as officially stated, is to preserve the peace and security and provide for the defense of the United States; to support national policies; to implement national objectives; and to overcome any nations responsible for aggressive acts that imperil the peace and security of the United States (http://www.army.mil/mission-vision.htm). In much simpler terms, the Army exists primarily to be the nation's warriors and protectors. Both officers and enlisted personnel must be prepared to use force as required and must be willing to stand in the way of prospective violent acts committed by others. The armed services are the only organizations that forthrightly presume that their employees will sacrifice their lives as part of their jobs. Some social scientists suggest that the central skill of military officers is "the management of violence" (Huntington, 1959).
The recent end of the cold war and other geopolitical events have placed Army personnel in new situations and redefined its role with respect to "preserving peace and security." Along with its central and more traditional role of warfighter, the Army and the other services have been asked increasingly to act as peacekeeper and peacemaker, and as an instrument of international humanitarian aid. These added roles are often strange to many military members who may not have received adequate training to deal with the varied aspects of operations other than war. New missions can be sources of profound change since they may call for major modifications in the way people are selected, trained, assigned, evaluated, managed, and used.
Army personnel are currently governed by a highly structured set of rules and regulations. Some of these rules are presented below as a means for drawing distinctions between the Army and the civilian sectors. Although most of the features are fixed at the present time, it may be useful to revisit the rules in light of new missions and personnel mixes, the long-range impact of all-volunteer recruiting, and changing performance requirements.
All of the aspects of bureaucratic structure in the Army and other services can be translated into a loss of independent control