Military is the proficiency of the officer imposes upon him a special social responsibility. The employment of his proficiency promiscuously for his own advantage would shatter the fabric of society. Society persists that the management of violence be utilized only for socially permitted purposes. Society has a direct, abiding, and general interest in the employment of this skill for the development of its own military security. As all professions are somewhat regulated by the state, the military profession is monopolized by the state. The skill of the physician is diagnosis and treatment; his responsibility is to the health of his clients.
The skill of the officer is the management of violence; his responsibility is the military security of his client, society. The discharge of the accountability requires mastery of the skill; mastery of the skill entails recognition of the responsibility. Both responsibility and skill differentiate the officer from other social types. All members of society have an interest in its security; the state has a direct concern for the attainment of this along with other social values; “but the officer corps alone is responsible for military security to the exclusion of all other ends”.
(Huntington, S. P. 1957 p 7). Obviously he does not act mainly from economic incentives. In western society the vocation of officer ship is not well rewarded financially. Nor is his behavior within his profession ruled by economic rewards and punishments. The military is not a mercenary who transfers his services wherever they are best rewarded, or is he the transitory citizen soldier inspired by forceful momentary patriotism and duty but with no steadying and permanent desire to perfect him in the agreement of violence.
The motivations of the military are practical love for his craft and the sense of social obligation to exploit this craft for the benefit of society. The combination of these drives comprises professional motivation. Society, on the other hand, can only declare this motivation if it offers its officers ongoing and sufficient pay both while on active duty and while retired. The military possesses intellectualized skill, mastery of which needs intense study.
But like the lawyer and doctor he is not mainly a man of the closet; he deals continuously with people. The test of his professional capability is the application of technical knowledge in a human context. Since this application is not regulated by economic means, though, the military requires positive guides spelling out his responsibilities to his fellow military, his subordinates, his superiors, and the state which he serves. His behavior within the military structure is administered by a complex mass of regulations, customs, and traditions.
His behavior in relation to society is showed by awareness that his skill can only be developed for purposes approved by society through its political agent, the state. As the primary responsibility of the physician is to his patient, and the lawyer to his client, the principal accountability of the military officer is to the state. His responsibility to the state is the accountability of the expert adviser. Like the lawyer and physician, he is concerned with only one part of the activities of his client. Consequently, he cannot inflict decisions beyond his field of special capability.
He can simply explain to his client his needs in this area, direct him as to how to meet these needs, and then, while the client has made his decisions, aid him in implementing them. Somewhat the officer’s behavior towards the state is guided by an unequivocal code expressed in law and similar to the canons of professional ethics of the physician and lawyer. Significantly, the officer’s code is expressed in custom, norm, and the continuing strength of the profession. The military system exemplifies the importance as well as the pitfalls of case advocacy in a mainly clear-cut way.
As a system, the military makes an indenture with its personnel by whom a certain amount of independence and self-determination (normally available to the average citizen) are relinquished in exchange for specific employment and other remuneration to self and family. The power structure, status hierarchy, and amount of prescribed behavior (rules and regulations) are more obviously demarcated, formal, and impermeable to change by the individual than in many other systems. All of this circumscribes, or as a minimum delimits, individuals’ or families’ capability and opportunity to “get what they need for themselves.
” This is an essential reality of the military family advocacy program. Delivery Model and Social Services Military social services are both instrumental and emotional ties that give emotional and economic support and information. The people, with whom we communicate, as well as what we communicate, reveal our values, behaviors, and life roles. Several of our contacts are based on personal choice, similar to the friends we make and the neighbors we befriend. Religious partiality, interests, and professional associations also reveal network links we select. Others, like relatives, are assigned, not chosen.
Armed forces have an additional source of assigned social ties, those assigned by professional organization. Since ties reveal the way we maintain our social identity, assigned ties influence what and who we believe we are. Delivery model plays a imperative role in the lives of individuals by providing resources for emotional support, employment, housing, and community services. Research has shown that people with strong social network have greater resistance to disease (Cassel 1976), lead healthier lives, and feel less stressed out than those without the benefit of a personal social network.
Newcomers, for instance, use their social networks to moderate the stress of relocating and adjusting to a new community (Evans 1980; Jones 1980). Close ties benefit not just individuals, but organizations as well. Oliver’s study on Army social services (1984) reported that Army battalions with regimented family support groups had fewer family related problems. Rosen and Moghadam (1989) found that (emotional) support from social networks helped army wives cope with the pressure of military separations.