military commands and civilian agencies energize people with hope and help build community.

(3) Expanding "open house" events with military units and bases beyond just those offered on commemorative holidays, or opening ethics conferences like JSCOPE to a wider audience.

(4) Enriching the civilian community with leadership by encouraging those who leave the service to reinvest their military values and skills in civilian roles through such programs as "Troops to Teachers."60

Values and virtues are informed by experience, reason, tradition and authority. We probably agree that no one has the last word in all of these areas. So then on-going discussion and dialogue between the military and civilian communities will increase mutual understanding and respect. In return, separation, suspicion and generational gap hopefully may be reduced.


Appendix A

American Veterans and Troop Strength

The American veteran population (in thousands) as of 1994 is listed below according to the era in which they served. If they also served during the preceding war/conflict, they are listed under the "prior service" category. (Source: The World Almanac and Book of Facts 1994 (Mahwah, NJ: World Almanac Books--Funk & Wagnalls, 1994), p. 703.)

"Wartime Vets"

                            WW I         WW II         Korea         Vietnam         Persian Gulf

w/ prior service        *                 *                 823             560                 110

w/o prior service      *                 *                 3,958          7,718               618

total                         34             8,500            4,782          8,278               730

"Peacetime Vets"

(between wars                 181             2,911            3,060             6,153
& conflicts)


Troop strength, in specific theaters and worldwide, likewise continues to decline according to figures from House Armed Service Committee quoted in Sea Power (Arlington, VA: Navy League, December 1994) p. 7.

                                1985                 1990                 1994

Europe                    358,000            291,000             142,000

E. Asia/Pacific         125,000            119,000             101,000

Total Worldwide     2,200,000          2,000,000          1,600,000


Appendix B

"Tommy" by Rudyard Kipling

A few stanzas are quoted below from The Works of Rudyard Kipling: One Volume Edition (Roslyn NY: Black's Readers Service Company, [no date]), pp. 84-85.

. . .

I went into a theatre

as sober as could be,

They gave a drunk civilian room

but 'adn't none for me;

They sent me to the gallery

or round the music-'alls,

But when it comes fightin', Lord!

they'll shove me in the stalls!

. . .

While it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,

an' Tommy, fall be'ind,"

But it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"

when there's trouble in the wind.

There's trouble in the wind, my boys,

there's trouble in the wind,

O it's "Please to walk in front, sir,"

when there' trouble in the wind.


You talk o' better food for us

an' schools, an' fires, an' all;

We'll wait for extry rations

if you treat us rational.

Don't mess about the cook-room slops,

but prove it to our face

The Widow's Uniform is not

the soldier-man's disgrace.


For it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that,

an' "Chuck him out, the brute."

But it's "Saviour of 'is country,"

when the guns begin to shoot.

Yes, it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that

an' anything you please:

But Tommy ain't a bloomin' fool

-- you bet that Tommy sees!


Appendix C

Henry V's Speech to His Troops before Battle

Henry V, Act IV, Scene III quoted in part from The Complete Works of William Shakespeare Comprising His Plays and Poems (London: Spring Books, 1958) p. 464.


That he who hath no stomach to this fight,

Let him depart; his passport shall be made,

And crowns for convoy put into his purse.

We would not die in that man's company,

That fears his fellowship to die with us.

This day called the Feast of Crispian....


And Crispin Crispian shall ne'er go by,

From this day to the ending of the world,

But we in it shall be remembered;

We few, we happy few, we band of brothers;

For he, today, who sheds his blood with me

Shall be my brother; be he ne'er so vile,

This day shall gentle his condition:

And gentlemen in England, now a-bed,

Shall think themselves accursed, they were not here,

And hold their manhood cheap, while any speaks,

That fought with us upon Saint Crispian's day....



1. Clausewitz, Carl von On War. Edited by Anatol Rapoport. Translated by J.J. Graham 1908 (Baltimore, MD: Penguin Books, Inc., 1968) p. 345.

2. Commissioned in 1964, my active duty in the U.S. Navy over 27 years includes assignments with ships, hospitals, Marines, Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (U.S. Central Command), the Naval Chaplains School, and the Office of the Chief of Chaplains.

3. Clausewitz (Chapter III entitled "Moral Forces"),p. 251.

4. For example, Cuba, Haiti (until recently) or the republics and nations under the former Soviet Union and Warsaw Pact have not been viewed by Americans as societies in which civilians could enjoy life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

5. A good discussion of both the separation and suspicion between society and the military are found in Richard H. Kohn's "Out of Control: The Crises in Civil-Military Relations," The National Interest, Spring 1994: pp.3-17. Dr. Kohn chairs the Curriculum in Peace, War and Defense at the University of North Carolina. From 1981 to 1991 he served as the Chief of Air Force History, and recently he completed two terms as president of the Society of Military History. He also edited The United States Military Under the Constitution of the United States, 1789-1989 (New York: New York University Press, 1991). A follow-up article offers reactions from Colin Powell, John Lehman, William Odom, and Samuel Huntington plus Kohn's response. See "An Exchange on Civil-Military Relations," The National Interest, Summer 1994: pp. 23-31. Two other recent articles addressing today's civil-military relationship and who controls the military include: Edward N. Luttwak, "Washington's Biggest Scandal," Commentary, May 1994: pp. 29-25, and "Who's Boss?" The New Yorker, June 7, 1993: pp. 6-7.

6. Neil Howe and Bill Strauss, 13thGEN: Abort, Retry, Ignore, Fail? (New York: Vintage Books, a Division of Random House, Inc.) 1993. This book gives a thorough and entertaining analysis of today's young adult generation. Its material was derived from extensive research by Howe and Strauss for their earlier book, Generations: The History of America's Future, 1584 to 2069 (New York: Quill William Morrow, 1991). Howe and Strauss quote a 1989 Gallup Poll contrasting values between young and older adults (pp. 43 and 188):


(1) "Do the following words apply more to young people today or young people 20 years ago?" Response of all adults was:

Trait Today 20 Yrs Ago

Selfish 82% 5%

Materialistic 79% 15%

Reckless 73% 14%

Idealistic 38% 49%

Patriotic 24% 65%


(2) "Would you say that it is very important to...

Issue/Value Age Age Difference

18-29 30+

Work for betterment of society? 58% 70% -12%

Follow a strict moral code? 53% 62% - 9%

Have a nice home and car? 44% 40% + 4%

Have an exciting, stimulating life? 63% 46% + 7%


7. Fewer men and women in our society today have had experience in our Armed Forces. For statistics, see Appendix A on "American Veterans and Troop Strength."

8. Al Karmen, "Veterans' Ranks Thinning on Capital Hill," The Washington Post, December 7, 1994: Federal Page, A27.

9. Kenneth J. Fortune, "Letters to the Editor," The Washington Post, January 31, 1994: OP/ED, 20; and David S. Broder, "No Veterans Preference in this Administration," The Washington Post, December 26, 1993: OP/ED, 7.

The current Administration's goal is to have its appointees and staff personnel be a racial-ethnic demographic mirror of America, but the number of veterans serving in the White House staff has not been in proportion. When the staff was appointed in January 1993, only 8% of the men had military experience, yet among the entire American population of males 35-59 years old, 33% were veterans.

True, Vice President Al Gore was a Vietnam vet and (then) Secretary of Defense Les Aspin also had military service, but other Presidential nominees and appointments included few vets: - 16 of 34 appointees, requiring Senate confirmation, in Veterans Administration and Pentagon jobs were vets yet for other Cabinet agencies, of 213 men appointed, only 2 were vets -- both from pre-Vietnam eras!

- only 1 vet of 7 appointees to senior Pentagon positions

- no Service Secretary had seen combat

- of first 66 men named to White House staff management positions, 6 were vets (2 served in combat)

10. Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense for Reserve Affairs (Manpower & Personnel) indicates DOD's Select Reserves were 1,182,000 in FY-89, but 1,067,000 in FY-93.

11. Another issue raised in this post-Cold War era and during "downsizing/rightsizing" is the Reserve Force's integration with the Active Force. Some believe the "Base Force" concept (i.e., having a small active duty force ready and easily deployable in crises) may produce an isolation and alienation of reserves from regulars, to the extent that in an occurrence of large-scale war the reserve-active interoperability could be weak. Indirectly and unintentionally, this may also contribute to the separation and even suspicion between career military personnel and citizen-soldier reservists. See Robert F. Enslin Jr., "The View from the Militia," The American Legion, August 1992: pp. 22-25.

12. Quoted by David Epstein and James Zumwalt, "Values of effective Soldiers," The Washington Times, September 1994: p. B4.

13. Epstein and Zumwalt, p. B4.

14. Epstein and Zumwalt, p. B4.

15. Rudyard Kipling's famous poem "Tommy" describes the fickle societal attitudes toward British soldiers, shifting between peacetime suspicion and wartime support. See excerpts in Appendix B.

16. In The Declaration of Independence, two of the "facts submitted" by our Founders justifying the right of the "people of these colonies" to declare themselves "free and independent" from the British Crown and King George V were:

(1) He kept among us in times of peace Standing Armies without the consent of our legislature and

(2) He affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil Power....

17. The Constitution of the United States, Article II Section 2 gives the President control of the military and the militia: The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States and of the Militia of the several States when called into the actual Service of the United States....

18. The Constitution, Article I Section 8, also gives Congress the Power: To provide for the common Defence...To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years; To provide and maintain a Navy;To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces; To provide for calling forth the Militia...To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining the Militia...

19. U. S. Code Annotated Title 10 (St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co., 1975) Article 131, "Armed Forces," states in its Notes of Decisions (Historical): The Department of War (now Department of Defense) was created, with a principal officer therein, to be called the Secretary for the Department of War (now Secretary of Defense) by Act Aug. 7, 1789, c. 7, 1 Stat. 49. Article 133, "Secretary of Defense," delineates the role of the Secretary of Defense who exercises civilian control over the military:

(a) There is a Secretary of Defense, who is the head of the Department of Defense, appointed from civilian life by the President, by and with the consent of the Senate. A person may not be appointed as Secretary of Defense within 10 years after relief from active duty as a commissioned officer of a regular component of an armed force.

(b) The Secretary is the principal assistant to the President in all matters relating to the Department of Defense. Subject to the direction of the President and to section 401 of Title 50, he has authority, direction, and control over the Department of Defense.

20. Much has been written over the past two years on the peace-keeping versus peace-making roles and missions of U.S. Armed Forces. This debate became more lively after Senator Nunn's 1992 suggestion that the military might provide useful assistance in community service and humanitarian relief. A successful U.S. military/humanitarian peace-keeping effort was the Joint Task Force involement with U.N. troops in Northern Iraq which prevented Iraq's Saddam Hussein from eliminating the Kurds. But many leaders, including the most senior military leaders (e.g., both the former and the current Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals Powell and Shalikashvili respectively) have been very reluctant to engage military personnel in humanitarian crises such as Somalia, Bosnia, and Haiti. Good articles, addressing this tension and dilemma in the use of military forces for humanitarian assistance, include: George P. Schultz, "Bosnia: Human Assistance, Personal Accountability and the Willingness to Use Force," Vital Speeches, January 1 1993: 163-5; and Christopher C. Joyner, "When Human Suffering Warrants Military Action," The Chronicle of Higher Education, January 27, 1993: p. A52.

21. Cathy Booth, "Catastrophe 101," Time, Sept 14, 1992: p. 42. This article argues for replacing governmental bureaucracy and lethargy in the face of disaster relief with the use of military organization and efficiency--and even waiving some civilian control so the military can assist those in need.

22. Gary Anderson, "When Soldiers Become Peacekeepers" The Washington Times, December 12, 1994: OP/ED, p. A27.

23. Howe and Strauss, pp. 16-7. Today's young adult generation has been labeled by various titles: "Baby Busters" (actually they're more numerous than their predecessors the "Baby Boomers"!), "MTV Generation," "Generation X," "Twentysomethings," "High-Tech/ Computer Generation," "Upbeat Generation," etc. The names "13th Generation," "13th Gen" or "13ers" may be the titles most frequently used these days, and designate the thirteenth generation since the founding of the American Republic. This group includes people born since the early 1960s -- making this generation span the age range from 0 to 30.

24. My conversation with a commanding officer of a military training command before a "Pass Review" of a Recruit Graduating Class in the spring of 1994.

25. Above conversation.

26. William J. Bennett, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators (New York: A Touchstone Book published by Simon & Schuster, 1994) p. 31.

27. Bennett, p. 78.

28. Bennett, p.25.

29. Bennett, p. 25.

30. "RIGHT & GNORW [WRONG]" Reporter: News for Church Leaders, November 1994: America at a Glance section, p. 16.

31. Same source as above. 1bid.

32. A. James Rudin, "Commentary: Smith Case is an Ugly Episode of Scapegoating," Religion News Service, November 28, 1994: pp. 8-9; also "Death and Deceit" and "Stranger in the Shadows" Time, November 14, 1994: pp. 42-49 and 46-7.

33. Bennett, p 68.

34. "Did Religious 'Aid' Suicide Bill?" Reporter: News for Church Leaders, December 1994: The Nation section, p. 6.

35. Sacrificing for each other, even giving your life for another, is foundational to military service. Often quoted and still moving is the speech William Shakespeare wrote for a military leader. After walking among his troops during the night, King Henry V inspired them the next morning before they entered combat by reminding them they were a "band of brothers." "We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; For he, today, who sheds his blood with me Shall be my brother..."See Appendix C for excerpts of this stirring soliloquy.

36. General Mundy, the Commandant of the Marine Corps, cited this Ops/PersTempo increase to me during my "In-Call" with him on September 7, 1994.

37. C. James Novak, "One Hundred Percent and Then Some," The Retired Officer Magazine, June 1994: pp. 44-48.

38. Fleet Marine Force Manual (FMFM) 4-50, Health Service Support (Washington, DC: U.S. Marine Corps, 1990) paragraph 11003.

39. For example, see Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare (Washington, DC: Department of the Army, 1956) p 3, and Air Force Publication 110-31, International Law--The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations (Washington, DC: U.S. Air Force, 1976) p. 6. Also see Paul Christopher, The Ethics of War and Peace: an Introduction to Legal and Moral Issues (Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1994) 125-34.

40. DODDIR 2310.1 of 18 Aug 1994 directs that humane treatment will be given to enemy prisoners of war and other detainees.

41. BUMED Washington DC msg 131001Z Feb 93 (BUMED-33) states in paragraph 8: Physicians and other medical personnel, who consider the performance of abortions morally or ethically wrong, shall not be required to perform them or participate in the medical aspects of the procedure.

42. A thorough examination of the My Lai massacre is found in the excellent book by Michael Bilton and Kevin Sim, Four Hours in My Lai (New York: Viking, 1992), written from interviews with former Charlie Company soldiers who were at My Lai. Part of this book's power is its description of how normal young Americans could lose their moral principles after months in a combat environment, allowing them to kill unarmed civilians.

43. DODDIR 1350.2 of 23 Dec 1988.

44. Alex Haley, "Ideas with a Payoff for Us All: Our Military as a Model of How People of All Colors Can Move Up the Ladder Together," Fortune, July 15, 1991: p. 32.

45. SECNAVINST 5350.10B of 24 Jul 1989 paragraph 6.c.

46. SECDEF memo of 20 Jul 1988, DODDIR 1350.2 of 23 Dec 1988, and DODDIR 1440.1 of 21 May 1987.

47. SECNAVINST 5300.26B of 6 Jan 1993 paragraph 7.a.

48. Martin Marty, "A Diatribe Against Tribalism," Context: A Commentary on the Interaction of Religion and Culture, September 15, 1994, p. 2.

49. Marty, p. 2.

50. Marty, p. 2.

51. Robert N. Bellah, et al. Habits of the Heart: Individual-ism and Commitment in American Life (New York: Harper & Row Publishers, 1986) p. 277. Superbly insightful, this book analyzes American culture and values in the tradition of social theorists like Alexis de Tocqueville, from whom the book's title was taken. The authors argue convincingly that our society is more and more characterized by fragmentation, compartmentalization and distinctions such that (p.281):

...the culture of separation, if it ever became completely dominant, would collapse of its own incoherence. Or, even more likely, well before that happened, an authoritarian state would emerge to provide the coherence the culture no longer could. Bellah and his research colleagues conclude (p. 285): What has failed at every level--from the society of nations to the national society to the local community to the family -- is integration: we have failed to remember 'our community as members of the body,' as John Winthrop put it. We have committed what, to the Republican founders of our nation, was the cardinal sin: we have put our own good, as individuals, as groups, as a nation, ahead of the common good. Emerging in the 1990s is a grass-roots movement called "Communitarianism." Its goals include reversing the erosion of community in America and balancing individual rights with responsibilities. An excellent blueprint and summary of these ideas, for a more cohesive and cooperative society, are articulately expressed in Amitai Etzioni's The Spirit of Community: Rights, Responsibilities, and the Communitarian Agenda (New York: Crown Publisher, 1993).

52. David Frum, Dead Right (New York: Basic Books, Harper Collins Publishers, 1994), chapter 6.

53. Daniel J. Boorstin interviewed by Tad Szulc, "The Greatest Danger We Face," Parade Magazine, July 25, 1993: p. 4.

54. Motto of the U.S. Navy Chaplain Corps.

55. James Stockdale, A Vietnam Experience: Ten Years of Reflection (Stanford, CA: Hoover Institute, 1984), pp. 106-7. The quote appeared in the article "Fighting Fools, Thinking Cowards? Our Military Enticement System Ignores Honor, Duty, Country" which was first published in The Los Angles Times, September 29, 1981.

56. Christopher Farrell, "The Military is Pretty Good at Fighting Racism, Too," Business Week, March 11 1991: p. 76.

57. Anthony E. Hartle, Moral Issues in Military Decision Making (Lawrence, KS: University of Kansas Press, 1989). Especially see Chapter 6 on "The Values of American Society."

58. U.S. Code Title 10 and DODDIR 1300.17 of 3 Feb 1988.

59. CNO Washington DC msg 151505Z Dec 92 (NAVOP 33/92) initiated the Navy's Community Service Program, and OPNAVINST 5350.6a of 19 July 1994 provides policy guidance. One of the five Flagship Projects, "Sharing Thanksgiving," is sponsored and coordinated by the Navy Chief of Chaplains. This effort includes those community service or civil actions which men and women of the Armed Forces have been doing for decades in foreign and American communities, cities, towns and villages. These helping efforts are carried out throughout the year, not just at the Thanksgiving Season.

60. Defense Authorization Act of 1993, Public Law 102-484, and ASD (Director of Education/Director of DODDS) ltr of 5 Oct 1993. This new DOD program, "Teacher and Teacher's Aide Placement Assistance Program," is better known as "Troops to Teachers," and is managed by DANTES (Defense Activity for Non-Traditional Education Service).