Essay Topic

[garett]

I'm currently working on an essay for my History 1004: War In The Modern World class. The question is, "Is the professional soldier on the western industrial democracies model an anachronism?" This is based on Martin Van Creveld's theory that today's political system will fail and a new one will replace it where all wars will be fought by "terrorists, guerrillas, bandits,and robbers..." That may be an oversimplification of a complex topic on my part. So is today's professional soldier a thing of the past that will disappear soon enough, replaced by pseudo soldiers who are today generally thought of as criminals? My opinion is that it is possible but so would happen so far in the future that it is not possible to make a guesstimate on. Any opinions out there?

[Cree Warrior]

I'd say they don't call it the second oldest profession in history for nothing. The first being prostitution. Do you ever see a day when prostitutes would be obsolete? Never, as long as men have testosterone, and money there will always be prostitutes. Where there are prostitutes there are soldiers, kinda like the chicken and the egg arguement.
Other than that you're above my head. Damn historians trying to make everything complicated. You should contact John Keegan and see what he has to say. Its easier than one would think.

Sua Sponte

[King]

I think in our modern world of instant everything we may see more pseudo-soldiers, but actual armies will not become outdated. Not for a long while anyway.

[towhey]

Hi Garett,

You should definitely read "The Soldier and the State: The theory and politics of Civil-Military Relations" by Samuel P. Huntington, 1957, Harvard.

It is THE classical treatment on professionalism and the military.

First, it's important to define "professional." In my mind, there are two types of professional:

1. The "small p" professional is anyone who gets paid, does a good job, is dedicated, ethical, etc. This category includes pretty much any group in modern society that we call professionals today.

2. The "Large P" professional is someone who belongs to a profession, as it is strictly defined in a classical sense. See Huntington's book for the definition he uses.

In the latter category, some soldiers qualify as "Professionals". Not all do. By the classical definition, the Profession of Arms is that group of people whom society entrusts to manage violence for its benefit. In practical terms, members of the profession of arms would include combat arms officers, naval warfare officers, some airforce officers, etc.

Generally speaking, non-officers are not classically considered to be professionals because they don't meet the other criteria for education, etc. However, this may or not still be apropos in 2001.

Anyway, professionals serve society. Lawyers manage the administration of justice for the benefit of their client society. Physicians manage the health of society. Engineers, it could be argued protect society's interests during the construction of things. Professionals at arms, are exclusively entrusted by their society, to manage violence for the good of the people.

To that end, I think there will be professional soldiers for so long as there is an organized society. If there is no society, there cannot be, by definition, any professions.


Read Huntington -- if you're a warrior at heart, it will inspire you.

Cheers and good luck with your essay.

mark.towhey@towhey.com

[Barney]

What you may want to examine is the growing use of highly professional mercenaries such as Executive Outcomes. I saw an article recently (sorry, can't remember the name) that theorized that these groups would be ideal for highly political UN missions.

Having no national affiliation (on the macro level), they would be potentially more non-partisan than say the Russians in Kosovo. Were this theory to be put into place, then we could see more organizations providing peace-keeping or peace-making as a for-profit venture.

I doubt that this would make national armies obsolete, but the continued existence of these organizations does suggest some niche.

------------------
Death to the Purple One

[garett]

I passed it in on Friday and I referred to EO and their work in Sierra Leone. Basically their success compared to UN failure.

[towhey]

Mercenaries are paid soldiers... small "p" professionals only.

They are not true Professionals.

[Cole]

Mr. Towhey,
I've been reading Huntington's book and I have an issue with his classification of the officer corps as the only Professional area of the military.
Huntington writes in an era where the draft was still in place, and much of the enlisted ranks were "required" to serve.
In my view, with the advent of the all-volunteer army in the west, the definition of the military Professional has been altered. At the very LEAST, the Officer and the NCO Corps are composed of Professionals, as most NCO's and OR's meet Huntington's requirements of a Professional soldier.
I think the Professionalism of an army is determined by factors represented throughout the entire army, not just a segment of it. Just wondering what your thoughts on how the term "professional" applies to the modern military.
Cole

[towhey]

I admit, I'm something of a Huntingtonian when it comes to the profession of arms.

However, you're exactly right. Realize that Huntington wrote his book in 1957 and his frame of reference is largely American. The Canadian Forces are, and were, quite different -- although maybe not always in a good way.

The US Army is, and was, largely composed of short-time enlisted personnel at the junior rank levels who did their time and got out. It's still largely that way today. There was a career NCO corps which was largely decimated during the Vietnam war and slowly rebuilt in the late 70's, 80's and 90's. (Read: Guardians of the Republic, Ernest F. Fisher Jr., Ballantine 1994) And there was an officer corps comprised of reserverists (i.e. short-timers) and career officers.

Within this frame of reference, Huntington saw classical professionalism only within the officer corps.

However, the CF is different. All ranks in the CF tend to be lifers. This is on of the the greatest strengths of the CF, and one of its greatest weaknesses also. But, that's another story.

Suffice to say, that other than the entry-level educational requirement, CF NCO's meet most of the other criteria for Huntington-style professionalism. One major difference between officers and NCO's, of course, is the officers' commission. It seems like a technicality, but anyone who has ever been privileged to receive one -- and who has read it more than once -- tends to feel it is a real document.

The Canadian officer corps would be a far greater body if more officers read their commissioning scrolls more often. If you've never read one, I suggest you find one and give it a look -- then believe it for a minute. It'll do your heart proud.

Huntington defines a Professional (in part) as one whose primary duty is to Society, not merely to an employer. The Queen's Commission, in my mind, codifies that responsibility for officers.

Non-commissioned members are less clearly beholden to society -- generally, they are commanded by law to obey the orders of officers and their designates. However, you could make a compelling argument that the Geneva Convention, the Laws of War and other national laws clearly vest in every soldier -- at every rank -- a responsibility to do the right thing for society as a whole.

All of this to say that I agree -- 2001 is not 1957 and the CF is not the US Army. The small "p" professionalism of our soldiers and NCO's is beyond doubt. Some of them may also qualify for Huntington's definition of large "P" Professionalism as well.

One important point to consider, though is: so what? I've left the military and now work quite successfully in an industry that is desperate to be considered "Professional." But, I don't understand why. Being a Professional doesn't make me better or worse than anyone isn't. Just different. Some of the most respectable and wealthy people I know are not Professionals -- they are skilled tradesmen. So, what?