Samuel Huntington, the military professions, and the Australian Army Profession
Author: Jordan Beavis
In Australia, as in the United States, Samuel P Huntington’s The Soldier and the State (1957) remains a key text in the study of the military professions. Its influence pervades the contemporary Australian Profession of Arms – in 2017 Major General Mick Ryan, then Commander Australian Defence College, argued that Huntington’s work remained ‘the best guide to identifying the enduring nature of the profession [of arms].’[1] In introducing the concept of the ‘Army Profession’ into Australia in September 2024, then-Chief of Army Lieutenant General Simon Stuart labelled Huntington’s theories, along with the work of General Sir John Hackett, as ‘foundational’, and a key source of his three conceptual pillars (jurisdiction, expertise, and self-regulation) of the Australian Army Profession.[2] In a subsequent address two months later, Stuart nuanced his position. Although he still regarded Huntington and Hackett as foundational, the context in which both penned their influential works needed to be acknowledged. Both were ‘products of their time, not prophets’, and while their views warranted respect and attention, the contemporary Army Profession must ‘adapt to the realities of today’s era, not adhere to the dogmas of the past’.[3]
Stuart was undoubtedly correct. For the Army Profession to have relevance as a concept and identity, it must embody the realities and context of modern Australia and its defence force. As a ‘foundational’ text, and one that was included in the 2025 Chief of Army Professional Study Guide as a mandatory reading for both Army Warrant Officer Class One (Tier A) and Major levels, there is a risk that some of the perspectives on military professionalism that Huntington offered in The Soldier and the State may be accepted uncritically by contemporary readers.[4] Indeed, such is this risk that in 2018, Aaron P Jackson, Ben Zweibelson, and William Simonds argued the The Soldier and the State needed to be removed from military reading lists altogether. In the six decades since its publication, these scholars contended that ‘extensive further research … has challenged both the historical and theoretical foundations of Huntington’s analysis’.[5]
Other such critiques are readily identifiable. In 2002, for example, James Burk suggested that some of Huntington’s views on military professionalism were ‘uncritical’.[6] In the US context, other scholars such as David R Segal and Karin De Angelis have further argued that, because of the military’s status as a volunteer force and the different operational demands that twenty-first century warfare have placed on its personnel, it was ‘time to update the foundation that Huntington and [Morris] Janowitz provided for the study of military professionalism.’[7] To noted scholar Suzanne C Nielson, Huntington’s contributions in The Soldier and the State were ‘productive but not perfect’, some of his ‘specific definitions … are debateable’, and in many places ‘the literature has moved beyond what Huntington offered’.[8]
Indeed, the relevance of The Soldier and the State to the Australian context is yet to be proven beyond doubt. Too often its perspective is merely presumed to be applicable, despite fundamental differences between Australian and US society, professional constructs, defence legislation, civil-military norms, military structures and foundations, and attitudes to defence.[9] It is notable that the publication of The Soldier and the State in 1957 was met with a degree of apathy in Australia – not until 1968 (11 years after its publication) was it first referenced or mentioned in the Australian Army Journal (AAJ), Army’s principal forum for professional debate.[10] This fact cannot be disregarded as mere oversight. The AAJ’s editor at the time, Colonel Eustace Keogh, was a voracious reader of military journals from around the world and the AAJ continuously included reprints of articles from US journals such as the Military Review through this period, the latter of which had published a review of The Soldier and the State in its December 1957 edition.[11] Huntington’s absence from the Australian Army’s intellectual landscape in the late 1950s and 1960s - likely due to doubts on its applicability to the Australian context - is difficult to dismiss.
Despite this, The Soldier and the State has, over time, come to exert significant and continued influence on western military professionalism, including in Australia. Yet it was a work written for a specific purpose and context. Huntington’s aim was to outline a civil-military relations framework to govern maintenance of a large, operationally ready, conscription-based, standing military force within a liberal democracy.[12] To prevent undue influence on national politics, Huntington argued that the US military had to be ‘professional’ and exist under the ‘objective control’ of civilian leadership. In return for an agreement to implicitly serve the state and its legitimate leadership, and to remain politically neutral, the military would reduce the likelihood of political influence on it and maintain significant professional autonomy.[13] It is from this underlying context and theory that Huntington’s model of the military profession was built, and why such emphasis was placed on the profession’s ‘responsibility’ to society, as well as its ‘corporateness’ (how well it regulates itself). This circumstance, paired with the use of Selective Service to maintain the US Armed Forces’ ‘prolonged peacetime mobilisation’,[14] had significant ramifications on who Huntington viewed as able to claim the status of military professional.
Huntington’s perspectives on military professionalism are therefore foundational, but outdated when it comes to debating aspects of the contemporary Australian Army Profession. This is readily apparent when we consider his conception of the expertise of the military professional, and the military profession’s boundaries. Building on the work of political scientist Harold Lasswell,[15] Huntington defined the particular expertise of the military professional as being the ‘management of violence on sea, on land, and in the air’, with responsibility extended to organising, equipping, planning, and directing the operations of armed forces in and out of combat.[16] Huntington further argued that to be a military professional was to be a full-time officer involved in the ‘management of violence’, a formulation which excluded from its ranks many of the traditional enablers of military action, such as logisticians, doctors, and technical specialists.[17] Huntington’s views have left a lasting legacy, [18] but his statement concerning the boundary of the military profession has been continuously challenged since. In 1960, Morris Janowitz's The Professional Soldier defined the military professional as an ‘expert in war-making and in the organized use of violence’.[19] However, he acknowledged that the military increasingly incorporated a wide variety of technical expertise that may not have a direct combat function; therefore, the military profession could include a range of officers whose expertise lay adjacent to or beyond the management of violence (i.e. medical, legal, education officers).[20]
Since the 1960s, perspectives on military professionalism have, however, undergone continued evolution due to social transformations, technological developments, geopolitical changes, the evolving role of militaries, and the ever-changing character of war. Militaries have increasingly been given (or adopted) a range of tasks that sit outside of their traditional focus on the ‘management of violence’, including peacekeeping (or the management of peace), nation-building, domestic or foreign disaster assistance and recovery, and more recently, cyber operations. Further, the military’s assumption of these roles has been associated with an increase in highly bureaucratised tasks in headquarters environments such as public affairs management, procurement, or policy analysis. Over time, alternative definitions have been developed to help articulate other areas of unique expertise within the military profession, including the ‘management of defense’, the ‘management of peace’ (post-Cold War), and the ‘management of effects’ (albeit these statements are problematic for their potential to obfuscate the military’s core purpose to apply state-sanctioned violence).[21] Descriptions of professional military expertise contained within military doctrinal publications usually strip such obfuscations away. For example, one 2013 US Joint doctrine publication labelled military professionals as ‘experts in the conduct of war’, while the Australian Defence Force (ADF) capstone doctrine identifies them as people ‘practiced in the ethical application and exercise of lethal force to defend the rights and interests of the nation.’[22] Many other definitional statements exist, including those used by the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF) or the US Army.[23] Regardless of some variations in the terminology used, they all demonstrate that western militaries have moved beyond a focus on the ‘management of violence’ offered by Huntington, to more nuanced formulations that represent the wide range of tasks modern militaries are expected to undertake, across the spectrums of competition, crisis and conflict.
This progression acknowledges that militaries have come to include a range of personnel whose principal role does not involve participation in combat – such as medical personnel, education officers, legal officers, aviation or technical specialists, and chaplains – but who provide essential inputs to capability and are essential to the work of the entire profession. This, combined with the reorientation of western militaries from mass forces to smaller, highly trained, volunteer long-service organisations of the post-Cold War era, has seen the extension of the label of ‘military professional’ to individuals outside of Huntington’s exclusive group. The evolving terminology acknowledges that, in many western armies, the enlisted soldier can match the officer in their commitment to their occupation, in their skills, can adhere to the same degree of corporateness or regulation as the officer cohort,[24] and frequently hold advanced degrees or other professional qualifications. Like the CAF and US Army, ADF doctrine clearly articulates that all military members have a place in the military profession. It proclaims that, ‘[r]egardless of how ADF personnel serve—as full-time, part-time, conscript or professional—all are members of the profession of arms with a non-negotiable obligation to adhere to its standards and practices’.[25] Such statements denote that global militaries, and the ADF in particular, have moved-on from an exclusive bounding of the military profession to a more inclusive one, thereby acknowledging the critical role that personnel of all ranks, specialities, and corps have within the ADF’s integrated force.[26]
Huntington’s The Soldier and the State remains foundational to the study of the military professions if only, as Neilsen argues, because his ‘framing of the issues … remains an essential foundation on which evolving understandings rest’.[27] In 2026, a sole reliance on Huntington as the arbiter of the military profession in ongoing professional debates is just not enough.
Endnotes
[1] Mick Ryan, ‘Mastering the Profession of Arms, Part I: The Enduring Nature’, War on the Rocks, 8 February 2017, https://warontherocks.com/mastering-the-profession-of-arms-part-i-the-e…
[2] Simon Stuart, ‘The Human Face of Battle and the State of the Army Profession’, speech, Chief of Army Symposium, Melbourne, 12 September 2024, transcript available at: https://www.army.gov.au/news-and-events/speeches-and-transcripts/2024-09-12/chief-army-symposium-keynote-speech-human-face-battle-state-army-profession
[3] Simon Stuart, ‘The Challenges to the Australian Army Profession’, speech, National Security College, Australian National University, Canberra, 25 November 2024, transcript available at: https://www.army.gov.au/news-and-events/speeches-and-transcripts/2024-11-25/challenges-australian-army-profession
[4] Throughout The Soldier and the State, Huntington avoids use of the term ‘profession of arms’ unless in the form of a direct quote from a source. His focus is continually on ‘the military profession’. See Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (Belknap Press, 1957).
[5] While Jackson et. al.’s argument was primarily made in relation to Huntington’s theories on civil-military relations, they can equally apply to his model of military professionalism. See Aaron P. Jackson, Ben Zweibelson and William Simonds, ‘Intellectual spring cleaning: it’s time for a military “Do Not Read” list; and some sources that should be on that list’, Defence Studies 18, no. 2 (2018): 138. A version of this article was republished with the 2025 Chief of Army Professional Study Guide.
[6] James Burk, ‘Expertise, Jurisdiction, and Legitimacy of the Military Profession’, in The Future of the Army Profession, ed. Lloyd J Matthews (McGraw-Hill Primis Custom Publishing, 2002), 26.
[7] David R. Segal and Karin De Angelis, ‘Changing Conceptions of the Miltiary as a Profession’, in American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, ed. Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider (John Hopkins University Press, 2009), 194.
[8] Suzanne C. Nielsen, review of The Soldier and the State by Samuel P. Huntington, International Affairs 88 no, 2 (2012): 370.
[9] As I have noted elsewhere, it cannot be assumed that international literature on the military profession is applicable to the Australian context. The nature of professions is such that they differ remarkably across national boundaries, even where they undertake identical tasks. See Jordan Beavis, ‘Introduction: Debating the Australian Army Profession’, Australian Army Journal XXI, no. 3 (2025): 6-7.
[10] Comparatively, Janowitz’s The Professional Soldier received a glowing review in August 1960 (the year of its publication) by AAJ editor Colonel Eustace Keogh. See E. G. Keogh, review of The Professional Soldier by Morris Janowitz, Australian Army Journal no. 135 (August 1960): 46-48.
[11] John K. Singlaub, review of The Soldier and the State by Samuel P. Huntington, Military Review XXXVII, no. 9 (1957): 112. Coincidently, this same edition featured an article republished from the March edition of the AAJ of that year. See A. Green, ‘Against an Army of Mercenaries’, Military Review XXXVII, no. 9 (1957): 96-103.
[12] In the year 1960, when a census was held in the United States, the US Armed Forces comprised approximately 2,477,000 personnel in a total population of 179,323,175, or approximately 1.38% of total population. By comparison, the 1961 Australian census indicated a population of 10,548,267 and a total (volunteer) personnel strength of 84,022 (36,819 of which were part-time Citizen Force personnel), or 0.80%. As of 2024, ADF strength (of all SERCATs) comprised 89,786 out of a total population of 27,376,579, or 0.33%. See: Department of Defense, Annual Report of the Secretary of Defense (Government Printing Office, 1961); 1960 Census of Population: Advance Reports – General Population Characteristics (US. Department of Commerce, 31 March 1961); K. M. Archer, Official Year Book of the Commonwealth of Australia: No. 48-1962 (Commonwealth Government Printer, 1962); ‘Population clock and pyramid’, Australian Bureau of Statistics, https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/people/population/population-clock-pyramid [Accessed 29 June 2026]; Department of Defence, Defence Annual Report 2023-24 (Department of Defence, 2024), available at https://www.transparency.gov.au/publications/defence/department-of-defence/department-of-defence-annual-report-2023-24 [Accessed 29 June 2026].
[13] For an excellent summation of The Soldier and the State, see Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider, ‘Introduction’, in American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, ed. Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider (John Hopkins University Press, 2009), 1-10.
[14] Richard K. Betts, ‘Are Civil-Military Relations Still a Problem?’, in American Civil-Military Relations: The Soldier and the State in a New Era, ed. Suzanne C. Nielsen and Don M. Snider (John Hopkins University Press, 2009), 12.
[15] See Harold D. Lasswell, ‘The Garrison State’, American Journal of Sociology 46, no. 4 (1941): 455, 457-58; Harold D. Lasswell and Myres S. McDougal, ‘Legal Education and Public Policy: Professional Training in the Public Interest’, The Yale Law Journal 52, no. 2 (Mar. 1943): 208.
[16] Huntington, The Soldier and the State, 11-12.
[17] Huntington also uses gendered language throughout The Soldier and the State, describing the military professional as ‘he’ and a ‘professional man’. With LTGEN Susan Coyle now Australia’s first female Chief of Army, the need to disregard Huntington’s view on this is so obvious as to not require any significant discourse or inclusion in this series.
[18] See, for example, P. J. Norton, Report of the Regular Officer Development Committee (Australian Army, 1978).
[19] Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (Free Press, 2017), 15, 175.
[20] Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier: A Social and Political Portrait (Free Press, 2017), 15, 175.
[21] Burk, ‘Expertise, Jurisdiction, and Legitimacy’, 29-30. On the need to avoid obfuscating core roles of the Australian Army Profession, see Chris Smith, ‘Keynote Presentation’, Chief of Army History Conference, Parliament House, Canberra, 19 November 2025, presentation available at https://cove.army.gov.au/article/chief-army-history-conference-2025; Benjamin Gray, ‘The Curious Rise of Military Bullshit’, The Cove, 8 July 2026, https://cove.army.gov.au/article/curious-rise-military-bullshit.
[22] JP 1 Doctrine for the Armed Forces of the United States (Joint Chiefs of Staff, 2017), B-1; ADF-C-0 Australian Military Power, 2nd ed (Australian Defence Force, 2024), 69.
[23] Army Regulation 600-100 – Army Profession and Leadership Policy (Department of the Army, 27 April 2025); Fighting Spirit: The Profession of Arms in Canada (Canadian Defence Academy, 2024).
[24] See, for example, Anthony King’s commentary on the professionalism and infantry soldiers: King, The Combat Soldier, 221.
[25] Australian Military Power, 70.
[26] For the place of Army’s reserve soldiers in the Army Profession, see Jordan Beavis, ‘State of the Army Profession – A Reserve Infantry Perspective’, Australian Army Journal 22, no. 1 (2026): 174-189
[27] Nielsen, review of The Soldier and the State, 370.
