The Army: A Profession of Arms
In his recent Army Greenbook article titled “The Second Decade,” the Army Chief of Staff addresses the topic of the Army Profession of Arms, and the merits of examining the impact of a decade of persistent conflict on the profession. (See http://www.ausa.org/publications/arm...Casey_1010.pdf ). The same topic was discussed in one of the Institute of Land Warfare (ILW) panels during the annual AUSA Meeting and Exposition. And earlier this year, the Commanding General of TRADOC dedicated an entire blog discussion to the Army profession. (See http://tradoclive.dodlive.mil/ ). Why an increasing emphasis on this topic and related discussion?
In short, periodic self-reflections and efforts to improve are what healthy professions or organizations do from time to time. In light of the influences , challenges, and even stresses that our Army has operated amidst for nearly a decade, coupled with the fact that ours is indeed an Army in transition, a valid need exists to “review, reemphasize and recommit to our profession” as the Commanding General of TRADOC recently stated. The persistent conflict has impacted both positively and negatively on the state of the Army Profession of Arms. This conflict has exposed strengths that have sustained us, while at the same time it has uncovered tensions and points of friction in our Army culture and DOTMLPF-P.
On 27 Oct 2010, the Army Chief of Staff and the Secretary of the Army signed a Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Review of the Army Profession in an Era of Persistent Conflict. This TOR sets the stage for a future comprehensive review to examine the state of our profession after nearly a decade of war. The review will be comprehensive, and will include a survey of the entire force, analysis of relevant trends and indicators of individual and unit behavior, sustainment of an Army-wide dialog and discussion . . . all of which lead to a review of existing policies and programs that apply to the Army as an institution. A detailed concept plan for this is currently being developed.
The Army Chief of Staff acknowledges the importance of this to our profession’s future: “ . . . it is essential that we take a hard look at ourselves and ensure the we fully understand what we have been through, how we have changed and how we must adapt to succeed in an era of persistent conflict. I encourage all leaders to think about how to accomplish this. It is essential to the continued effectiveness of our profession and to ensure that our young leaders are prepared for success in the decade.”
Domains of the profession
This Profession of Arms campaign will focus largely on 4 domains: military-technical, human development, moral-ethical, and political-cultural. It is important that the Army ensure strength in each domain.
I'm curious as to what domain people think needs to be studied the most.
What does it mean to be a profession of arms?
After 23 years of Army service, I find this question of what it means to be a profession of arms particularly interesting, since it seems to define the cultural fabric of my passion to serve my country while also subordinating that professional culture to our national ideals and civilian leadership. To defend our Nation with the ethical application of force of arms, our profession must maintain a clear sense of who and what we are by honestly studying our history to gain a more complete and nuanced understanding of our successes and our failures. War is such dangerous activity that people have developed the profession of arms, a dedicated group of certified, trained, equipped, organized, and led professional Soldiers, to execute warfare, but in the United States, as in many other countries, the profession remains subordinate to the political leadership who ultimately determine the scope of war.
This subordination of the profession to the political is key to understanding who is a member of the profession of arms and who is not. For example, Soldiers are clearly members, but are retired Soldiers members or newly hired Soldiers who have not completed basic training? Are DoD civilians part of the profession; they are certainly professionals doing military work, but are they working in the profession of arms. Are civilian contractors part of the profession? What about the civilian leadership, the President, or the Secretary of Defense or the Army?
Anchoring it's members in in a unified view of itself is a requirement of any profession and especially important to the profession of arms.
was just the convenient Ways that fit our Means
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Bob's World
There
Do we still go to Iraq? I doubt it. It was never essential, it was just the convenient Ways that fit our Means.
Bob's W,
Great point and I completely agree that whatever force we build will tend to be used in ways that are more convenient to the strengths of that particular Army. So the question is what type of profession of arms should build. That in essence is the reason for this discussion the CSA asked us to have.
I value your end, ways, means, perspective as it really highlights the connection between the decision of what type of Army we make to what type of national strategy and policy we can follow. "Build it and they will come" may work for a field of dreams but in the real world we should think deeply about such decisions.
Do we need a large forward deployed force to keep us safe at home; maybe not, perhaps a smaller more expeditionary force would serves us better. But either way our political leadership may ask us to do things we did not anticipate, so a core aspect of any force should be the ability to adapt while engaged in the fight. The more adaptable the force the more easily it can transition along the full spectrum of conflict. Some may point out that such an adaptable force is also easier to use and thus more likely to be used. Providing political leaders with a profession of arms means they may be less inclined to solve problems with other means, but not providing such a force would leave the nation less prepared.
As a profession, we should strive to provide the most effective force possible within our means and trust the political leadership to use it appropriately. As a profession we should not attempt to limit our political leaders by designing a less than optimal force.
Bill Jakola
Chris, you are going to have to educate me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Case
According to international law, this is illegal. It also violates the moral reasoning that underpins international law (Just War Theory). That being said, it does not follow that we won't do it anyway. My guess is that it isn't because anyone in the military necessarily wants to intentionally violate these laws and norms, it is that they have no idea what they are or how to apply them. The profession's interest in its moral-ethical knowledge usually ends with a notion of "leadership=ethics" (internal jurisdiction) and "following orders=ethics" (external).
Okay, Chris, you are going to have to educate me. I do not see how preparing our force to be more responsive to a rapidly changing enviroment is illegal.
Bill Jakola
Mike, your view is closer to what I am trying to say.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jmm99
by Chris Case that this, simply as stated:
constitutes a prescription for either preventive or preemptive war.
Bill's prescription does not necessarily call for a resort to armed force ab initio - nor, does Bob's World in his numerous posts on "nipping things in the bud".
Regards
Mike
Look, I am not advocating preemptive war but keeping an eye on potential future problems seems only prudent.
My thought at your initial comment was
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Chris Case
...my pointing out the possibility is hardly "ludicrous" as the title of your reply claims...
"Make standing broad jumps at wrong conclusions often?" ;)
That does not equate to ludicrous, a judgment call, however it does seem to imply that your comment was perhaps a bit hasty.
Quote:
...my reply to Bill's claim was in an effort to clarify what he was describing...
Perfectly understandable and I agree with you that he wasn't clear. Still, it helps to phrase questions with a "Did you mean..." as opposed to "That is flipping criminal..." :wry:
FWIW, you can use the search function on the site and discover that many discussions on the topic have been held and the post above by Robert C. Jones stating his opinion on what should happen have been echoed by me and others -- still others have posed alternatives.
Here are some Threads on or near the topic: LINK, LINK, LINK.