The Virtues of the Profession of Arms

Nearing completion of my final tour in the US Navy, I'm struck by the disconnect between leadership (both military and civilian) and the young people that actually serve. “Lethality” and “Warrior Ethos” have become ubiquitous terms used by leaders in the modern military to refocus the armed services as a whole on its essential mission. A philosophy of sorts that defines both individual and collective expectation. After all, the central tenant of our profession is that we exist to inflict violence against our adversaries. The fact that leaders among the US  military use these buzz words, is an acknowledgment that they feel the military has lost track of that central focus.

However, I feel in execution these concepts are too broad for the individual and not expressive of the military culture as a whole. They also have the fault of representing one way communication from the leadership, rather than a sincere discussion of what it means to be within the military culture. Cultural change, if that’s the goal, can’t be delegated from the top. As Hurst observes, written dictates from above make “the classic mistake of assuming that a system of normative ethics describes the actual field of behavior.”

An alternative approach would be to identify what norms are already valued across the services and profession. Collectively, the military represents a culture set apart from civil society. We are a culture of choice though, rather than one of ethnicity or geography. Despite coming from a variety of backgrounds, the members of the military go through a variety of rituals that other members of our society did not or could not. Whereas American society is an individualistic culture, the American military is a collectivist culture. Christian et al make the argument that this cultural difference becomes engrained in the service members psyche to such an extent that it changes their perceptions and behavior long after they leave the military.

Though clearly not valued to the same degree by all individuals, I would make the argument that the military in general values the following as cultural norms:

• Loyalty: the emotional foundation for a profession that needs individual and collective devotion to causes greater than oneself.

  
  

• Self-control: the ability to control one’s emotions (fear, anger, .. etc.), use reason in the face of chaos and execute orders to fulfill mission objectives is the intellectual foundation of the profession. Mental discipline and self-control are the intellectual foundations of the profession.

  
  

• Competency: professional ability within our field that is necessary for our success and the success of the Navy. We are trained to a professional standard, evaluated on our ability to meet the standard, and constantly challenged to exceed the standard.

  
  

• Resilience: the ability to withstand discomfort, in some cases to have a healthy distain for comfort, is a universal expectation in the Navy, as in all services. Physical fitness is a part of this, but more important is the ability to overcome physical hardship.

These are the virtues of military service, the expression of what we as service members consider valuable personal traits. Perhaps this doesn’t represent the complete list; the Venn diagram between the Marine Corps, Navy, Air Force, Army, …etc. may have more overlap. However, I feel that these certainly include the ones that can cross the boundaries of service and specialty. I also feel that the majority of the military believes in the above and values them, even if in instinct, rather than an intentional decision.

Does it matter what one very old warrant officer thinks? Not really, but its my blog, so this is my rant…

References:

Christian, J. Strivers, J. And Sammons. (2009). Living and Surviving in Harm’s Way: A Psychological Treatment for Pre- and Post- Deployment of Military Personnel. (S. Freeman, Ed.). Taylor and Francis Group.

Hurst, G. (1990). Death, Honor and Loyalty: The Bushido Ideal. Philosophy East and West, 40(4), 511-527.