The U.S. Army Profession of Arms After a Decade of War

Introduction

The Pentagon released a one-page explanation of the Profession of Arms (POA) in 2011 that points out the "significant impacts" the preceding nine and a half years had on the "Army, its Soldiers, Families and Civilians" (Pentagon). This statement acknowledged that many of the impacts of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan are "well documented and are being addressed," but noted that "there remain, however, other consequences that we seek to understand." Within those consequences, the Pentagon wanted to "take a hard look" at how soldiers had changed as "individuals, as professionals and as a profession" (Pentagon).

The level of responsibility carried by today's Army soldiers is "like no other profession," owing to the fact that soldiers are entrusted to "apply lethal force ethically and only when necessary" — an extremely difficult task given the "chaotic and deadly machinations of war" (Pentagon). The support that the Army and its soldiers receive from the American people is described as "tremendous," and the Army is "forever grateful" and pledges never to take that support "for granted."

General Dempsey's 2010 Army White Paper on the Profession of Arms

General Martin E. Dempsey, Commanding General of the U.S. Army, writes in his 2010 White Paper that the document is designed to be a "starting point" for discussing the Profession of Arms. The document's mission is to build a deeper understanding of what the Profession of Arms truly means, asserting that it is time to "refresh and renew our understanding of our profession." The white paper acknowledges that certain events over the past decade have given military personnel reason for pause, and it frames those events as opportunities to evaluate the Army's ethical approach to conflict. The list of challenges includes: the Second Battle of Fallujah, Sadr City, Abu Ghraib (the prison where Muslim detainees were tortured), improvised explosive devices (IEDs), and more.

Part of the case for reassessment rests on a candid admission: "we have been so busy that we have not consistently thought through how these challenges affected the Army as a Profession of Arms" (White Paper, 1). Given the seemingly endless conflicts in Afghanistan (begun in 2001) and Iraq (begun in 2003), that busyness is understandable. Nevertheless, the white paper does not shy away from the reality that trust with the American people and civilian leaders "must be re-earned every day through living our Ethic, which incidentally, can't be found in any single document" (2).

The Army has been part of American life for 237 years; the first standing federal army was established in 1803. The white paper notes that the degree of professionalism has "waxed and waned over the years," and that the critical task now is to learn from "our history of post-conflict transitions" and to reflect on what it means to be a professional in the Profession of Arms (4).

Defining the Professional Soldier

According to the white paper, an American professional soldier is "an expert, a volunteer" who is certified in the Profession of Arms and who bonds with comrades through a "shared identity and culture of sacrifice and service to the nation and the Constitution." The professional soldier must adhere to "the highest ethical standards" and serve as "a steward of the future of the Army profession" (4). The white paper emphasizes that it is up to Army leaders — not the government — to establish a "professional identity and culture." Through adaptive training, self-assessment, and continuous learning and development, the professional soldier aspires to master "lethal expertise" while simultaneously upholding "the highest standards of character" (4).

The white paper groups the Army's professional expertise into four distinct fields. First, Military-Technical Expertise enables the Army to conduct tactical, operational, and strategic operations in both offensive and defensive postures. Second, Human Development Expertise allows the Army to "socialize, train, educate, and develop volunteers to become Soldiers," who then grow into leaders through education and mental and physical fitness. Third, Moral-Ethical Expertise addresses the moral dimension of combat power, requiring soldiers to remain current on "ethical culture and climates" and "institutional values." Fourth, Political-Cultural Expertise demands that Army soldiers operate professionally across national and cultural boundaries, maintaining sound civil-military relations and media-military relations.

Within Army culture, the white paper identifies three levels. The first consists of artifacts — all the "tangible phenomena that soldiers see, hear, and feel" in an Army unit. The second level encompasses espoused beliefs and values: when Army leaders fail to "walk the talk," soldiers become confused, leading to "dysfunctional and demoralizing behavior." The third and deepest level involves basic underlying assumptions — the point at which a solution to a recurring problem, once a hypothesis, "gradually comes to be treated over time as reality."

Conclusion

The candor of General Dempsey is welcome, because it is not a secret that the unending battlefields of Iraq and especially Afghanistan are wearing the American Armed Forces down. The death toll keeps growing in Afghanistan, and every day more insurgents cross into the country from Pakistan, willingly throwing themselves into battle. The American public needs a respite from these wars, and clearly those fighting them need one as well. In the meantime, the Army must remain strong, flexible, and ethical. As the Army reaches for a higher standard of professional expertise, the country must ensure that the families left behind at home are provided with all the services and support they require.