Execellent points, Bill. I envision that what we discover and describe will be something of an apprenticeship model--people are initially admitted to the profession through the declaration (oath) of values and loyalty, but new members must view themselves as operating in a limited capacity with much to learn.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.
One important issue to consider is the roll of experience versus expertise/training. While we have young soldiers with a lot of specific warfighting experience, "credentialling" them without a greater understanding of the profession would be unwise.
Ultimately, professionals are those who have a proper framework for making sense of their experiences, and turn those experiences into useful tacit knowledge. Without that framework, lessons learned in Afghanistan or Iraq won't meaningfully inform these soldiers if they're deployed to a refugee situation, natural disaster, or different combat scenario in the future.
Professionals not only capitalize on experience, but do so in a meaningful way.
Bookmarks