This article emphasizes the moral side of striving to be a good officer. Moral responsibilities are singled out because, now more than ever, our society has lost sight of moral absolutes. Our universities and academies continue to develop an intellectual, physical, and professional candidate for a "good" officer, yet in the area of our moral foundation we show serious signs of decay.
In June of 1978, Alexander Solzhenitsyn delivered a harsh critique of the lifestyle of the West in a commencement at Harvard University. The 59-year-old Nobel Laureate, in words reminiscent of an Old Testament prophet, denounced not the Soviet system which we have been exposed to in numerous writings, but his new home, Western society. Since the speech was delivered by one of the foremost literary scholars and Russian dissidents of the day, many Americans, including the President, took serious note of the message.
Solzhenitsyn called his Harvard speech, "The World Demands from the U.S. a Spiritual Blaze." He stated that a decline in courage may be the most striking feature an outside observer notices in the West today. He noted that, in ancient times, a decline in courage pointed out the beginning of the end for a culture. The habitual well-being guaranteed by the state does not encourage the rigorous self-denial needed to defend one's country. He further pointed out that our legalistic system has blinded us to voluntary self-restraint for the moral good, because everything is defined in great detail by the law: "Whenever the tissue of life is woven of legalistic relationships, this creates an atmosphere of spiritual mediocrity that paralyzes man's noblest impulses."
He stressed that it will be impossible to bear up to the trials of this threatening century with nothing but the support of a legalistic structure devoid of moral absolutes. He stressed that to defend oneself, one must first be ready to die. There is little such readiness in a society raised in the cult of material well-being.
Solzhenitsyn concluded that our "rationalistic humanism" -- the proclaimed autonomy of modern Western man from any higher force above him -- is failing. He pointed out that because Western civilization worships man and his material needs, everything beyond physical well-being and accumulation of material goods is left out. All our heralded achievements cannot redeem the moral poverty of twentieth century Western man. He closed by saying that the fulfillment of one's life should be the experience of moral growth, to leave life a better human being than one started it.
One of those who responded to Solzhenitsyn's speech was Vice Admiral James B. Stockdale, then President of the Navy War College in Newport, Rhode Island. In a series of "Taking Stock" articles, Admiral Stockdale expanded on many of Solzhenitsyn's themes in the Naval War College Review. He cautioned naval officers to assess their own moral absolutes and a tendency toward mediocrity. He warned young officers to "concentrate on acquiring the training you will need to meet the tests ahead."
In his own philosophy course at the War College, "Foundations of Moral Obligation," he stressed the development of a leadership philosophy that we will need as officers to become moralists in a future war environment that could well isolate the leader from his superiors and demand that he make moral decisions. The need to be able to distinguish right from wrong and to form clear absolutes of expected behavior will be required.
Our military code of conduct is a disciplined approach based upon a moral foundation of courage. A "moralist" leader, Admiral Stockdale contends, can make conscious among his subordinates what evidently lies unconscious, elevating his followers into their better selves. Ethical resolution and moral courage have always been key foundational blocks for great leaders. Admiral Stockdale further stated that leaders of the future must be great teaching examples, stewards ready to serve their men and moral philosophers in their ability to understand and to explain the absence of moral underpinnings in our society today.
As disturbing as Solzhenitsyn's examination of our society is, and as thought-provoking as Admiral Stockdale's insights are, the naval officer is left in a position of having to examine his own moral bedrock to determine if it is lacking. Since line officers are usually automatically placed in a position of directly influencing a group of impressionable young people, they should be certain that what they stand for is morally worth standing for.
Leadership in its most basic form is accomplishing work through peace. Whether or not the sailor, marine, soldier or airman will be prepared to give his utmost in time of peace or war is dependent upon whether he believes what he is doing is indeed worth the sacrifice of preparation and action. This involves a moral judgment.
In Articles 0702A and 1210 of Navy Regulations, naval and marine officers are asked to: show themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination, to be vigilant in inspecting the conduct of all persons who are placed under their command, to guard against and suppress all dissolute and immoral practices. All persons in the Naval service shall show themselves a good example of subordination, courage, zeal, sobriety, neatness and attention to duty.
Navy regulations set high goals for leaders. If the leader cannot provide an example of virtue, honor, patriotism and subordination, he or she cannot expect their subordinates to do the same.
One of the hardest sacrifices and challenges for a fighting man is to be a prisoner of war, for he is isolated from his original command, often wounded, malnourished and physically exhausted. Yet the standards by which he is expected to live are stated well in Article VI of the U.S. Fighting Man's Code:
I will never forget that I am an American fighting man, responsible for my actions and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America.
After the Vietnam conflict, when the prisoners of war returned, the code still stood as a standing order. The code had passed the test in Vietnam. The men who stood by it were proud of it, using it as a standard of excellence and duty.
Are we talking in high-sounding platitudes when we hear of dedication, honor, virtue, subordination, and trusting in God? Are these simply vague attributes that no one can really attain? Most of our legal currency points towards a belief in something higher than the individual -- trust in God. By having a perfect absolute to model himself after, the leader can learn much about the secret of our forefathers' greatness -- a dedication to a higher, more perfect good that today, somehow, appears to be outmoded.
As a Christian officer, I find great solace in the examples given by a perfect leadership manual that is thousands of years old. This manual clearly demonstrates what is to be expected of men in authority and how they must conduct themselves morally.
It is, of course, the Bible. It gives man the absolutes for which he craves, absolutes by which he may measure himself. The reaction of many people today is to ignore it as too controversial or as irrelevant. Yet the basic foundations of Western ethical judgment are contained within its pages.
Soldiers are mentioned throughout Scripture. Heroism in battle dominates much of the Old Testament, with men like Joshua and David leading the way.
In the New Testament we find four Roman centurions mentioned. Although initially none of them were Christians, yet in each instance they exhibited qualities that were used as spiritual examples for us all.
This article is not long enough to study each of these instances, but the faith of a centurion in the eighth chapter of Matthew bears close study for its leadership example. When the centurion told Christ what authority meant to him as a soldier and what the centurion expected from his men, Christ was astonished. He exclaimed, "I tell you the truth, I have not found anyone in Israel with such great faith!"
The centurion, who obviously wasn't a Jew, recognized that he as a soldier was under authority. The centurion served in a chain-of-command that demanded and received complete obedience. Christ was able to use such an example of obedience, authority and subordination to demonstrate a spiritual truth.
Although not specifically using soldiers as examples, Christ clearly pointed out what was demanded of a leader. When his disciples questioned Him as to who was to be the greatest in the Kingdom of Heaven, Christ replied (in Mark 9:35), "If anyone wants to be first, he must be the very last and the servant of all." What an example of servanthood and caring for the needs of our subordinates!
In the book of Titus, also in the New Testament, the Apostle Paul states clearly what is expected of an overseer or leader. In Titus 1:7-8, Paul points out that a person who controls the actions of others must be blameless, not overbearing, not quick tempered, not given to much wine, not violent and not one who pursues dishonest gain. The leader must also be hospitable, one who loves what is good, one who is self-controlled, upright and disciplined. The Christian overseer must further hold firmly to the trustworthy message of God, encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it. Once again, we as officers can use such standards as clear absolutes.
Christ expected his followers to suffer tribulation or hardship. In John 16:33, he warns the men whom he trained as leaders to expect trials. This theme of growth through perseverance is present throughout Scripture. As military officers, we can expect to have hardships, knowing that this is one of the ways to truly learn our jobs. Indeed, as officers, we are to expect failures and setbacks. It is our reaction to them that marks our professional excellence.
A true sign of maturity is perseverance. Admiral Stockdale said, in the 1980 July-August edition of the Naval War College Review,
"The test of character is the performance of duty and persistence of example when the situation rules out the possibility of the light (at the end of the tunnel) ever coming."
Such character building requires an absolute guide that is found in the Bible and is reflected in Navy Regulations and the U.S. Fighting Man's Code. Without rigid moral standards to guide us as leaders, we can easily, in times of extreme hardship, settle for less than excellence.
One might ask if such characteristics are attainable. I believe we must set high standards and strive for them. With practice and moral fortitude, high standards are attainable, as shown by our POWs in Vietnam.
Clear guidelines towards moral character-building are found in our biblical heritage. Much of our moral guidance in he military is based upon what our predecessors gleaned in biblical understanding. Even a cursory view of our Declaration of Independence and Constitution shows this to be true.
We are called on to stand firm in a time of global retreat form responsibilities. Our Western culture is finding it increasingly more difficult to define right from wrong. There are evidences of weakness everywhere, yet as leaders in the Armed Forces of the USA we are called upon to sacrifice and to be an example for others. As military officers, we are required to be moral examples in a time of situational ethics. With world events cascading toward superpower brinkmanship and probable hostilities, I pray that we as officers will have the moral backbone and courage to call evil, evil and right, right.
[Paper Titles, Abstracts & Texts] [Program] [Ethics Main Menu] [Home]