Time and Accountability in U.S. Army

Time and Accountability in U.S. Army

Introduction

The military profession, without being over the other, is not a profession like any other. The military is invested with the capacity to detain and use force. This mission requires maintaining within the military institution of specificity compared to the civil society. This is what justifies the special rules governing the military profession; they are related to the availability, obedience, discipline. The military acting on behalf of the Republic, on behalf of United States. If the force they use is legitimate is that the military exercise by the Delegation of the Nation, on behalf of the State. Their action committed beyond their own person. It also commits the country to which they chose to bear arms, and they must also wear values. If the force they use is legitimate, it is also because it is mastered. Its implementation is under the regulations specific to military status of the Criminal Code and International Law (Lerner & Lerner, 2006). 

Discussion

Accountability

Yet, increasingly, our armies are involved in complex situations, where sometimes the law does not provide all the answers. Accountability and Military ethics become the basis for their decisions. The accountability of military feeds its culture, first, his experience also. This touches the heart of training armies. Its parallel responsibility to forge strong individual consciousness. This is the primary function of accountability. Beyond the benefits of training, each person faces personal reaction in the event of military accountability. The army does not compromise its values and ethics. Which is not a variable geometry, but the cornerstone of conscience of the soldier, and his action. 

In 1869, William Windham said the armed forces were generally "A class of men who are distinguishable from the mass, who receive training focused on specific objectives, which are taught concepts special, which are governed by special laws and that are characterized by peculiar distinctions” (Gayagas, 2003).

Science of Morality

Accountability is a philosophical concept defined as "science of morality." But this is not in these terms that we'll talk. While we retain the term, without fall into a mere catalog of what characterizes it. However, one pitfall to avoid, the accountability of seeing in an ethics, a set of rules applied to a medium professional. Military accountability can never be reduced to this simple analogy. The soldiers are motivated by an ethic, not supervised by it legally. Thus, it is necessary to dwell first on what characterizes the military, this which makes it unique compared to other professions. First, it is characterized by the difference between armed force and police force, the public force whose sole purpose is civil peace. Then, the army has an obligation of result, an efficiency imperative (Lepore, 2009). Finally, there is a kind of "cultural exception" by the military as different legal status, by the conditions in the profession. These points are the military profession a profession in its own, thus justifying the existence of an own ethics.

All this is quite rightly pointed out by the defense minister, in the quote the writer presented above. But this originality does not preclude the ability of this environment to evolve and ...