the future profession of arms

I n t e g r i t y - S e r v i c e - E x c e l l e n c e

The FutureProfession of Arms

Lt Gen (ret) Chris Miller


Work in progress; views my own

About “the Profession of Arms,” not professionalism

Not criticism of any Service, component, tribe, leader, hero, or person

Not just about the Air Force or Airmen, it’s about defense and defenders

About the military side of civ-mil relations—not the relationship per se

This is an “and” not “or” set of issues

Issues are in caricature more than nuance – but words do matter

If you’re not uncomfortable, I’ve failed to communicate

Disclaimers

Presenter

Presentation Notes

AF core values are Integrity First, Service Before Self, Excellence in all we do….they are inextricably linked. Integrity must be first but without excellence, there can be no integrity and service is futile to some degree. We have had 70 years of a spectacularly successful AF, and our joint force possesses great tactical capability—but without connecting our expertise with society’s needs, we can be excellent at the wrong things—even if we are excellent. The PoA is a complex phenomenon…thought about from the inside more than the outside, but based on deeply held ideas. Looking at “what we do” much more than “how we do it” or “how well we do it” – the profession vs professionalism You’ll see and hear me talk about new missions, new domains, new challenges – space as a domain for support of warfighting and now as a conflict domain in itself; cyber as the backbone of every single modern system, and as a domain through which societal health is attacked and defended; RPA and increasingly autonomous platforms as means of conducting traditional conflict without traditional markers of human involvement like valor and physical risk, but with equal or greater ethical dimensions. None of these new things makes the old things go away. Hand-to-hand combat, air-to-air combat, fleet battles, artillery bombardments all still exist and “soldiering” in the broadest sense will not go away until the end of humanity. The question at hand is how we blend old and new and accomplish the same ends—achieve the same effects—for the society we defend…and that fundamentally affects how we think about ourselves as members of what we’ve historically called the “profession of arms” The working goals of this effort are to: 1) add clarity to our articulated understanding of the nature, competence and composition of the profession – i.e. the military side of the civil-military relations discussion, and thereby 2) nudge the default expert and deeply instinctive popular concepts of the “Profession of Arms” to align more accurately with current and future reality—enhancing excellence in thought, preparation and action.


The EvolvingProfession of Arms

• The phrase “Profession of Arms” is common--but its real meaning is increasingly unclear

• American views on the idea of a Profession of Arms were strongly shaped by Samuel Huntington, less so by Morris Janowitz, Charles Moskos and others, a half-century ago

• Recent PoA scholarship has focused on civ-mil relations and competing models for civ-mil decision-making and civilian control, rather than “identity” – with exception of the US Army

• Decades of technological, organizational, societal, geopolitical change have fundamentally reshaped demands on the profession, yet. . .

. . .the way the PoA is commonly conceived--from outside or inside—has changed little.

3


“The distinguishing characteristics of a profession as a special type of vocation are its expertise, responsibility, and corporateness…a distinct sphere of military competence does exist which is common to all, or almost all, officers and which distinguishes them from all, or almost all, civilians... perhaps best summed up [as] ‘the management of violence.’ The function of a military force is successful armed combat.”

- Samuel P. Huntington

“The bearing of arms among men for the purpose of fighting other men is found as far back as we can see. It has become at some times and in some places a calling resembling the priesthood in its dedication. It has never ceased to display a strong element of the vocational. . .. . .The function of the profession of arms is the ordered application of force in the resolution of a social problem.”

- Lt.-Gen Sir John Winthrop Hackett

Points of Departure


Newton’s 1st Law

Presenter

Presentation Notes

A body at rest will remain at rest, and a body in motion will continue in motion, unless acted on by an outside force. We have had no national disasters of sufficient magnitude to test and move our comfortable, Huntingtonian understanding of the profession as “fundamentally about the management of violence”


The power of language

“Language, like physical terrain, is patterned. It has repeating features: the conceptual equivalent of crests and draws, streams and roads that routinely channel thought in certain directions. In tactical scenarios, you get sucked in by the easy terrain. In strategic scenarios, you get seduced by linguistic habits. . .This is why, with Iraq, analysts have tended to ask second-order questions about ideology and war planning, but stop short of first-order questions, such as why we believed that war is a tool.”

- Tim Feist


Language we use


Historical lexicon

Presenter

Presentation Notes

Let’s talk about desired effect for the US profession that is generally thought to have come into being after the Civil War, due to the efforts of Emory Upton and later Elihu Root. It’s the POA that Lt Gen Sir John Winthrop Hackett talks about…a very traditional view. The mounted knight with sword and shield wasn’t a bad metaphor. The US Army of the late 1800s could establish a fort to defend a territory and for the citizens they protected, the entire “national security enterprise” consisted of their own resources, the local sheriff and posse if any, and the army. Clarity of purpose existed. Arms—tools capable of inflicting bodily harm—were the tools of the profession and proper use of those tools would achieve the desired effect, which was prevention of physical harm or loss of property by those protected.


Contemporary lexicon

Presenter

Presentation Notes

We could talk at length about how we conceive conflict in today’s world, but as Tim Feith recently pointed out, there is a prevailing “military monism” that places conflict in a spectrum from lower intensity to higher intensity, but inherently makes all kinds of conflict consistent in character. As Clausewitz said,


Contemporary lexicon


How we think


21st Century Challenges Political Cultural TechnicalOperationalOrganizational

Why does this matter?

Presenter

Presentation Notes

National security strategy has been shaped and hampered by outdated and unexamined assumptions – as has our organization for it Americans will fight in physical and virtual domains and the only effects which matter are no longer dependent on either management or infliction of violence The US military services were formed, tested, hardened and defined by violence conducted by identifiable groups for tangible objectives and in a low-fidelity, low-velocity information environment The phrase “Profession of Arms” is common--but its real meaning is increasingly unclear American views on the idea of a Profession of Arms were strongly shaped by Samuel Huntington, less so by Morris Janowitz, Charles Moskos and others, a half-century ago Recent PoA scholarship has focused on civ-mil relations and competing models for civ-mil decision-making and civilian control, rather than “identity” Decades of technological, organizational, societal, geopolitical change have reshaped the profession, yet . . .the way the PoA is commonly conceived--from the outside or the inside—has changed little.


How we live


The Real Challenge


Expertise

Huntington- The direction, operation, and control (management) of a human organization whose primary function is the application of violence

Janowitz- The use of a constabulary force that is continuously prepared to act, committed to the minimum use of force, and seeks viable international relations rather than [military] victory

Hackett- The ordered application of force in the resolution of a social or political problem, under an unlimited liability

Feaver- The exercise of coercive power to defend the body politic

Snider- The application of lethal force – “the killing & dying business”


Responsibility

Huntington- The military security of society, to the exclusion of all other ends

Janowitz- The maintenance of viable international relations

Feaver- The protection of the polity from its enemies

Snider- The defense of the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people

Schadlow- The application of military capabilities to national policy aims


Corporateness

Huntington- The sense of organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart

Janowitz- The shared duty to society

Hackett- More or less exclusive group coherence

Snider- The moral motivation at the individual level to self-abnegation and self sacrifice, and a deep culture of trust


Peace

War

Membership In the Profession:Huntington


Army Definitions

Army Profession: A unique vocation of experts certified in the ethical design, generation, support, and application of landpower, serving under civilian authority and entrusted to defend the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people.

Army Professional: A Soldier or Army Civilian who meets the Army Profession’s certification criteria in character, competence, and commitment.

19


Peace

War

Membership In the Profession:Snider


USAF Definitions

Air Force Profession: A vocation comprised of experts in the design, generation, support and application of global vigilance, global reach and global power serving under civilian authority, entrusted to defend the Constitution and accountable to the American people.

Air Force Professional: A trusted servant to our Nation (Active Duty, Reserve, Guard or civilian) who demonstrates unquestionable competence, adheres to the highest ethical standards and is a steward of the future of the Air Force profession. Air Force professionals are distinguished by a willing commitment and loyalty to the Air Force Core Values.

21


Culture

“The culture of a group [is] a pattern of shared basic assumptionslearned by a group as it solved its problems of external adaptation and internal integration, which has worked well enough to be considered valid and, therefore, to be taught to new members as the correct way to perceive, think, and feel in relation to those problems. . .the concept of culture implies structural stability, depth, breadth, and patterning or integration.”

- Edgar H. Schein

Presenter

Presentation Notes

From Schein, p. 18: Culture by this definition tends toward patterning and integration. But a given group may not have the kind of learning experiences that allow it to evolve a culture in this sense. There may be major turnover in leaders or members, the mission or primary task may change, the underlying technology on which the group is built may evolve, or the group may split into subgroups that develop their own subcultures, leading to what Joanne Martin and her colleagues define as differentiated cultures and/or fragmented cultures (Martin 2002)


Culture is Powerful


Culture Change is Complex


Issues in Play

1. Responsibility and competence: management of violence

2. The pivotal role of emotion—etymology of a military ethos

3. Stability and permanence in organizations, ethos, decision-making

4. Evolution of military expertise

5. Acceleration of complexity

6. (Mis)alignment of missions, competence, ethos, understanding

7. Is the profession of arms outdated?

8. The profession of effects

9. Toward mastery of consequential (deadly?) competition


Key Questions

What do ongoing and observed changes in the Profession’s responsibility, corporateness and expertise imply for defining membership in the Profession of Arms?

Has “mastery of [potentially deadly] or [consequential] competition” effectively replaced “management of violence” as the core competence of the Profession of Arms?

Is “management of” better captured by “responsibility for…?”

Do changes in the nature of war and of the Profession of Arms necessitate a fundamental restructuring of American national security architecture?

Has “the Profession of Arms” been effectively supplanted, subverted or simply confused by “Service Professions?”

Is the entire concept of a “Profession of Arms” obsolete?


Backup Slides


Alternative Questions

If the “special competence” of the PoA has expanded beyond “management of violence” in combat with an enemy, how do we describe that new competence? Does each military Service “own” its own profession, and if so, how is the

idea of a “Profession of Arms” even relevant? Are traditional military virtues – courage, valor, sacrifice – relevant for

those who accomplish nontraditional missions, and if so, how? Put differently, “what is valor in cyber?” What distinguishes members of the Profession of Arms from those in

other bureaucracies who accomplish similar tasks? Who really is and is not part of the Profession of Arms?

30


Questions with unclear answers

• What is “valor” in cyberspace?• What distinguishes a GPS

contractor from a Space Ops Lieutenant or MSgt?

• Is defense of the software perimeter of the F-35 as important as defense of FOB Chapman in Afghanistan? Do we see them the same way?

• Are civilian DoD employees members of a Profession of Arms, or of something else?

• What expertise or ethos sustains our corporate identity?


“Modern War” at USMA

“Hmm…it seems like when the Air Force was formed in 1947, we were the Modern War Institute.”

- C1C Grant Van Hoomissen


Aspects of culture

Observed behavioral regularities: language, customs, traditions, rituals

Group norms: implicit standards and values

Espoused values: articulated publicly announced principles and values

Formal philosophy: broad policies and ideological principles guiding action

Rules of the game: implicit, unwritten rules for getting along

Climate: feeling that is conveyed in a group by interactions

Embedded Skills: special competencies displayed and passed on

Habits of thinking, mental models, linguistic paradigms: cognitive frames

Shared meanings: emergent understandings created during interactions

Root metaphors: ways groups characterize themselves; physical artifacts

Formal rituals and celebrations: ways the group celebrates key events


Culture is Powerful

the future profession of arms

Documents