As we enter the second decade of the 21st Century, it is important to pause and reflect on the Army’s role as an institution over the last ten years of conflict. While discussion about the profession of arms often takes place at the personal or small unit level, there is a movement afoot to take a larger, more holistic approach to studying this vital topic. Indeed, it is becoming increasingly clear that the Army is embarking on a period of organizational introspection through its recent actions. Most recently, the Army’s Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) published a white paper on the profession of arms, and this seminal event comes on the heels of the 2010 announcement by the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Staff of the Army that the year 2011 will be named “The Year of the Professional Military Ethic.” Such organizational efforts to reflect on the profession of arms will undoubtedly rely on the opinions of the rank and file Soldiers who are charged with carrying out our nation’s military missions. With this in mind, the following essay outlines my opinion on what it means to be a member of this profession. Above all else, the profession of arms is built on an unsurpassed level of expertise in the field of combat, requires Soldiers to operate with a unique set of values, and has an inherent trust with the society that it serves.
To understand the role of the military profession, it is critical to understand its similarities with other professions in American society. The hallmark of a professional is an unsurpassed level of expertise in his or her field – and this constitutes one of the central tenants of the military profession. Much like doctors and lawyers render a unique, high-demand service to members of society, so too does the military professional provide society with a service that is highly unique: the ability to lead in combat. Moreover, attaining such a specialized skill - and indeed maintain it - is the product of years of training, education, and certification. Aside from the baseline criteria that an individual must meet, the military professional is expected to constantly and continuously immerse him or herself in the study of warfare. Simply stated, the pace with which the world and our adversaries change demands that the military professional adapt accordingly through an intense personal devotion to professional growth and education.
Possessing knowledge and expertise reflects the functional aspect to the military profession; however, an equally important component to what we do rests in our organizational ethos. Operating in accordance with a value system that places the interests of society ahead of our personal aspirations distinguishes the military profession from those in the rest of society. While personal benefit in terms of financial gain and promotion often lag behind civilian professions, it is the willingness to make the ultimate sacrifice in times of combat that truly distinguishes the profession of arms. Fighting on behalf of society and willingly laying one’s life down in the line of duty is the touchstone of a broader set of values that the military professional abides by in everything that he or she does.
In the post-Vietnam era, these values and the military’s professional ethic have become highly prized by American society – which is evident in every public opinion poll that assesses society’s trust in its public institutions. These values have been instrumental in forming a bond between society and the military that is inherently built on trust, and as a result, the military is free to pursue and implement those policies that allow it to succeed in its core competency of fighting and winning. By and large, society does not inject its wants, needs, or desires on the military because it trusts it as an organization to carry out the best interests of society. In those instances when society does force change, the military accepts the result and carries out its orders in accordance with the Constitution. This relationship and the trust that the military enjoys with the society it serves is arguably the most important aspect of the profession of arms, as the alternative is a military that operates only at the explicit instructions of others. Such a scenario would prove problematic under any circumstance, but would be particularly damaging in times of war.
In a recent edition of The New York Times, military correspondent Thom Shanker highlighted the efforts of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen and of incoming Army Chief of Staff General Martin Dempsey to invigorate the discussion of the profession of arms after ten years of continues conflict. This news should be welcomed by all members of the military, and indeed by the rest of society, as it will spur an organizational conversation on many fronts. Most importantly, it will focus intellectual energy on the central question of what it means to be a profession of arms. This discussion warrants serious time and consideration, and the issues to be raised in answering the aforementioned question will be numerous. In an effort to begin the discussion at a personal level, and in preparation for the conversations I will soon have with superiors, peers, and subordinates alike, I offer my view that above all else the profession of arms requires an unparalleled level of expertise in the business of warfare, demands an adherence to bedrock values that places the interests of society ahead of personal advancement, and functions with the trust of society that is critical to its ability to maintain proficiency in its mission to win our nation’s wars.

MAJ Kirby Dennis
Student, Command and General Staff School
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Fort Belvoir, VA

"The views expressed in this BLOG are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government"