The Importance Of The Profession At Arms

A group of strong and honorable individuals that are professionals in the Profession of Arms protects the United States of America. We are professionals because we choose to dedicate our lives to our Nation and its people. All Army professionals meet the Army’s certification criteria of competence, character and commitment. The five essentials characteristics of the Army Profession are trust, military expertise, honorable service, esprit de corps and stewardship of the profession. By having these characteristics and practicing them in our daily lives, we have earned the trust of our leaders, peers, subordinates and the citizens of our nation.

Professionals from various fields work together to build a structurally sound foundation that cannot be shaken. This foundation is the cornerstone on which the Profession of Arms relies. The Army’s professional expertise are rallied in four branches: military-technical expertise, human development expertise, moral-ethical expertise and political-cultural expertise. They are broad areas that allow the Army to operate as a force.

Stewardship of the Army Profession is the last of the Five Essential Characteristics of the Army Profession, but in terms of importance, it is just as, if not more important than the other four. The United States Army’s ADRP-1, or Army Doctrinal Reference Publication 1, even defines stewardship as “the responsibility of Army professionals to ensure the profession maintains its five essential characteristics now and into the future”. Such importance is placed on this characteristic because Stewardship of the Army Profession is the one that ensures the other four are maintained. I sought out the definition of stewardship because despite having spent almost three and a half years and West Point, I was not entirely sure what the doctrine behind Stewardship was. In doing this, I felt like I was better prepared for both this paper and ensuring that the corrections I made were stewarding the profession. With this newly acquired knowledge, I set out to make my corrections.

As the Army transitions from the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan, the organization is well served to take a long look in the mirror. After ten plus years of deployments, our combat tested warriors are sure to possess more than enough valuable knowledge to reinforce and improve upon our status as a profession. A TRADOC published paper explains “to be a professional is to understand, embrace, and competently practice the expertise of the profession.” I believe the profession of arms exists and there are many components that reinforce this argument. Among these components, initial entry training and institutional learning, shared values, and a monopoly on our mission are three of the most important tenants. All Soldiers must graduate

While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.

The Army needs strong leaders and knowledgeable soldiers. “Effectiveness, rather than pure efficiency, is the key to the work of professionals.” (pg.2) Effectiveness is a simple concepts that explains how a human resource NCO will be proficient as an Army Professional.

In order to continue and maintain this prestigious Profession of Arms, we must first understand the essence of what it takes to earn this status, looking both at strengths and weaknesses within the Army. However, the author first states we must agree on the definitions of the Profession of Arms and the professional soldier, which are both inherently linked. The professional soldier or Army leader is responsible for maintaining the Profession of Arms through their leadership, skill, character and trust as a role model. In essence, the Profession

An Army White Paper: The Profession of Arms details an in-depth analysis into what it means for the Army to be a ‘Profession of Arms’ and what it means to be a ‘Professional Soldier’. It is not an authorative article nor is it directive, but more of an actual point of discussion. It all allows the reader to apply some critical thinking to the subject matter and to form their own assessment, as well as applying the role of a Human Resources Sergeant to the subject matter.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a summary of an Army white paper, the “Profession of Arms.” The U.S. Army should be “The Profession of Arms” and each soldier should be “The Professional Soldier.” (U.S. Army, 2010). It is important for “The Profession of Arms” to develop expertise, trust, development values, and service at the organizational level (U.S. Army, 2010) l. Also, it is crucial for “The Professional Soldier” to develop skill, trust, leadership, character, and duty at the individual level (U.S. Army, 2010). So, the “Profession of Arms” is comprised of experts and experienced soldiers who dedicate their lives to defend the U.S. Constitution and the American way of life (U.S. Army, 2010).

The role of the leader in this professional arms of the Army has developed since its formation that has continued to grow even beyond the officer corps with warrant officers, NCO’s, and civilians. Even though

A doctor, a lawyer, or maybe a nurse but no one would really consider a person in the military a professional let along a Human Resources Sergeant. After completing my reading of the Army White Paper, it really opened my eyes to how a leaders’ actions play so much of a role when be characterized as an effective leader. The Army White Paper covered some very influential topics such as balancing the roles of professional leaders and even the role of the Human Resource Sergeant’s role in the Profession of Arms.

The purpose of this document is to provide a standard for what the Army, as a profession of arms, should look like, in order to begin a discussion to see if the Army is achieving this standard. In doing so, the author defines the key attributes of a profession of arms, describes the Army’s professional culture, and discusses the Army Ethic.

What does it mean to be a profession? Before reading this article, I would think being a professional was about your military bearing, your attention to detail, accomplishing the mission, taking care of Soldiers, and having a positive attitude. I’ve worn this uniform for eight years and I always had an outlook on what a professional Soldier involved. After reading the article a professional Soldier almost was the exact thing I thought a professional would be. In addition, the article would also reference to a professional taking time to progress. Professionalism isn’t something that comes overnight and how to be a professional needs to be geared with developmental training.

The key attributes of the Army Profession are trust, honorable service, military expertise, stewardship of the profession, and esprit de corps; they distinguish and build up the Army as a military according to ADRP 1, The Army Profession. The difficulties of fighting, an impressive and dangerous adversary, in an unfriendly and uncertain environment, physical and mental weariness, detachment from friends and family, and unknown anxieties wear on even the most experienced Army professional; therefore esprit de corps is the most important.

Military Professionalism cannot be incontestably defined, unless it is phrased in terms of what it seeks to address: the relationship between the civilian and military spheres and the traditions and skills necessary to conduct effective exercises of power on behalf of the state. Thus, Military Professionalism may be defined as any combination of behaviors, traits, values, and skills which lead to an optimal outcome in these categories. Huntington and Janowitz differ insofar as they attempt to describe different methods by which Military Professionalism is arrived at, though their core metrics are similar insofar as they agree upon the existence of an optimal level of power for the military to possess in relation to the civilian government.