Army relations with Congress : thick armor, dull sword, slow horse / Stephen K. Scroggs.

Includes bibliographical references (pages [253]-254) and index.

1. Introduction: Liaising versus Lobbying -- 2. Roles of Legislative Liaison and Military Service Liaisers -- 3. Patterns of Army-Congressional Relations -- 4. Army Cultural Dimensions: An Inward-Looking Team Player -- 5. M1A1 Tank Transfer: Culture Impedes Army Effectiveness on the Hill -- 6. Findings and Recommendations -- App. A. Research Interviews (as of 1995) -- App. B. Washington Experience Leadership Sample Comparisons for U.S. Military Services in 1995: Data Used in Compilation of Figures Used for Tables 204-1-4-4 -- App. C. Army Washington Experience Leadership Sample Run, 1980-81 Era: Data Used in Compilation of Figures Used for Table 4-5.

Relying on extensive candid interviews from members of Congress and staff on defense authorization committees and senior Army general officers, Scroggs provides a strong insider analysis with recommendations. He examines the impact of culture on the varying abilities of public agencies, specifically the Army, to pursue its organizational interests through lobbying or liaising Congress. Scroggs argues that despite structural similarities in how the four military services approach Congress, differences in service culture affect their relative success in achieving their goals on the Hill. Scroggs draws four major conclusions. First, despite a law prohibiting lobbying of Congress by public agencies, Congress views lobbying or liaising by public entities, especially the military services, not only as a legitimate activity, but essential to Members carrying out their constitutional responsibilities. Second, relative to the other services, the Army is viewed by Congress as the least effective in its lobbying. Third, the Army's patterned approach with Congress is largely a function of its unrecognized and uncompensated culture in the unique terrain of the nation's capital. Fourth, because of the need for balanced service representation to Congress, relatively less effective Army efforts have troubling implications for national security and Army self-interest.