Changes in the international security environment and in technology challenge leaders to define the Army's role for the future. Effective strategic leadership of the Army profession will be an essential component of successful transformation. To serve American society effectively, strategic leaders of the profession must define, prioritize, and the expert knowledge of the profession, clarify the jurisdictions within which this knowledge applies, and then develop professionals to apply this knowledge. There are three main reasons to map and prioritize the Army's professional expertise and jurisdictions: * Facilitate choices about the use of constrained resources; * Reestablish the Army's collective professional identity; and, * Move beyond the concept of "full spectrum dominance." This monograph provides a framework intended for use by the Army's strategic leaders. But it also should be a point of departure for debate among all members of the profession. The most important purpose of this framework is to provide a mechanism for HOW TO THINK about Army expert knowledge and jurisdictions. This monograph offers some general recommendations derived from my application of the framework and its logic. These recommendations represent just one possible view. Ultimately, the strategic leaders of the Army will decide priorities and boundaries. Recommendations include: * Eliminating of combat service support branches as basic branches for commissioned officer accession. * Strengthening pre-commissioning standards for combat and combat support officers to include certified military training and educational components. * Establishing clearer qualitative standards for assignment, promotion, and retention of commissioned officers (in terms of physical capacity, psychological capacity, and demonstrated performance). * Refocusing the officer career management and education system. * Developing coherent intellectual justifications and defense of jurisdictions related to the leadership of Army soldiers in the organized application of coercive force (war, peace enforcement, peacekeeping). * Better articulating reasons for avoiding jurisdictions that do not require unique Army expertise (humanitarian assistance, disaster relief, homeland security).