Let me open by saying that, because I am an American, I will cover this subject
from an American perspective. It has been my privilege to travel to many places
around the world, and to live in Europe for over six years. I have come to understand
and appreciate other cultures, but my remarks this morning will be from an American
viewpoint.
Second, I am a Christian, so everything I say will be influenced by my personal
Christian convictions and beliefs.
I have also been a student of ethics all of my life, although I did not know
it until in recent years. From my earliest childhood, I have been faced with
decisions regarding what is right and wrong conduct. Before I became a Christian,
what I learned at home and in school deeply influenced my understanding of right
and wrong conduct. When I became a Christian, the character of Jesus Christ
became my guide.
Now this does not mean that I always made decisions based on what I knew to
be right. Knowing and doing are two different things. Knowing what is right
in a given situation is one thing. Doing what you know to be right takes courage
and a selflessness which only Jesus fully demonstrated
2 Ethics
Ethics is the study of human actions in respect to their being right or wrong.
Whether we like it or not, the study of ethics cannot be carried out in isolation
from theology. The concepts of right and wrong are deeply rooted in religion,
and in a given society, what is considered as right or wrong conduct normally
derives from the teachings on good and evil embedded in the religion from which
that society draws its basic values.
Because all human conduct takes place in relationship to other human beings,
ethical standards are derivatives of the value ascribed to human life by the
prevailing mores of the society.
The western value system of right and wrong is based primarily on what Jesus
taught, augmented by the Old Testament law givers and prophets, regarding the
origin and value of human life. In the Judeo‑Christian view, man was created
by God in His image, with awareness, purpose, personality, and inherent worth.
Every human life is endowed by God with equal rights, equal dignity and infinite
value.
Although these teachings have been severely eroded down through the centuries,
and in some cases prostituted radically, they still strongly influence the attitudes
of western people and form the basis for our ethical concepts.
+ From this belief in the infinite value of human life flows the thesis that:
"Whatever protects and enhances human life is good, and whatever destroys
or degrades human life is evil."
Our whole concept of right or wrong conduct stems from this thesis. The great
principles of justice, mercy, compassion, service, honor and freedom derive
from this central distinction between good and evil.
In any nation, governmental systems ‑ economic, health care, judicial,
educational, and social welfare ‑ are a direct reflection of the prevailing
view of the value and dignity of human life. A high view of man produces systems,
which protect and enhance the life of the individual. A low or distorted view
of man produces governmental systems, which degrade life and exploit the individual
for the benefit of the ruling elite.
It is the high view of human life, which has motivated people to establish
hospitals, educational institutions, orphanages, social welfare systems, and
disaster relief organizations.
The high value of human life is reflected in our civil laws regarding murder,
assault, rape, industrial safety, equal opportunity, and the protection of the
innocent in a wide variety of situations.
The high view of human life has motivated concerned people to oppose such social
evils as slavery, child labor, slums, prostitution, alcohol abuse, drug abuse,
abortion and euthanasia, and the exploitation of the weak and helpless by the
rich and powerful.
The high view of human life is what motivated the NATO forces, for 40 long
years, to face down the Soviet Union until that empire crumbled under the weight
of its own callous disdain and disregard for the human condition within its
own borders.
3. War
War is a constant part of the history of mankind. The use of physical force
to coerce, to impose one's will upon another, has marked the human experience
from the dawn of history. Whether by individuals or groups (gangs, mobs, tribes,
terrorists organizations, nations, alliances) acts of physical violence to get
what we want are endemic to the history of mankind.
War, in the traditional sense, is generally defined as violent conflict between
the military forces of one nation or group of nations and the military forces
of another nation or group of nations.
In the final analysis, military force is used to coerce, either by action or
the threat of action. It is the final arbiter when other means of persuasion
have failed.
The ultimate goal of war ought to be the restoration of peace.
An American military philosopher stated that, "The object of war is a
better state of peace." This implies that there is a 'wrong' somewhere
that needs to be 'righted', and that other means having been exhausted, military
force is required to right that wrong. Once the wrong has been righted, the
use of military force should be terminated, the "better state of peace"
having been achieved.
4. Ethics and War
In societies, which are governed by representatives of the people, the moral
justification for the use of military force in any specific situation is almost
always an issue in government. Not so in societies governed by non‑representative
elite groups, who can wage war without regard for the opinion of the people.
In western democracies, the question of killing another human being, for whatever
reason, takes on gigantic proportions. The application of military force for
any reason is always a cause for serious debate at the highest levels of government.
Western religious philosophers, probably beginning with Augustine, have sought
to understand violence in the light of Christian teachings. Augustine postulated
that the use of force was justified only to protect the innocent but not in
personal self-defense. Thus, a war to protect the innocent was considered to
be a "just war".
In the western world, there is a general agreement that the use of military
force for 'national defense' in justified. We interpret national defense to
mean the protection of our national geographical boundaries and the citizens
who live within those boundaries. We also agree that military force is justified
in support of our legitimate 'national interests', which we Americans broadly
define as including not only national defense but also our way of life and our
standard of living.
Our way of life is the way of 'freedom with responsibility'. Our way of life
is actualized through our great social institutions ‑ the political, judicial,
economic, military, religious, educational, health care, and human welfare institutions
which are the fabric American society.
Our standard of living is related not only to the quality of our social institutions
but also is dependent on unrestricted access to world markets, which throws
the national interest squarely into the international marketplace. Thus our
national interest involves considerations far removed from our geographical
boundaries.
A fundamental dilemma emerges in that among nations whose ethical value systems
differ markedly; there can never be full agreement regarding what is right and
wrong.
Wars fundamentally represent clashes of ethical principles. In World War II,
the Allied view of right and wrong was vastly different from the Nazi view of
right and wrong. The Nazis struck first, seeking to impose upon the nations
of Europe, with military force, their concept of 'right'. The Allies defended
their own concept of 'right', also by employing military force. The Allies prevailed,
and the world, even the post‑war Germans and Japanese, came to accept
the Allied view of 'right'.
5. Ethical Military Decisions.
Our most deeply held ethical conviction is that whatever protects and enhances
human life is good, and whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil. Historically,
we have justified the use of military force only when it is used to protect
the lives of our citizens, or to correct situations which threaten to degrade
their lives. Thus, in practice, our use of military force has been consistent
with our basic values.
Just as our value system condemns the use of physical force to by one person
against another except for the purpose of self-defense, so our value system
condemns the use of military force against another nation except for the purpose
of the collective national defense.
We have, however, gone to war to resist aggression against an ally, but only
when it was considered to be in our own national interest. Thus our historical
use of military force might signify that our fundamental ethic (the protection
and enhancement of human life) applies only to Americans and does not genuinely
extend to all people around the globe.
Some have said that our ethic does extend to all people everywhere. President
Kennedy, in his inaugural address, in January 1961, stated that we would "support
any friend...to insure the survival and success of liberty." However, the
majority of the American people have never fully bought into this concept, at
least not to the extent of being willing to commit military force to achieve
this objective.
The Vietnam conflict is a case in point. We went to war to protect South Vietnam
against aggression by North Vietnam when there was no unambiguous American national
interest involved. Our government was unable to justify the use of military
force for the defense of South Vietnam in terms of a clear and unequivocal national
interest. This was root cause of the American failure in Vietnam. In one sense
the Vietnam War was the most ethical war we ever fought, because we sought to
right a wrong far from our shores when there was no real national interest involved.
However, Americans deplore the wrongs perpetrated against innocent and helpless
people by abusive foreign governments. Our national leaders have often expressed
the deep longings of the American people to protect life and improve the human
condition around the world. During the 1960 presidential campaign, candidate
Richard Nixon spoke eloquently of "extending freedom", a clear call
for something far more than "containment of communism", which had
been the bedrock of our national policy since the late 1940's.
The consequences of a military action can never be fully anticipated. However,
the effort to anticipate consequences should always be made. Here an appreciation
of history is essential. Decision makers must always recognize that the application
of military force is like opening Pandora's box. For instance, who clearly saw
that advancing north to the Yalu would bring the Chinese into the Korean War?
War unleashes passions which are unpredictable. Those who advocate the use of
military force for any reason have a moral responsibility to think through all
of the possible consequences.
On the other hand, the consequences of inaction must also be assessed. Suppose
we had not opposed the North Korean invasion of South Korea? Suppose we had
not opposed the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait? What would have been the consequences?
And although in the Cold War we did not fire a single shot in anger, the clear
intent to employ military force, to include nuclear weapons, to defend Western
Europe against Warsaw Pact aggression was a standing policy, fully understood
by the other side. NATO forces stood toe‑to‑toe against the armed
might of the Soviet Union and it's allies for 40 years until that massive empire
disintegrated before our very eyes.
Suppose NATO had not taken that long and determined stand against Communism
in Europe. What would have been the consequences? They are too terrible to contemplate.
There are more recent examples. Consider the Balkans. What have been the consequences
of the use of military force in Bosnia and Kosovo? Is there now a "better
state of peace" in the region as a result? And what might have been the
consequences of the failure to use military force in the Balkans?
Look also at the current "war on terrorism". Will the use of military
force to eliminate organized, international terrorism result in a "better
state of peace"? But what passions might be released by this military
action? Can these passions be controlled and contained? Or might they, in time,
create a worse, rather than a better, 'state of peace'.
6. Educating Military Leaders to Make Ethical Military Decisions
There are two essential requirements in educating military leaders to make
ethical military decisions, and there is one basic prerequisite.
The first essential requirement is: "From the beginning of their military
education and throughout their careers, officers should study the elements of
ethical decision making".
Lincoln once said, "I will study and get ready and the opportunity will
come."
Lafayette wrote, "I read, I study, I examine, I listen, I reflect ‑
and out of all of this I try to form an idea into which I put as much common
sense as I can."
Ethical decision making cannot be taught in a course at the War College level.
It must be addressed at the cadet level and then at every level throughout the
officer's career. And much more important, every officer must make the study
of military ethics a lifetime pursuit.
The second essential requirement is: "Each officer must be taught to take
responsibility not only for his own actions but also for the actions of the
entire military profession".
Every officer, from lieutenant to general, should assume responsibility for
the ethical content of the decisions made by and within our profession.
The basic prerequisite for making ethical military decisions is this: "Each
officer must be fully convinced of the legitimacy of the military profession."
This is the basis upon which a genuine understanding of ethical decision making
can be achieved.
Here are some thoughts on the ethical basis for our profession.
Military power, in and of itself, is neither ethical nor unethical. It is the
purpose for which it is used which gives it ethical content.
The legitimate purpose of the military forces of a nation is to provide for
the common defense, that is, to insure the survival of the nation's people and
their way of life.
In its purest and most fundamental essence, the purpose of military force is
to protect life, not to destroy life ‑ to protect the lives of the citizens
of the nation from external aggression so that they may live in peace and security.
This is a legitimate purpose.
This purpose is entirely consistent with, and actually, flows from, our highest
national ethic ‑ "That which protects and enhances life is good.
That which destroys and degrades life is evil."
Can the legitimate purpose of military force be prostituted? Can military force
be used un‑ethically? Of course it can, and it often is, especially when
military force is under the control of unethical leaders. But the fact that
military force is often used unethically does not negate the fact that there
is a legitimate and honorable purpose for military force ‑ to protect
the lives of the citizens of the nation from outside aggression.
What is the essential nature of our profession?
First, we are a service profession. Thus we are called 'service men and women'.
We provide a service to the citizens of our nations. We provide their common
defense against outside aggression. We are paid by the citizens of our nations
to provide that service, and we are ultimately accountable to them for the success
or failure of our performance.
Second, due to the requirements imposed on us by the mission of common defense,
we are an hierarchical and authoritative profession. We are subject to orders.
We must be responsive, quick, and efficient from top to bottom, from front to
rear, from general to private. We must maintain discipline in order to achieve
the high standards of effectiveness required by the inherent nature of our legitimate
tasks.
And third, we are under civilian authority. Because we control power sufficient
to enslave our own citizens and usurp the constitutional process, we are sworn
to submit to the authority of our elected national officials and their duly
appointed civilian surrogates. In democratic societies, power does not "flow
out of the barrel of a gun", as once stated by Chairman Mao Tse Tung of
the Peoples Republic of China, but rather out of tens of thousands of ballot
boxes scattered throughout the land on election day.
Thus we are an honorable profession with an ethical purpose, a purpose consistent
with our fundamental value system. We are a service profession accountable to
the citizens of our nations. We are an authoritative and disciplined profession
subject to orders. And we are under civilian control, reflecting the fundamental
source of political power in our society.
Look now at ethics as applied to our profession.
What do we mean by the term 'professional ethics'?
In essence, professional ethics is that body of written or unwritten standards
of conduct by which a profession disciplines itself. Professional ethics are
designed to assure high standards of competence in a given field of endeavor.
In general terms, that conduct which contributes to the attainment of the purpose
of that profession is 'right'. That conduct which detracts from the attainment
of the purpose of that profession is 'wrong'.
It follows that within the military profession whatever actions enhance the
security of the nation, and thus the protection of the lives of our citizens,
may be considered 'righ' (or ethical), and whatever actions degrade the security
of the nation, and thus endanger its citizens, may be considered 'wrong' (unethical).
The ethics of all actions within and by the military profession should be measured
by the impact upon the security of the nation.
Finally, and of commanding importance, professional competence is an ethical
imperative. We cannot effectively contribute to the accomplishment of our legitimate
purpose unless we are ‑ individually and organizationally ‑ professionally
competent.
7. Major Ethical Challenges Facing Future Military Leaders
There are two major ethical challenges facing future military leaders. The
first is: "Under what circumstances should military force be employed?"
The dilemma of government is whether or not to use military force to "create
or sustain an order which is broader than the scope of its own national authority."
This is the primary issue faced today by the United States, as the one remaining
super power in this post cold‑war era. The question is, "Should America
assume the role of policeman of the world?" We recall from history the
days of 'Pax Romana' and later of 'Pax Britannica'. Should America now seek
to establish a worldwide "Pax Americana"?
Obviously, there are many wrongs in the world which need to be righted. But
under what circumstances should the United States, or any nation, or group of
nations, attempt to right these wrongs? What are the ethical criteria for the
use of military force to right the wrongs which exist? And who is to determine
what is truly a wrong, and who is to decide which wrongs should ‑ or even
can ‑ be righted?
This is the overriding ethical issue of our time.
The second major challenge is: "To what extent should senior military
officers seek to influence national level policy decisions which may lead to
the use of military force?"
In his poem "The Charge of the Light Brigade", Alfred, Lord Tennyson
wrote:
"Forward the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd.
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the Valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
In the United States, the soldier is subject to civilian authority. In the
final analysis, once the civilian authority has spoken, the soldier's role is
to "do or die".
Our national commitment to this theory is based on our national abhorrence
of military dictatorships. Although there is not one single instance in the
history of our country of an attempted ‑ or even seriously contemplated
‑ take over of the duly elected national government by military leaders,
the fear of such action still exists and is a significant factor in every proposed
reorganization of the defense establishment. At the highest levels, military
structure is thoroughly laced with civilian authority to prevent too much power
from accruing to any single military leader.
Does, then, the soldier have any role ‑ or any responsibility ‑
for the formulation of national policy?
Our national purpose grows out of our value system and is stated succinctly
in the preamble of the constitution. National policy, national goals, and national
strategy are logical extensions of national purpose. Whereas national purpose
is unchanging, national policy, national goals, and national strategy change
and evolve along with society as a whole. The advance of science and technology,
the rise and fall of external ideologies and political entities, the changing
world power structure, and our continuously fluctuating internal political alignments,
all impact on national policy, national goals and national strategy.
Those who are involved in the formulation of national policy do so with the
assumption that military force will be available to implement that policy if
other means of persuasion fail. Thus national policy makers set the basic requirements
for military capability and formulate general parameters for its use.
Even though the broad requirements for military force derive from national
policy, tradition in the United States has largely isolated the soldier from
participation in national policy considerations.
In a sense, military leaders have brought this on themselves. Schooled in the
tradition that "theirs is not to reason why", young officers understandably
focus on how to fight, not on why we should or should not fight. Then, as senior
leaders, when they are thrust into the crucible of decision making at the highest
national levels, they often come across as narrow and inadequate in their basic
understanding of the fundamental elements of the making of national policy.
However, in the aftermath of WWII, a new awareness emerged. The Nurnburg trials
established that military leaders as well as civilian leaders are accountable
for national policy leading to the employment of military force. Certainly if
military leaders can be held accountable for the policies of their government,
they ought to have a role in the formulation of those policies
The conclusion is self-evident. Military leaders do have a role in the decision
making process well beyond "to do or die". In fact, theirs IS to make
reply, theirs IS to reason why, and theirs IS to prevent the blunders which
caused the six hundred to ride into the Valley of Death.
Military leaders have a legitimate role in decisions regarding the use of military
force to attain national goals and objectives. However military leaders also
have a legitimate role in the formulation of national policy, first because
it may lead to the employment of military force, and second because they may
eventually be held accountable for that policy.
However, the ethical question remains, "On what occasions and to what
extent should military leaders insert themselves, even as unwelcome participants,
into the national security decision making process"?
This is the second major ethical challenge facing future high level military
leaders.
American officers are, properly, imbued with a 'Can Do' approach to all assigned
military tasks. However, one of the basic criteria for responsible generalship
is to know when to say, 'Can't Do' to their civilian superiors.
Interestingly, Sun Tzu stated that, "There are commands of the sovereign
which must not be obeyed."
8 Conclusion
War is inevitable. It is a 'constituent element' of the history of mankind.
Even Jesus, the 'Prince of Peace', declared, "You will hear of wars and
rumors of wars." As those who will of necessity be caught up in the fighting
of these wars, American military leaders must guide their decisions by the ethical
values embedded within the American culture.
Our most deeply held ethical conviction - "Whatever protects and enhances
human life is good, and whatever destroys or degrades human life is evil."‑
is totally consistent with the American concept of the purpose for military
force.
However, issues are never totally clear in real situations. It is in this area
of tension ‑ between theory and practice, between idealism and pragmatism
‑ where national leaders grapple with the issues of war and peace, and
where men who agree wholly in principle may disagree sharply in practice.
And it is into this arena that senior military leaders are eventually drawn
as their duties thrust them closer and closer to the decision centers of national
power.
There are some senior military leaders who seem to have an internal 'compass'
and can accurately sense the direction to take in the ethical morass which characterizes
high level decision making. These leaders were not born with this sense of ethical
understanding. They have developed it over the years by immersing themselves
in the study of ethics ‑ right and wrong conduct ‑ as it applies
to their profession.
Education in ethical decision making is not accomplished simply through attendance
at courses at our military schools. It is accomplished only through a lifetime
of dedication to the study of ethics as it applies to war. Just as a child
learns to speak and understand his native language through absorption rather
than through academic instruction, so the ethical values, which lead to an understanding
of the principles of ethical decision making, are absorbed through a lifetime
of immersion in the study of right and wrong professional military conduct under
every circumstance imaginable.