Whilst it may be a quest in futility, I am encouraged to discuss the role of the military in contemporary society with the intention to provide an insight into the profession for external observers and simply, to remind the rest of us of the onerous responsibility that we have undertaken.

A lot of confusion exists as to the meaning of the terms, profession, professional and professionalism. In the context of armed forces, the terms ‘military professionalism’, a ‘profession of arms’ and ‘professional soldier’ seem to baffle even the most astute of scholars. The most widely accepted theories on the subject have been put forward by historians, sociologists and ex-military servicemen.

One notable sociologist Samuel P Huntington asserts that military professionalism entails the function of three criteria; expertise, responsibility and corporateness.

Expertise, he describes as being confined to a particular field of knowledge. This expert knowledge is gained through prolonged education, tempered by experience. It should not be confused with a grade, skill or craft which is mastered, by learning an existing routine or technique without reference to previous experience. The historical base of professional knowledge separates the professional from the tradesman.

Responsibility includes being solely entrusted with performing a service essential to society, if and when it so demands; and secondly, conforming to a set of largely unwritten rules, norms and professional ethics.

Corporateness involves a feeling of organic unity as a group apart from other forms of associations in society. This sense of unity originates in the education, training, discipline, common bond of work and social responsibilities associated with the profession. The one criteria of professionalism which falls outside these categories is the requirement to be accepted as a truly professional body.

Others have described the profession of arms as the management of violence while the most reknown military writer on the subject, General Hackett views the military profession in the terms of its functions; that is, "the ordered application of force…in the resolution of a social problem".

The Military professional endures a prolonged period of training and acquires a skill which enables him to render a specialized service . This service, under normal circumstances, entails pacifying violent situations with the use of force. The management of a group of men so professionally trained, functionally specialised in the institutional application of force is generally in the hands of the military professional, hence "management of violence." It must be understood however, that the ultimate responsibility of the armed forces is to society, the constitution and the state.

In contemporary society, global efforts to prevent war and promote peace, have gradually shifted emphasis from the application of force in the traditional military sense, towards functions that require less use of force or none at all. Certainly, in the case of the Jamaica Defence Force (JDF), a lot of emphasis is placed on preparing for the Internal Security role while still maintaining the capability to carry out traditional military roles.

Armed Forces in general, are becoming more involved in the resolution of social and economic problems. Therefore the recent events leading to the temporary manning of the Correctional Institutions by JDF personnel should not come as a surprise but, rather one that is in-keeping with global trend. The nature of the profession might be changing, but what remains unchanged is our professional expertise.