Readiness is not a very controversial topic in and of itself: it’s generally good to be ready, and it’s bad to not be ready—especially if you’re supposed to be ready. Overall, being ready has positive connotations in all aspects of life. There is even a certain playfulness when you ask someone if they’re ready, or an anticipation when you’re in the sprinter’s blocks being told to get ready.

View legal professionals across the force as they train, deploy, and operate in diverse environments around the world. From field exercises and airborne operations to multinational training and professional education, these images reflect the breadth of legal support provided to commanders and Soldiers at every level.

We stumbled towards the field, eyes often matted, some of us sweaty from the commute in or the workout we just finished. Then, we lined up in ranks on a field—often audibly grumbling about what a pain it was. We are all familiar with this unifying experience of military service: the formation. While some may believe it has little place or purpose in today’s Army, would abandoning it be truly Soldier-care-centered?

The American institution has long been cognizant and conscious of both the import and impact of civil-military relations in our democracy. From the Declaration of Independence2 and the Constitution3 to modern legislation,4 jurisprudence,5 and policy,6 our national framework provides consistency in its insistency on civilian control of the military.

The following members of our Regiment, in alphabetical order, passed away in 2025.

Two of the U.S. Supreme Court’s most significant military justice decisions share a party’s name. In both O’Callahan v. Parker1 and Parker v. Levy,2 the “Parker” was Warden Jacob J. Parker of the Federal penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. This article contributes to military justice heritage by providing a biography of Parker. Studying Parker’s role in two landmark military justice cases also highlights a significant and ongoing shift in the Supreme Court’s approach to review of court-martial cases resulting from the Military Justice Act of 1983.

On 26 November 1941, six Japanese aircraft carriers departed from the Kuril Islands and began their voyage to Hawaii.1 The flotilla arrived about a week later, having completed their voyage undetected by American patrols. In the early morning of 7 December, the carrier-based aircraft took off and launched their attack on the U.S. Naval Base at Pearl Harbor.3 Although most Americans are familiar with this “date which will live in infamy,” not as many consider the importance of the attack from a military-technology perspective, as it marked the end of the era in naval warfare dominated by the battleship.

Members of the Army are typically understood to be strong, fit, healthy, and able to care for themselves, and the Army’s medical accession and retention standards are designed to ensure that this is the case. For a variety of reasons, however, this can cease to be the case for some Soldiers.

In September 2025, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth requested President Donald Trump to sign the death warrant approving and ordering the execution of Major (MAJ) Nidal Hasan. The military has not carried out a death sentence since 1961, when U.S. Army Private John Bennett was executed by hanging at the gallows of the U.S. Disciplinary Barracks (USDB) in Fort Leavenworth, Kansas.

The human mind, like the body, experiences deleterious effects while aging. As individuals mature, they will have an inevitable decline in certain cognitive abilities tethered to their intelligence. While harsh, denying this inevitability will lead to frustration, anger, and lack of satisfaction, while eating away at one’s sense of purpose.

On 2 October 2020, the Department of War1 (DoW) published the Summary of the Irregular Warfare Annex to the 2018 National Defense Strategy (IW Annex). The IW Annex emphasizes the need to leverage conventional force capabilities to be successful in the irregular warfare (IW) fight. “Conventional forces have, and always will have, a role in IW across a variety of missions and a range of military activities.” In the age of great power competition, this role will likely be training and equipping foreign and irregular forces engaged in IW operations. However, as with any military activity, the unit must have both the operational and fiscal authority to lawfully execute such activity.