# Military Professionalism



## used-to-be-EGS (7 Feb 2005)

This might be a bit of touchy subject, but I'm taking a class on Military Professionalism, and it seems that many educated individuals feel that officers are professional, and NCM's are not.  Now, taken at the higher rank/responsibility levels, such as LCol and above, this may be so, but in the case of many professionals, they feel that the commission alone is suffice to make an officer a professional versus say, a Cpl, Sgt or CWO.  I personally, am having a hard time wrapping my teeth around this concept, and was just wondering if there might be some other points-of-view on this subject.


----------



## P Kaye (7 Feb 2005)

Very good question.  The question really is, what do you mean by "professional" ?
As a noun, the dictionary has three entries:

1.  A person following a profession, especially a learned profession. 
2.  One who earns a living in a given or implied occupation: hired a professional to decorate the house. 
3.  A skilled practitioner; an expert. 

The bias that says that Doctors and Lawyers are "professionals" and that truck drivers (for example) are not "professionals" comes from definition 1.  But it can take a heck of a lot of training to operate a huge truck safely, I would think.  Similarly, most soldiers (officers AND NCMs) receive a lot of training, and must do a lot of "learning".

I did a degree in Engineering, and this was always a hot debate... do engineers get to count themselves among doctors and lawyers as "professionals"?

I prefer definition 3.  A "professional" is somebody who is an expert in something.  A lawyer is a professional practitioner of law, a physician is a professional practitioner of medicine, a plumber is a professional practitioner of plumbing, and a soldier is a professional practitioner of whatever is his trade.  If you consider an airline pilot a professional, then you have to consider a military pilot a professional.  If you consider a civilian engineering technician a professional, then you have a to consider a weapons tech a professional.

I always liked the phrase "the profession of arms".  So, I personally think whether one is an officer or NCM is irrelevant to his/her status as a "professional".

I also happen to think that the officer/NCM distinction may be an outdated distinction that has survived.  We don't have a society of "classes" anymore... why should those of us soldiers with a university degree have special status among soldiers??  Shouldn't our training and education as soldiers make that distinction??


----------



## Brad Sallows (7 Feb 2005)

Two of the criteria for "professional" I never leave off the list are:

1) Self-regulating body.

2) Serves society and places society's interests paramount.

All soldiers, irrespective of commissioned/non-commissioned meet these.  Many other so-called professionals have abdicated professionalism; for example, professions which have become wholly or mostly unionized may have explicit or implied codes of conduct which place the interests of the union paramount, while others have subverted the purpose of their professional colleges to protect the membership rather than society.


----------



## Chief Clerk (8 Feb 2005)

Professionalism cannot be bought (degree)

I only know (not having a degree) that Education can be bought but years of experience cannot.

Your question is age old - pitting NCM against Officer with many feeling that because the Officer has the degree they are more professional.  Does a degree in History make a cmbt arms officer more professional in what he or she does on a daily basis?  Not sure if that late night paper on Napoleon or the various skills  he or she may have learned in Univ may help them keep soldiers alive on the battlefield?  We can debate this for days upon days - All I know is that at the end of each day we must ask did I do everything today to the best of my "given" abilities, did I help my fellow soldier get a bit further ahead in his/her life, did I help my superior get our team ahead in achieving "our" goals?  If you can answer yes to any of these questions, then at least in my mind you have defined professional with or without a degree.

P.S.  If Professionalism was based upon Educated (Degree) pers - I guess we would have a handfull of officers leading a smaller handfull of NCMs playing RISK in a parking lot someplace.  Its too bad people relate education with  professionalism.  As far as LCols go, (having more responsibility, etc) and having worked in more HQs than I can care to remember  - I dare say GM or FORD CEOs have more people under them and have more worries than some of our LCols will ever have.  So I am not sure if SOME or our LCols, when not at war,  really have "major" daily responsibilities.


----------



## Michael OLeary (8 Feb 2005)

profession
proessional
professionalism

This is a subject that is more in the area of semantics and requires comparison of contexts of original use with current usage. 

In the historic sense, officers were considered "professionals" because of the learning they were expected to have developed through their upper-class educational systems and the knowledge they were expected to maintain to work in military-political sphere (think Victorian era). NCOs, on the other hand, not having defined educational requirements on joining, and only expected to know what the Army told them to know, were equated with tradesmen, and therefore were not considered professionals.

I doubt that many would uphold such distinctions now, which, frankly, makes the whole point irrelevant.

Current usage now leans more towards the effective and efficient application of learned skills and knowlege, which equally applies to officers and NCOs within their respective spheres of influence and responsibility. Similarly, we uphold soldiers as "professionals" not only throgh their specific skills, but also within the bounds of their general character, ethics and ability to set the example (among other traits of course).

Using the word in any sense to establish a sense of separation between officers and NCOs in the current era is poor usage. Modern post-secondary education does not establish the distinction it might have a hunded years ago, and, as noted, education no longer carries that sense of automatically qualifying oneself to be labelled a professional.


----------



## pbi (8 Feb 2005)

IMHO what matters is not what the dictionary, or common usage, defines as "professionalism" but rather the definition that we accept in the Canadian Military. If you read "_Duty with Honour_", the keystone CF book that lays out our ethos, raison d'etre, relationship with civil government, etc. you will see military professionalism very clearly defined.

The definition is strongly rooted in the definition used to describe civil professions. And no, a truck driver is NOT a "professional", although in common usage we abuse the term to death (we even have "Professional" shoe polish....). It has some variations due to the uniqueness of military service, foremost among these being the concept of unlimited liability, but the remainder of the parameters could apply equally well to medicine, law, engineering, the clergy, the executive level of the civil service, etc.

Our current position is that Officers and WO/NCOs, both Regular and Primary Reserve, meet the criteria to be considered as professionals. Not all armies take this point of view, and a number of civilians would question if military service can be considered a profession at all. Be that as it may, as far as our Army is concerned, we have a clear definition of ourselves as professionals.

I recommend reading _Duty With Honour_-it is a fairly short read but quite well done.

Cheers


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

Interesting read on the RMC producing officers as professionals in the "profession of arms".

http://www.rmc.ca/boardgov/reports/withers/06_developingofficer_e.html

"The situation of the military profession is analogous to that of the medical or legal professions. Potential candidates must, in the first instance, be accredited by the profession's governing body. In the case of the Canadian military this formal accreditation occurs when the Queen's Commission is bestowed upon an officer. At this first stage of the officer's professional development they must possess a certain body of professionally relevant knowledge, a keen understanding of the corporate nature of their profession and a thorough awareness of the social responsibilities it entails."


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> Interesting read on the RMC producing officers as professionals in the "profession of arms".
> 
> http://www.rmc.ca/boardgov/reports/withers/06_developingofficer_e.html
> 
> "The situation of the military profession is analogous to that of the medical or legal professions. Potential candidates must, in the first instance, be accredited by the profession's governing body. In the case of the Canadian military this formal accreditation occurs when the Queen's Commission is bestowed upon an officer. At this first stage of the officer's professional development they must possess a certain body of professionally relevant knowledge, a keen understanding of the corporate nature of their profession and a thorough awareness of the social responsibilities it entails."



Not to be too critical, but your post seems to give the impression that only officers in the CF are professionals because they have been presented a commisioning scroll.  It is sort of derogatory towards the Soldiers of our Armed Forces, who should also be considered Professionals, by thier actions and beliefs in the performance of their duties.

GW


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

I agree.... I just cut-and-pasted that from the RMC website.
CWOs get commissions as well, but you're right, I don't think the commission should be taken as a sign of professional status... they gave me my commission before I had even completed one day of training.


----------



## pbi (9 Feb 2005)

P Kaye said:
			
		

> I agree.... I just cut-and-pasted that from the RMC website.
> CWOs get commissions as well, but you're right, I don't think the commission should be taken as a sign of professional status... they gave me my commission before I had even completed one day of training.



This presents an interesting question: if the commission is not a "sign of professional status", then what is it? CWOs, BTW, do not get commissions in our Army-they receive a warrant. If we accept the definition in _Duty With Honour _ (as I do) that NCO is a professional, then what is the "sign of professional status" of the NCO?

Cheers


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

>>   CWOs, BTW, do not get commissions ?

Really??   That's interesting.   I had a CWO as a course warrant once.   He was a stalwart guy and I had a lot of respect for him.   He told us that CWOs do get commissions, and then mentioned that he was bitter when his unit didn't give him his scroll in a frame...
He went on about how CWO is the only "commissioned" "NCM" rank (noting the oxymoron).
I'm suprised if he was making that up...

As for what a commission is for, if not a distinction of professional status, as I indicated in an earlier post, I think it may be an outdated relic of history that has survived because it is so deeply rooted in military culture.


----------



## George Wallace (9 Feb 2005)

I'd say that there was a confusion in 'terminology'.  He did not receive a 'Commission', but a 'Warrant', which I suppose he falsely related to a Commission.  We have Scrolls for many of our awards and sometimes they become incorrectly identified.

GW


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

The following document is very relevant to this discussion:

The Military as a Profession: An Examination
(Prepared for the Canadian Forces Leadership Institute)

http://www.cda-acd.forces.gc.ca/CFLI/engraph/research/pdf/15.pdf

Two interesting points in this paper worth highlighting:

1) Professionals see their task as a "calling", and not simply as an "occupation".  This certainly applies to the military profession.

2) "The ethic of a businessman is self-interest, while that of a soldier is self-sacrifice".  The idea here is that a "professional" is one who works in the service of society, not simply in the service of self-advancement or money-making (this concept applies to doctors and engineers, and certainly to soldiers).


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2005)

This was a very hot issue in the '60s (especially) in the US â â€œ there was something of a consensus that conscripts are not members of a military profession: that _privilege_ is reserved for 'regular' officers and NCOs in the British tradition and for regular officers, only, in the Franco-American tradition.   This was, very much, the thinking amongst many American officers and theorists (including Sam Huntington in _The Soldier and The State_, if my memory serves).

Some, especially in the British tradition, went even further, arguing that soldiers (officers and senior NCOs, alike) have a priest-like _vocation_ which sets them apart from other _professionals_, like doctors, lawyers and engineers.

We, Canadians, explicitly rejected that notion, *it seems to me*, when (in the early '70s?) we decided to _benchmark_ military salaries and, by implications, military _status_ with the civil service.   (I, by the way, was happy, indeed, grateful for the substantial pay raises which were _negotiated_ by militant civil service unions and _passed down_ to us soldiers.)


----------



## Infanteer (9 Feb 2005)

There are usually three ways of using the terms professional and profession in reference to the military:

*Professional* as opposed to *Conscript* or *Draftee*, in terms that a professional is a volunteer of an Armed Service.   In this sense, yes, we are all "Professional Soldiers/Sailors/Airmen" as we all volunteered to be here.

*Professional* as in belonging to the *profession of arms*, which points out that soldiering, like plumbing or dentistry, is a profession bound by a certain level of knowledge and expertise with specialized equipment and techniques - one does not simply "pick up" the tradecraft of a soldier.   In this sense, then yes, we are all Professionals.

The final use of the word *Professional* is a little more murky and debatable.   I think that the point we're debating here and the general conception of the Profession stems from Huntington's classic, The Soldier and the State.   Here is a defintion of Huntington's professionalism I gave from another thread:

_The military officer is first and foremost a member of his profession, a unique body within his country that possesses highly specialized characteristics.   As Huntington identified, the Military Officer's professional body is defined by its unique expertise, its responsibility, and its "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."   All the customs our military possesses such as the salute, the deference of higher rank, and total authority of command are built around the existence of this professionalism....   When one walks into a hospital, one can immediately determine the doctor as unique, part of his professional body.   When one sees a military officer, one shouldn't have to try and discern whether he is a true professional or a dressed up bureaucrat or a youth group leader.

The professional Officer is one dedicated to the "direction, operation, and control of violence on behalf of the state."_

Now, when Huntington defined the "Professional" in the 1950's, there was really no such thing as a "Professional Army", an all volunteer force; most nations had professional Officer Corps that led units full of "national service" or "draftee" soldiers, which were watched over by long-service NCO's (which Huntington termed more as Master Tradesmen then professionals).

Clearly, the situation is different now and I'll admit that I didn't fully buy the applicability of this outlook when I first read it and I still don't.   There is two arguments that come out of this statement.

1)   In modern, Western Army's where NCO and WO's are long service soldiers who add their experience to the institutional "databank", they take part in planning by being on Military Staffs, are generally getting educated to the same level as officers, and they have an active role alongside Officer's with the *"unique expertise, responsibility, and "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."* of the NCO Corps.   Thus I would most certainly say that NCO's in a modern Western Military are "Professionals" in all three senses of the term.

Would the Other Ranks constitute professionals by the fact that they (should) have been transformed through basic training, and further through a sophisticated trades training, into something unique in society?   Undoubtedly, the individual soldier has *"unique expertise, responsibility, and "organic unity and consciousness of themselves as a group apart...."* within a larger social context.   All though it is stretching the classical definition of the word, I think a strong argument could be made that Other Ranks are part of all three definitions of "Professional".

2)   The third model of the "Professional" designates full-time service as a necessary requirement, how does this apply to reservists?   Undoubtedly, our reservists are better then the "Professional" militaries of many countries, but in many respects, the reservist is an "Amateur".   In order to utilize Reservists, you have to "professionalize" them by putting them in a full-time service environment for six months before deployment.

However, what does this say with regards to full-time reservists, who do the exact same thing and hold the exact same responsibilities as their Regular Force brethren?   As well, differences in a Canadian context (at the tactical level at least) are largely limited to time dedicated to training - the skill sets and responsibilities for both Regulars and Reservists are the same, it is only the "training delta" that creates a difference.

A Dentist or a Lawyer would still be considered a member of their Profession if they only pulled teeth or litigated once or twice a week, so you could make a strong case that our Reservists are "Professional" in all three usages of the term as well.

(I see ROJ covered off some of my points while I was posting)


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

I'm not quite sure I see how benchmarking salaries and levels across the civil service (including the military) serves as a defacto rejection of professional status.
Some of the arguments for considering soldiers as professionals indeed apply to other occupations in the civil service as well.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Feb 2005)

We accepted quite detailed benchmarking by _occupations_ - for some reason a draughtsman sticks in my mind as one of the benchmarks.

Now, I would have no objection to a simple system of benchmarks which said, for example:

"¢	CDS ââ€°Â¤ upper range of deputy ministers; and

"¢	Private trained (TQ-3 or Gp 1 or whatever it is called now - ready for first posting to a battalion) ââ€°Â¥ than the _StatsCan_ LICO (Low Income Cut Off) for a family of four in most major Canadian cities; and

"¢	In the _upper middle_, Commander/Lieutenant Colonel = 1st level of civil service Executive.

That sort of benchmarking would deal with overall remunerations, only, and would not have offended me.   The much more detailed 'system' adopted (in the '70s) determined, for us, that some 'jobs' were more important or _worthy_ than others.   In my view that - the decision to pay to retain certain types of people, is, and must be a *military* decision - which we make, and justify within our own ranks, on good, capitalistic 'market' demands ... a concept with which, I think, most soldiers are familiar and, broadly, agree.   When the civil service decided that our trades, rather than our ranks, were to used as the basis for comparison (and confirmed Mr. Hellyer's description as the corporal as a _journeyman_) then, I believe, we abrogated our _*professional*_ responsibilities and, indeed, some of our professional status.


----------



## P Kaye (9 Feb 2005)

Okay, I see your point now, thanks for expanding.


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (9 Feb 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> profession
> proessional
> professionalism
> 
> ...


I agree with you, but this is an OPME, and this course uses such strong (yet outdated) opinions of people such as Huntington that it can influence younger members opinions.  Anyone with time in would most likely just disregard these opinions, but I have personally seen ROTP's read this literature and believe whole-heartedly that the day they get their commission, they will be a "professional" and the WO who has to babysit them, will not be.


----------



## pbi (9 Feb 2005)

So what's wrong with the definition in _Duty With Honour_? it seems to me to be quite well reasoned out, it conforms to the premises and thought processes in the rest of the publication, and it embraces the fundamentals of how most true professions (as opposed to trades such as plumbing, barbering and carpentry) are defined. It appears to me to answer some of the questions posed on this thread.

As I alluded to, I think we have tossed the word "professional" around in our society so much that we no longer have a clear conception of what it means. The conventional cultural understanding (or misunderstanding, take your pick) seems to be that any job that is performed on a full time basis and involves some skill that requires training is a "profession". By this token, almost everybody is a "professional" which IMHO is either just egalitarian rubbish or lazy thinking.

Cheers.


----------



## bossi (10 Feb 2005)

As an aside, I've always found it interesting (oh, what the heck ... FRUSTRATING) when it comes time to apply for a passport ... and  military officers are conspicuous by their absence from this Government of Canada list ... which I take to be an indication of the low social status accorded to the military by The Department Of Foreign Affaiirs and The Passport Office ... 

http://www.ppt.gc.ca/passports/get_guarantors_e.asp



> Eligible guarantors for Canadian residents
> Your guarantor must:
> 
> 1.  Be a Canadian citizen residing in Canada and must be accessible to the Passport Office for verification.
> ...


----------



## Infanteer (10 Feb 2005)

I got one passport guaranteed by an Officer - I remember it has to be a Reg Force officer though (it was the RSS Officer).  As well, all our Green Passports for our tour were signed by the Coy 2ic.


----------



## bossi (10 Feb 2005)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> I got one passport guaranteed by an Officer - I remember it has to be a Reg Force officer though (it was the RSS Officer).   As well, all our Green Passports for our tour were signed by the Coy 2ic.



Ack.  There's a little-known loophole whereby "an officer serving in an administrative position" can sign, however I'm addressing the larger issue whereby military officers are considered to be less professional than principals, postmasters, etc. (no insult intended to any of the professions recognised by the Passport Office, however ... it's insulting that commissioned military officers "are not worthy").


----------



## Michael OLeary (10 Feb 2005)

IIRC, at one time any officer could sign as a passport guarantor.


----------



## bossi (10 Feb 2005)

Michael OLeary said:
			
		

> IIRC, at one time any officer could sign as a passport guarantor.



Maybe once upon a time, but not today.  And, if you're standing in line with everybody else for a blue passport, it's a good idea to have a photocopy of the Passport Office's own rules - not every employee knows the one that pertains to CF officers as guarantors.


----------



## pbi (11 Feb 2005)

I think you will find that, even though it is not listed, they will accept "An Officer on Full Time Service in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces" as a guarantor. I stand to be corrected on this.

Cheers


----------



## BernDawg (11 Feb 2005)

Are regular officers not also "notaries" and wouldn't that allow them to sign passport apps as guarantors?  It seems to me that I read that in QR&O's once.


----------



## Dave Mount (12 Feb 2005)

As a Toronto Firefighter for almost 25 years, being in a profession doesn't make one professional.  This is I have noticed in the firehall and on the fireground.  
I have been in the CIC for 7 years and the same is true here.  Having an advanced education may make a person book smart but what about the average "Joe" that has been there done that with more t-shirts than you can count.  IMHO a person can be professional whatever their rank, job by their day to day actions in the course of their job.


----------



## pbi (12 Feb 2005)

Ferret Driver said:
			
		

> As a Toronto Firefighter for almost 25 years, being in a profession doesn't make one professional.   This is I have noticed in the firehall and on the fireground.



I have some (very limited) familiarity with the fire service in Canada and the US, both full-time and volunteer, and I tend to agree with you. Despite the amount of technical study and drill training that is required of firefighters, and the amount of "incident command" training done by fire officers, IMHO what is very badly needed is for fire officers to be given real leadership training as well, starting at the Lt/Capt level. I have heard of some terrible examples of behaviour by fire officers (at various ranks from Capt to DC or even Chief...) who quite obviously did not know what it meant to be a real leader, and let their white helmet go to their heads. Not to single out the fire service: I believe that the police service (including the RCMP) is in a similar or worse situation. In my dealings with various police officers (I use the word offcer in its military sense...) in various dom ops over the years, I am sometimes not generally too impressed. And yet we often hear that these two services are "just like" the millitary.

Cheers.


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Feb 2005)

Interesting sidenote...


I was just informed recently that Officers of the Canadian Forces are no longer able to act as Notary Publics...
As doctors etc are still considered professionals in the sense of acting as notary publics ...what happened to the status of Commissioned Officers....


Can any of our comissioned bretheren comment?


----------



## Michael OLeary (13 Feb 2005)

Steel Badger said:
			
		

> Can any of our comissioned bretheren comment?



See posted replies in this thread numbered 20 - 26.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Feb 2005)

Come on Badger, just cause its 0300 doesn't mean you can doze off......... :boring:....thats MY department...


----------



## Steel Badger (13 Feb 2005)

Monkey's right...I should sleep more on night shift.


----------



## Storm (13 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I think you will find that, even though it is not listed, they will accept "An Officer on Full Time Service in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces" as a guarantor. I stand to be corrected on this.
> 
> Cheers



From DAOD 7000-0:



> Subject to the conditions in applicable provincial and territorial laws (see DAOD 7000-1), a commissioned officer may administer an oath or take an affirmation or statutory declaration only for:
> 
> another member of the CF;
> 
> ...



The provincial laws are usually where the part about "an officer on full time service in..." comes into it. I'm not entirely sure if the above powers apply to what's needed for the passport, but as far as I can tell, officers are granted a degree of authority, though only with respect to someone associated with the military in some way.


----------



## Spr.Earl (13 Feb 2005)

Professionalism comes from ones training and using that training as a guide line but at the same time one must recognise ones limitations and be honoust about it and treat all with equal fairness with out one having to give up control but still being fare and honoust about ones limitations.

That is Professionalism.


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (21 Feb 2005)

Spr.Earl said:
			
		

> Professionalism comes from ones training and using that training as a guide line but at the same time one must recognise ones limitations and be honoust about it and treat all with equal fairness with out one having to give up control but still being fare and honoust about ones limitations.
> 
> That is Professionalism.


.......Then I guess a garbage man is a professional, so long as he does his job diligently, and to the best of his ability/training.........


----------



## Torlyn (21 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I think you will find that, even though it is not listed, they will accept "An Officer on Full Time Service in Her Majesty's Canadian Forces" as a guarantor. I stand to be corrected on this.



When I worked there, the only CF members we would accept as a guarantor would have to be the CO of the member's unit, or someone else high enough in the administrative chain.  The problem the PPT office has is being able to validate the officer in quesiton, as if your CO is currently posted in a hard-to-reach area, you won't get your passport until we've talked to them...  At least, that was the song at dance at training.  

T


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (21 Feb 2005)

There are two distinct classes of military professionals who fill the criteria for "Professionals" and they are the commissioned officers, and the senior NCO.  Little has changed since the Roman Legions in this respect, there are still two paths to professionalism, that of the much maligned 2nd Lt (once a Junior Tribune), who derives his status from his commission and prior education, and learns his trade as he rises in seniority.  The second body of professionals are what was once called the Centuriate, the senior NCO who have risen through long service and consistant excellence to positions of authority.  To demonstrate that this system is still in force in the Canadian Armed Forces, take a good  look at the chain of command.  I personally recall one memorable instance where our officers had performed dismally on the parade square on the rehearsal for an inspection by a Major General, with the result that the men were fallen out, and the Colonel turned the officers over to the RSM for the rest of the day.  A few thousand years ago, it would have been the Legate (senior commissioned officer), turning his Tribunes (junior commissioned officers) over to his Primus Pilium (First Spear, or senior Centurion, equivalent to RSM).  Then as now, the RSM is acknowledged as being of lower rank, but of higher professional standing than officers who are his superiors in rank.
     Just as with Doctors and Nurses, the gap between the required knowledge of the Officers and NCO's have both lessened, and changed.  The increasing technical sophistication of all trades, has made the specialized knowledge of an NCO equal in depth, although different in focus to that of the degree bearing officers.  As technology continues to advance, so will this trend.  Officers main focus is to lead, and apply the skills and force of their subordinates to accomplish the tasks set by their military superiors.  This does not mean they need to possess these skills to the same depth as their troops, they simply need to know how to employ them effectively.  The commissioned officers and senior NCO's are equal in professionalism, the difference is the focus.  No one is suggesting that this threatens the chain of command, it simply recognizes the day of the pig-ignorant pike pusher is long gone, and the soldiers of today are as much a professional as the officers who command them.


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (22 Feb 2005)

mainerjohnthomas said:
			
		

> There are two distinct classes of military professionals who fill the criteria for "Professionals" and they are the commissioned officers, and the senior NCO.   Little has changed since the Roman Legions in this respect, there are still two paths to professionalism, that of the much maligned 2nd Lt (once a Junior Tribune), who derives his status from his commission and prior education, and learns his trade as he rises in seniority.   The second body of professionals are what was once called the Centuriate, the senior NCO who have risen through long service and consistant excellence to positions of authority.   To demonstrate that this system is still in force in the Canadian Armed Forces, take a good   look at the chain of command.   I personally recall one memorable instance where our officers had performed dismally on the parade square on the rehearsal for an inspection by a Major General, with the result that the men were fallen out, and the Colonel turned the officers over to the RSM for the rest of the day.   A few thousand years ago, it would have been the Legate (senior commissioned officer), turning his Tribunes (junior commissioned officers) over to his Primus Pilium (First Spear, or senior Centurion, equivalent to RSM).   Then as now, the RSM is acknowledged as being of lower rank, but of higher professional standing than officers who are his superiors in rank.
> Just as with Doctors and Nurses, the gap between the required knowledge of the Officers and NCO's have both lessened, and changed.   The increasing technical sophistication of all trades, has made the specialized knowledge of an NCO equal in depth, although different in focus to that of the degree bearing officers.   As technology continues to advance, so will this trend.   Officers main focus is to lead, and apply the skills and force of their subordinates to accomplish the tasks set by their military superiors.   This does not mean they need to possess these skills to the same depth as their troops, they simply need to know how to employ them effectively.   The commissioned officers and senior NCO's are equal in professionalism, the difference is the focus.   No one is suggesting that this threatens the chain of command, it simply recognizes the day of the pig-ignorant pike pusher is long gone, and the soldiers of today are as much a professional as the officers who command them.


............don't know if I got all of that, but well said nonetheless


----------



## Torlyn (22 Feb 2005)

Sorry to jump in unrelated again, but I got the "official" from the PPT office, and the members that can sign are:

base commander, commanding officer, captin or above, personnel administrative officer, NDHQ director general, NDHQ directore, NDHQ career manager

I asked as to whether a Lieutenant (N) could, but they just blinked at me.   :  Oh, and they can only sign for military personel and their dependents.         Anyway, enough outta me.  

T


----------



## pbi (23 Feb 2005)

Torlyn: this makes sense to me, because as Adjutant of a battalion (a Captain's position), I signed tons of these things.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy (23 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> Torlyn: this makes sense to me, because as Adjutant of a battalion (a Captain's position), I signed tons of these things.



That was back in Roman times, right?

Dave


----------



## pbi (24 Feb 2005)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> That was back in Roman times, right?
> 
> Dave



Why you cheeky sod. I should have binned you on Phase IV. Damn my weakness and pity. If I could get out of this walker and untangle my catheter, I'd give you such a thrashing..... Oh-time for my pill.

Cheers


----------



## PPCLI Guy (24 Feb 2005)

pbi said:
			
		

> I should have binned you on Phase IV.



Do you ever wonder about the ones that "you let get away"?  The marginals that were allowed to pass?  It would be interesting to do a back bearing on successful soldiers today to see what their early course reports said - and also to track those who did well on initial trg and see how they turned out.

Dave


P.S.  I apologise for poking fun at you, "Venerable Elder".


----------



## pbi (24 Feb 2005)

> "Venerable Elder".


What? Are you suggesting I have a Sexually Transmitted Disease? Smart ass young pup.

Seriously, my guess is that while you'd find a few anomalies in digging through course reports (and of course we can all trot out various Great Captains of history who didn't do all that well in the Acadaemy) the great majority of folks would more or less follow the trajectory as demonstrated by their characters while undergoing DP1 training. Some will drop off, some will rise above, but in general I bet there would not be too many surprises.

Cheers.


----------



## bossi (24 Feb 2005)

Speaking of "Great Captains of History" (chuckle), thought this article might be somewhat/marginally appropriate to this discussion:

Studying the art of war
By Robert H. Scales (from the Washington Times)


From the Congress of Vienna in 1815 to the German invasion of France in 1914, the British Army maintained order from Egypt to Hong Kong with an Army that never exceeded 300,000. A "thin red line" of British infantry fought a succession of small wars against mostly tribal enemies, winning virtually all of them quickly. *The Achilles' heel of the Victorian military system was intellectual rather than physical.* The demands of defending the empire created an army too busy to learn. For an institution obsessed with active service, time away from campaigning was time wasted. Staff college attendance was considered bad form. Writing about one's profession gave evidence of a mind unengaged in the necessary business of fighting real wars against real enemies. In the officers' mess, polite conversation was spent on equine sport rather than the art of war. 

    The parallels between the British Army then and ours today are striking and disturbing. The American military has become so stretched that it has little time to devote to any activity other than repetitive deployments to Afghanistan, Iraq and elsewhere. The strains of overcommitment are evident, most disturbingly in the military's crumbling academic infrastructure. The Department of Defense is seeking ways to cut drastically the time soldiers spend in school. In World War II, 31 of the Army's 35 corps commanders taught at service schools. Today, the Army's staff college is so short of instructors that it has been forced to hire civilian contractors to do the bulk of the teaching. 

    After Vietnam, the Army sent 7,400 officers to fully funded graduate education. Today that figure is 396, half of whom are studying to join the weapons-buying community. The military school system remains an anachronism of 19th-century pedagogy that fails to make best use of the dismally limited time available to soldiers for learning. Many young officers have voted with their fingers. The most popular learning platforms among lieutenants and captains are self-generated Web sites such as companycommand.com rather than established institutions. 

    While the press of operations lessens opportunities to learn, experience in Iraq reinforces the belief that the need to learn has never been greater. Soldiers today can no longer just practice the science of killing in order to win. They must understand and be sensitive to alien cultures. They must be skilled in the art of peacekeeping and stability operations. They must be able to operate with coalition partners and work with governmental and non governmental institutions such as the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders. Today in Iraq and Afghanistan, junior officers and sergeants make critical life-and-death decisions that were the purview of colonels and generals in previous wars. Thus, in this new and unfamiliar era of conflict, the military must prepare soldiers to think critically and analytically much earlier in their careers. 

    Who is to blame for allowing the learning deficit within the military to grow so wide? The list of the guilty is long. Congress shares much of the blame. In the past it has had a "show me the money" attitude toward funding military education that required an immediate and demonstrable payback for any fully funded learning program. This policy tended to overstate the need for scientific degrees and minimize opportunities for officers to study culture and the art of war. 

    This administration is to blame for slighting professional education in an effort to free up the (too small) pool of available soldiers and Marines for deployment into combat. The services are to blame for failing to build progressive learning institutions and to recognize those who demonstrate exceptional intellectual ability. Before Vietnam, some of our best universities, such as Duke, Yale and Princeton, had vibrant defense-studies programs that gave future combat leaders the opportunity to learn from many great teachers of the art of war. For the most part those programs and teachers are gone, victims of an academic culture that somehow believes that ignoring the study of war will make wars go away. 

    While the British Army obsessed on fighting distant small wars, the Germans, under Helmuth von Moltke, developed a system of disciplined learning that rewarded brilliance and creative thought. During the opening battles of World War I, the Germans taught the British a lesson in blood: In war the intellectually gifted will win over well-practiced dullards every time. Just as the British failed to understand how to transition from small- to large-scale combat, perhaps we are facing a similar intellectual challenge transitioning from large to small wars. 

    One fact is clear, however. War is a thinking man's game and only those who take the time to study war are likely to fight it competently. Soldiers and Marines need time for reflection, time to learn, teach, research and write. In this new age of warfare we must do more to prepare soldiers to think as well as act. 
     
    Retired Maj. Gen. Robert H. Scales is the former commander of the Army War College.


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

We must continue to educate ourselves from all sources on our Profession.  Please make no mistake about it, it is a profession as much as medicine and law.  Only our Graduate courses are a little more dangerous.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Feb 2005)

Good post and article, but I do offer some observations.

The Prussians certainly led the way in terms of professionalizing their officers, but the British "lag" in that area can perhaps be ascribed to cultural reasons rather than being too busy fighing across the empire.   Even if he had the opportunity I doubt that the Victorian-era British officer put much stock in education or a sense of the "professional officer".   I believe that the attitude was "What had worked at Waterloo would certainly work in the future (officers as gentlemen first)".   The Prussians, on the other hand, had had a rather disastrous Napoleonic period (Jena in particular) and were searching for ways to improve.   It was only after the startling victories of the Prussians in 1870 that the British began to "professionalize" in earnest (albeit still behind the Prussians) and this still ran into class and cultural barriers.

Rather than exlusively looking at education I would perhaps examine how armies prepare for war in general.   Sometimes you can study for the wrong test.   The small British regular army in 1914 had not been designed to fight a continental war.   As Gen Scales points out it was geared for fighting across a wide empire.   The Germans had exclusively prepared for a continental war.   Education was a part of this but I am hesitant to ascribe it as the sole cause of any German victories (or defeats, they did fail to reach Paris by turning too soon at the Marne).   Perhaps similar examples can be found today.   I would say, however, that the British regulars (the "old contemptibles") did give the Germans some checks along the way in 1914 (based perhaps on their soldier skills and unit cohesion rather than anything else).   In addition, both the Germans and British armies suffered high casualties when conducing operations in the new environment.   All the German staff plannnig still resulted in dreadful battles of attrition at places such as Ypres and Verdun.

All that being said professionalization is undeniably the way to go for a modern army.   This must be combined, however, with mental agility and adaptability.   In addition, defeat and difficulties seem to lead to improvements, while victories lead to complacency.   I would also say, however, that sending officers on year long graduate studies during a war may not necessarily be the best policy.   I think that an army needs to be able to "coast" on its education during a war to some extent.

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I've added the quotation marks and premable to my remarks about Waterloo.  Upon reading I realized that my remarks could have been interpreted as proposing that only the upper class should be officers.


----------



## big bad john (24 Feb 2005)

You also have to take the attitudes of British society as a whole on also.  Being "swotty" or being studious was frown on by the landed classes at that time.  It really didn't change until after WWII.  When my Grandfather was commissioned in 1907 having a degree (unless you were in a technical field) would ensure that you weren't commissioned.


----------



## mainerjohnthomas (24 Feb 2005)

Prussia was a land power, and so was the Germany that it created.  England was a sea power.  The Royal Army was an institution that sold commissions as sinecures to the scions of the upper class.  There ineptitude gave us a long string of military blunders.  The Royal Navy had more rigorous academic requirements and standards for its officers, and advancement was more merit based.  The British professional noncommissioned officer was the backbone of its military power, the officer corps was its weakness.  The transformation of the army in the face of a real war against an equal opponent was both painful and costly.  Wellington during the peninsular campain had to create a trained and competant leadership through the sort of heavy handed tactics that would have occasioned his removal in times even a shade less desperate.  The first world war British had the same problem, a peacetime officer corps that were ill suited, in the main, for a war against a serious opponent.  The experience of the British fighting soldier, and the minority of officers who had educated themselves fighting the brush wars of empire, gave the British the stiffening to hold long enough to start to cut away the deadwood of their officer corps and its outdated thinking.  Too many soldiers died while this remedial education was happening.  The tempo of war has been accelerating constantly for centuries, the time the British took to get their act together in WW1 would have lost WW2.  Now it is even faster, and getting faster still.  Since Korea, war has been fought "as is".  You go with the equipment you had in peacetime, with the doctrine you had in peacetime, and if that won't win the war, you will not have time to change it. When the Canadian Armed Forces was forced to limit training to free up funds for deployment, it made my blood boil.  We don't have material superiority over potential opponents, it is only our training that allows us to compete and survive.  When we are given the choice to spend on training OR deployment, spend it on training, and if the govt objects, send over some MP's or DND bureaucrats to do the dying for a change.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (24 Feb 2005)

Mainer,

Good points on the differences between the RN and the army.  I believe that Wellington was actually an opponent of "professionalization" after "the war" as he believed in having officers who came from the ruling class.  I wholeheartedly agree that the British officers at the turn of the last century had to change in the face of the modern battlefield but I would say that they were not alone.

I agree that wars do have a "come as you are" nature today but I also believe that we must be ready to adapt our doctrine, organization and even equipment.  I ascribe the horrendous losses of the First World War to a failure to adapt to the new battlefield rather than different armies being more or less "professional."  The French had begun to professionalize and had quite a keen doctrine and equipment and clothing geared towards it except that it was suicide on the battlefield (they basically ascribed to a doctrine of offensive spirit over everything else).  Mass charges by men wearing bright uniforms had disastrous results.  Although I would agree that the Germans were the best prepared even they had horrendous losses.

We must remain prepared to throw out our notions of the battlefield and adapt to our situation. Today is not necessarliy 1914, but I would argue that Western forces today are finding themselves in battles/operations that they had not necessarily trained for ten years ago.  I realize that I am dragging this thread down a tangent and apologize (I seem to be making a habit of this).

Cheers,

2B

p.s. I would also like to see every deployment come with the appropriate additional funding to ensure that future deployments are a success.


----------



## PeterLT (27 Feb 2005)

IMHO, I think that comparing Soldiers to Dentists, Doctors and Lawyers is like insisting a bird must have a violin to be a bird. And again, IMHO an Officer who believes that NCOs are somehow an inferior class of being will, in time have this belief rectified in a dark and forboding place. An Officer must be a professional Soldier to make the decisions he (or she) must make and issue orders. The Officer must hand off and trust the NCO will carry them out and "make things happen" in a professional manner. One cannot be "professional" in any way without the other and so I tend to believe that the Profession of Arms is unique in itself and encompasses both halves of the equation to work. Both Officers and NCOs are their capacities professionals within of the Profession of Arms. 

Peter


----------



## big bad john (27 Feb 2005)

You obviously haven't read my other post in other threads.  When I compare us to other professions, I am talking about the profession of arms (all ranks to the uninformed), not simply those who carry a commission.


----------



## used-to-be-EGS (13 Mar 2005)

big bad john said:
			
		

> You obviously haven't read my other post in other threads.   When I compare us to other professions, I am talking about the profession of arms (all ranks to the uninformed), not simply those who carry a commission.


You might want to read the original thread, it is precisely about the difference in professionalism between the ranks and officers and how this is actually being taught as an OPME.


----------

