The Army: A Profession of Arms

[Bob Underwood]

If it's with Chris Barnes' question, then I would have to say the moral-ethical, and political-cultural domains (as much as I loath the domain-speak) are most important. For, if we exist as profession to do this (BTW I think we do):

the application of violence in the service of policy? - the ONLY job armed forces have.

Then it is curious why we should, as a profession, ignore the context in which we apply force. What if a given application of force will actually undermine the current policy goal? How would we know?

Is this the solution? To assume that

your policy is ALWAYS ethical.

seems to me to be self-defeating. At the very least, we should agree that policies that would lead to defeat, less security etc aren't ethical. Also, if I take your "ALWAYS" to mean in all possible cases, then we might have another problem. Certainly there is at least one case, or even a small set of cases in which the policy in question will not be ethical.

What I think is lacking in our Army is precisely the understanding we need to turn tactical action into effective strategic responses to the hybrid threats we face. For my money, this is because the Army has, for too long, assumed that all policy is, ipso facto (had to use my own latin), ethical and worth killing and dying in service to it.

Regards,
Bob

[William F. Owen]

Then it is curious why we should, as a profession, ignore the context in which we apply force. What if a given application of force will actually undermine the current policy goal? How would we know?

Read Clausewitz! If the application of force is not effectively setting forth the policy then it should not applied. - and you should either change the policy or apply the force in a way that serves it.

...and Policy is way above your pay grade. Keep out of it. The profession of arms serves policy. Understand the limits. Do not probe the boundaries!

At the very least, we should agree that policies that would lead to defeat, less security etc aren't ethical.

Name me a politician or leader who has ever set forth a policy he states to be "un-ethical?" Policy comes from politics. Politics is power over people. Power is always ethical in the eyes of those holding it.

What I think is lacking in our Army is precisely the understanding we need to turn tactical action into effective strategic responses to the hybrid threats we face. For my money, this is because the Army has, for too long, assumed that all policy is, ipso facto (had to use my own latin), ethical and worth killing and dying in service to it.

Well then the problem is a lack of education in basic professional military thinking. The very basics of linking Policy to tactics via strategy are missing. This is not because the world got more complicated. It is because the Army gave up reading books and educating people.

Again, what is it you are confused about?

[120mm]

Read Clausewitz! If the application of force is not effectively setting forth the policy then it should not applied. - and you should either change the policy or apply the force in a way that serves it.

...and Policy is way above your pay grade. Keep out of it. The profession of arms serves policy. Understand the limits. Do not probe the boundaries!


Name me a politician or leader who has ever set forth a policy he states to be "un-ethical?" Policy comes from politics. Politics is power over people. Power is always ethical in the eyes of those holding it.


Well then the problem is a lack of education in basic professional military thinking. The very basics of linking Policy to tactics via strategy are missing. This is not because the world got more complicated. It is because the Army gave up reading books and educating people.

Again, what is it you are confused about?

Unfortunately, policy has historically been not so well insulated from military service. Amazingly junior officers have set policy in the past, because they were "Johnny on the Spot".

I seem to remember reading about a fairly Junior Brit Naval Officer who started and ended a war with Denmark in one fell swoop and a Reserve Captain by the name of Fertig in the Phillipines who also set policy despite not having guidance from higher.

[William F. Owen]

Unfortunately, policy has historically been not so well insulated from military service. Amazingly junior officers have set policy in the past, because they were "Johnny on the Spot".

Correct! Which means you have to understand the policy in place and how your actions serve it. Many on this board confuse, Party Politics with Policy. Considering the US Government cannot tell the difference between Strategy and Policy, this is not surprising.

I seem to remember reading about a fairly Junior Brit Naval Officer who started and ended a war with Denmark in one fell swoop and a Reserve Captain by the name of Fertig in the Phillipines who also set policy despite not having guidance from higher.

Right. Do you think they engaged in needless navel-gazing about the "Profession of Arms." No. They understood the Ends required and made it happen. If you understand (not invent or try to change) the policy in place, then the action you should take becomes a pretty simple choice.

[Bob Underwood]

Read Clausewitz! If the application of force is not effectively setting forth the policy then it should not applied. - and you should either change the policy or apply the force in a way that serves it.

I have read Clausewitz ... one of the reasons I hold my views. So, now what? Also, here you are making a normative or moral claim about policy - "should not". No government has taken up action intending to lead to their own ruin. However, simply because they thought it was smart doesn't make it so. (cf. below).

Name me a politician or leader who has ever set forth a policy he states to be "un-ethical?" Policy comes from politics. Politics is power over people. Power is always ethical in the eyes of those holding it.

I'm not especially worried about the eyes of those holding power. Simply because somebody has the power to do something does not make it right for them to do it. (Read Plato, or Clausewitz, or Fuller, or Fahrenbach et al.)

Well then the problem is a lack of education in basic professional military thinking. The very basics of linking Policy to tactics via strategy are missing. This is not because the world got more complicated. It is because the Army gave up reading books and educating people.

On this we are agreed, however, I think we have widely divergent views on what the products of that education should be. But how can we understand policy and our place in it unless we understand the categories of its making? There is certainly more than simple power protecting power here.

Regards,
Bob

[William F. Owen]

However, simply because they thought it was smart doesn't make it so. (cf. below).

I'm not especially worried about the eyes of those holding power. Simply because somebody has the power to do something does not make it right for them to do it.

OK. So what are you saying we should do to remedy this?

Read Plato, or Clausewitz, or Fuller, or Fahrenbach et al.

Not well read in Plato. Adhere to and study Clausewitz. Fuller was a clown and needs to be ignored. Only read one book by Fahrenbach - This Kind of War - excellent!
[/QUOTE]

[Pete]

Chuck G., what does CAPE stand for?

[davidbfpo]

Chuck G., what does CAPE stand for?

Carefully Assessing Professional Education
Capable Amateur Pursues Education
Charting America's Professional Evolution
Communist Activity Proletariat Executed

Back to breakfast.

[Bill Jakola]

Carefully Assessing Professional Education
Capable Amateur Pursues Education
Charting America's Professional Evolution
Communist Activity Proletariat Executed

Back to breakfast.

CAPE stands for the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic
This is a modified acronym that recently changed from ACPME.

See this Stand-To article for more background.

http://www.army.mil/standto/archive/2010/01/05

Army Center of Excellence for the Professional Military Ethic

What is it?

West Point and its Army Center of Excellence for the Professional Military Ethic (ACPME) serve as the Army's professional military ethic executive agent to increase Army-wide understanding, ownership and sustained development of the Army professional ethic through research, education and publication. ACPME broad objectives are: (1) assess, study and refine the professional military ethic of the force; (2) create and integrate professional military ethical knowledge; (3) accelerate professional military ethic development in individuals, units and Army culture and (4) support the socialization of the professional military ethic across the Army culture and profession.

[Chris Case]

The profession of arms serves policy. Understand the limits. Do not probe the boundaries!

Name me a politician or leader who has ever set forth a policy he states to be "un-ethical?" Policy comes from politics. Politics is power over people. Power is always ethical in the eyes of those holding it.

The first claim seems descriptively false and based on some aspirational notion members of the "profession of arms" hold about themselves. The "profession of arms" helps create policy. Not only that, but it is through the actions of the military that we come to know what policy is doing in order to create more new policy. See Afghanistan for illustrations of this and how the military "can-do" attitude creates policy. Denying this reality seems odd after the earlier invocation to Clausewitz.

For example, take Afghanistan: Is the military preparing to get out of Afghanistan in 2011 like the President said we were going to do when he formulated his policy? Have they been preparing for it, or have they been trying to convince him to stay the course? Does anyway in the military believe we will leave? If not why? Is it because the President lied about his intentions to leave to begin with, that the military convinced him to do otherwise, or something else?

The second claim seems either trivial or a repudiation of much of western thought. What are we to take away from this? Is it that whoever is in power decides what is ethical because they are powerful and therefore we ought not question it? Or does this only apply to people who are members of the power apparatus, in this case members of the "profession of arms?" Are their thoughts on ethics supposed to reduce to might equals right? If so, what does the American "profession of arms" think it can achieve in a counterinsurgency fight in Afghanistan and Iraq? Might equals right conjoined with COIN seems to lead to interesting outcomes and actually might be the result of "anthropolgizing" war. That being the case, Americans ought not be surprised when they are accused of being imperialists by those subject to this use of power.

[William F. Owen]

The "profession of arms" helps create policy. Not only that, but it is through the actions of the military that we come to know what policy is doing in order to create more new policy.

Huh? So Policy only comes into being when the "profession of arms" starts acting?

See Afghanistan for illustrations of this and how the military "can-do" attitude creates policy.

Policy has to exist in order to frame the actions needed to set it forth. Yes, policy is "modified" by actions. So what?

Denying this reality seems odd after the earlier invocation to Clausewitz.

Show me any text of Clausewitz discussing "ethics."

The second claim seems either trivial or a repudiation of much of western thought. What are we to take away from this? Is it that whoever is in power decides what is ethical because they are powerful and therefore we ought not question it? Or does this only apply to people who are members of the power apparatus, in this case members of the "profession of arms?" Are their thoughts on ethics supposed to reduce to might equals right? If so, what does the American "profession of arms" think it can achieve in a counterinsurgency fight in Afghanistan and Iraq? Might equals right conjoined with COIN seems to lead to interesting outcomes and actually might be the result of "anthropolgizing" war. That being the case, Americans ought not be surprised when they are accused of being imperialists by those subject to this use of power.

What has any of this do to with my assertion that "all policy" is ethical and the military has duty to set forth policy - NOT make ethical judgements.
IF an action undermines policy - then it is probably "un-ethical." - thus what is "ethical" flows from the Policy.

Soldiers need to understand the relationship of their actions to policy, because they serve policy makers.

[Chris Case]

Huh? So Policy only comes into being when the "profession of arms" starts acting?

No. I thought the context of the discussion would make it clear that here I only mean to discuss policies of using military force to achieve goals. I apologize if you somehow thought that my comment meant that I think that other government policies (education, Social Security, Medicare, etc.) somehow could not be created or enacted without military actions.

Now that it is clear that I am referring to policies regarding the use of military force, my claim is that it is political policy and that military professionals do have a part in creating it and advocating for or against it. This is just to deny your earlier claim that the "profession of arms" merely serves policy. That claims is just not true. For example, GEN Powell proactively took the use of force off the table for other policy makers by going to the press with his doctrine on when the US should resort to force. He was so popular and influential that this guided political policy. GEN Abrams tried to do the same thing with his reforms after Vietnam and GEN Petraeus influenced policy prior to the surge based on his influence and popularity as well. If you think strategic military leaders do not create, but only carry out policy, fine. I just don't see the evidence that this is true.

Policy has to exist in order to frame the actions needed to set it forth. Yes, policy is "modified" by actions. So what?

Show me any text of Clausewitz discussing "ethics."

First, I did not claim that Clausewitz discussed "ethics," this is related to the previous point about the relationship of military professionals to policy creation. War is an extension of politics according to Clausewitz and military professionals do create policy. This point is merely to say that I find it odd that you posted this:

Read Clausewitz!

and

Adhere to and study Clausewitz.

followed by this:

The profession of arms serves policy.

For Clausewitz war is policy and politics. My claim, based on actual actions from military professionals, is that they don't just serve policy, they create it as well. That is all. You can disagree, but I don't see evidence that strategic military leaders only serve policy. If your claim is that for soldiers at lower levels this is different, fine. But I think the blanket claim about "the profession of arms" is false.

What has any of this do to with my assertion that "all policy" is ethical and the military has duty to set forth policy - NOT make ethical judgements.
IF an action undermines policy - then it is probably "un-ethical." - thus what is "ethical" flows from the Policy.

Soldiers need to understand the relationship of their actions to policy, because they serve policy makers.

None of the above has anything to do with this. This is from a different post. That post was an effort to begin questioning your assertions in regards to the the difference between something being legal, ethical or moral. You said:

I find it very disturbing that this debate even got going.

You cannot teach "ethics" and morality. You teach Law. You teach what is written. Policy is always ethical. That is what policy "is."

I think there is very great danger that TRADOC has managed to elevate something pretty simple, into a pseudo-science, which lacks a grounding in the simple and classical teachings that have proven effective historically.

I think the second and third sentences are false. TRADOC may try to do pseudo-science (I don't know), but the "classical" teachings (if you mean in western civilization) challenge your claim in the second sentence. I take the "classical teachings" to be precisely about trying to teach what you claim can't be taught. I take them to be attempts to reflect on what we think is right in order to reconcile what is legal with what is right--in other words, creating a civil order in which we can be good people while also being good citizens. Or, maybe I just don't know how to read Plato, Aristotle, etc., or they are not "classical teachings," or maybe all the "classical teachings" worth reading are just about the law and why we should just follow it without reflecting on its correctness because it is based on what the powerful want and there is nothing we can do about it.

Further, if this discussion is disturbing to you I would refer you to what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." I am guessing that you mean something different in your use of the term "ethical" than I do. I am sure Eichmann and those at Nuremberg would have loved it if the juries decided that doing what is ethical just reduced to whatever the law and policy happened to say. Or are these just examples of "victor's justice?" Is it that might equals right, the ethical reduces to the legal and the only thing Eichmann and his compatriots did wrong was to lose--is that the simple lesson of history?

This is all just to say that the law may be influenced by what we take to be ethical at any point in time, but to say that the ethical is reduced to law is not a view I find appealing. You are obviously free to disagree and think that I am missing the simple lessons of classic teachings and history. I think it is an interesting discussion and not disturbing at all.

Regard,
Chris

[slapout9]

Chris Case, I think CvC did talk about ethics,cain't remember the passages but he talked Moral COG's and the Military virture of the Army and it's commander.

[Chris Case]

Chris Case, I think CvC did talk about ethics,cain't remember the passages but he talked Moral COG's and the Military virture of the Army and it's commander.

Slapout9,

My recollection of Clausewitz is that he refers to "morale" and that it is sometimes conflated with "moral." I am pretty sure that the passages you are referring to are about "morale" by which he means something like "spirit" or "esprit." He does think this is vital, but I don't think his usage has anything to with what is moral or ethical necessarily unless what is ethical or moral reduces to being successful. Some may think this is true, I just don't think it is. I could also be wrong and am open to being corrected on this.

Also, he may have discussed ethics in something I have not read--it is clearly possible. I think that if he did, it would be important to understand what he means when he uses the term and in order to do that one would have to have an understanding of Kant and Hegel. That said, I think understanding Kant and Hegel (to some extent) is important for understanding Clausewitz in general, not only in regard to any ethical or moral theory that Clausewitz may hold.

Regards,
Chris

[Pete]

... the Army and it's commander.

Halt, this is the Apostrophe Police. The word "its" only has an apostrophe when it is a contraction of "it is." Drop and give me two zero and go and sin no more.

[William F. Owen]

Now that it is clear that I am referring to policies regarding the use of military force, my claim is that it is political policy and that military professionals do have a part in creating it and advocating for or against it. This is just to deny your earlier claim that the "profession of arms" merely serves policy. That claims is just not true.

...and once you get told "get on it," with go do it. It is then the Policy makers job to alter the military objectives to fit an altering policy - again, soldiers can advise at to Ways and Means. - Witness Allenby who was given more to do with less forces and just did it, without complaint.

For example, GEN Powell proactively took the use of force off the table for other policy makers by going to the press with his doctrine on when the US should resort to force.

Proves my point. Powell was dead wrong and crippled US Foreign Policy as a result. He should have stuck to his pay grade.

If you think strategic military leaders do not create, but only carry out policy, fine. I just don't see the evidence that this is true.

The evidence would thus show most of the military men who seek to dabble in policy are misguided.

War is an extension of politics according to Clausewitz and military professionals do create policy.

As far as I know, Clausewitz never said "extension." He did say "continuation" on two occasions. In 1827, on his 10 July Note, and on page 605.
....but the military serves policy, once it is in place. These actions "cost" so you see a modification and adaptation. If the military start formulating policy then to what end would they craft to policy? To be better served by war?
War is a very blunt instrument. It can only serve certain policies. To quote Ashkenazi "Do not ask me what to do. Tell what you wish done and I will tell you if it is possible."

For Clausewitz war is policy and politics. My claim, based on actual actions from military professionals, is that they don't just serve policy, they create it as well. That is all.

Well aware and my point is that this does not work well.

Further, if this discussion is disturbing to you I would refer you to what Hannah Arendt called "the banality of evil." I am guessing that you mean something different in your use of the term "ethical" than I do.

I live amongst a good few Shoah survivors, so I am well aware of the path I tread. Hitler believed himself to be entirely ethical, as did Eichman, and all the Nazis. THAT IS MY POINT. The Nazis' "taught" ethics. Ethics is politics. Law is what generally what prevents the Holocausts (which is why Hitler changed to law to allow it), but when you want to have a holocaust you have to get people to believe it is "Ethical" to do it. - those ethics get taught. Rwanda would seem to provide good example. The US believed it served Policy = thus ethical - do deny it was genocide to avoid involvement. The men doing that saw their actions as "ethical."

I think it is an interesting discussion and not disturbing at all.

That is why I find the discussion disturbing. Teach Law! - Written Law )not perfect, but best). Do not teach "morality and ethics." They are products of prejudice and fashion.

What was "ethical" in the minds of a US citizen, on Sept 9th 2001 had changed by Sept the 14th.

[Chris Case]

Proves my point. Powell was dead wrong and crippled US Foreign Policy as a result. He should have stuck to his pay grade.

The evidence would thus show most of the military men who seek to dabble in policy are misguided.

Well aware and my point is that this does not work well.

If you were making a claim about what ought to be the case, great. The point I was challenging was the descriptive claim that the "profession of arms serves policy." I claimed that it creates policy. You are now saying that it causes problems when it does that. Fine, but that is not I was challenging. If the point of your earlier post that I disagreed with was just to say that it ought to X because when it does Y it leads to bad results then I wouldn't have responded the way I did. What I am trying to be clear about is that many in the military hold the view that there is an absolute distinction between creating and carrying out policy and that the military does only the latter. This is descriptively false whatever we may think about what ought to be the case.

I live amongst a good few Shoah survivors, so I am well aware of the path I tread. Hitler believed himself to be entirely ethical, as did Eichman, and all the Nazis. THAT IS MY POINT. The Nazis' "taught" ethics. Ethics is politics. Law is what generally what prevents the Holocausts (which is why Hitler changed to law to allow it), but when you want to have a holocaust you have to get people to believe it is "Ethical" to do it. - those ethics get taught. Rwanda would seem to provide good example. The US believed it served Policy = thus ethical - do deny it was genocide to avoid involvement. The men doing that saw their actions as "ethical."

That is why I find the discussion disturbing. Teach Law! - Written Law )not perfect, but best). Do not teach "morality and ethics." They are products of prejudice and fashion.

What was "ethical" in the minds of a US citizen, on Sept 9th 2001 had changed by Sept the 14th.

I still don't find this argument convincing at all. In fact I think you have it precisely 180 degrees wrong. Also, I think your examples prove my point rather than yours. The Nazi's may have taught ethics, big deal, that doesn't mean they were right about it. However, they also taught law and they used that law to murder innocent people legally as you point out. This seems to make the case that the law is more dangerous because it has the force of government behind it and can license all variety of immoral behavior. I think law is more the product of prejudice and fashion and that your Nazi example shows this. I also think that it is through moral theory and the study of ethics that we try to improve the law (ideally) in order that the force of law does not license such immoral behavior. It is not a knock against ethics or morality that Nazis were so confused and barbaric.

Rwanda don't prove your argument unless you think that what is right reduces to whatever some person happens to think is right. Bill Clinton thought he was right to ignore genocide, now he thinks it was wrong. What does that have to do with the fact of whether what happened was actually right or wrong? Does the moral status of the Genocide in Rwanda really depend on what people believe?

If your claim is that we just can't know if anything is ever right or wrong and all we have to rely on are people's beliefs, fine. And further, that these beliefs should not be subject to reflection outside of what the law says, I don't see how that view makes the law any more appealing than anything else. In fact, to me it seems that it should be less appealing because you are giving power to the state in matters where all actions it takes according to the law will be (in regards to questions of right and wrong) either arbitrary, capricious, indeterminate, or based on beliefs which may be either true or false depending on what people happen to believe at a given time absent any further reflection. How has the law changed if it is not subject to reflection outside its own mode of thinking? In addition, at least here in the US, you are giving that state power over people's lives while acknowledging that there is no way to know right or wrong other than opinion. If there is nothing but what people happen to believe and to enshrine in law to determine right and wrong than it seems to me that we should really be careful about how much power we give to the law.

Regards,
Chris

[Bill Jakola]

...and once you get told "get on it," with go do it. It is then the Policy makers job to alter the military objectives to fit an altering policy - again, soldiers can advise at to Ways and Means. - Witness Allenby who was given more to do with less forces and just did it, without complaint.

Proves my point. Powell was dead wrong and crippled US Foreign Policy as a result. He should have stuck to his pay grade.

The evidence would thus show most of the military men who seek to dabble in policy are misguided.

As far as I know, Clausewitz never said "extension." He did say "continuation" on two occasions. In 1827, on his 10 July Note, and on page 605.
....but the military serves policy, once it is in place. These actions "cost" so you see a modification and adaptation. If the military start formulating policy then to what end would they craft to policy? To be better served by war?
War is a very blunt instrument. It can only serve certain policies. To quote Ashkenazi "Do not ask me what to do. Tell what you wish done and I will tell you if it is possible."

Well this is a discussion worth having.

Colin Gray addresses the military role in policy formulation and execution in his book "Another Bloody Century", published in 2005, pg 363.

"The question, 'who controls whom' in the conduct of war, does not admit of a simple answer, except as a matter of principle. There is no dispute over the theoretical primacy of policy and policymaker in relation to the military instrument. In practice, though, different cultures and changing historical contexts can ignite, or re-ignite, ancient difficulties in civil-military relations. To cite just one recent example, in the summer of 2002 Eliot Cohen argued in his major study of Supreme Command that war is much too important to be left to the generals. 36 Political leaders need to assert themselves over the military conduct of war if they are to be certain that war will be waged as vigorously as policy requires."

Gray uses the analogy of a doctor patient relationship with the Army profession of arms represented by the medical profession and the political leadership as the patient.

"It is argued that just as a person with a brain tumour is obliged to trust his expert brain surgeon, so a society at war should be obliged to take the military advice of its military experts."

I see a very blurred distinction between doctor and patient roles and responsibilities, at least in practice. It seems to me, the profession, either medical or 'of arms', must dialogue with the patient or the political leaders in our case. Each must complement the other influencing policy, strategy, operations, and at time even tactics. However clearly these roles are spelled out in purely legalistic terms in practice the distinctions are far less recognizable. For example, political leaders are still ultimately responsible for setting policy and strategy but these are developed with the advice and often advocacy of the military.

The acts of setting and developing strategy are so intertwined and inseparable that the political and military leaders must do this as a combined team effort and not, as Bob Woodward's book "Obama's Wars" depict, military leaders making strategy irrespective of political input.

Is our profession of arms role to provide advocacy or merely advice?