CARLISLE PAPERS

Clark C. Barrett

Strategic Studies Institute

U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA 17013

Finding “The Right Way”:

Toward an Army 

Institutional Ethic

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Visit our website for other free publication 

downloads

http://www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/

To rate this publication click here.
Carlisle Paper

FINDING “THE RIGHT WAY”:

TOWARD AN ARMY INSTITUTIONAL ETHIC

Lieutenant Colonel Clark C. Barrett

September 2012

The views expressed in this report are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official policy 

or position of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government. Authors 

of Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) publications enjoy full academic freedom, provided they do not disclose 

classified information, jeopardize operations security, or misrepresent official U.S. policy. Such academic 

freedom empowers them to offer new and sometimes controversial perspectives in the interest of furthering debate on key issues. This report is cleared for public release; distribution is unlimited.

*****

This publication is subject to Title 17, United States Code, Sections 101 and 105. It is in the public domain 

and may not be copyrighted.
ii

*****

Comments pertaining to this report are invited and should be forwarded to: Director, Strategic

Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, 47 Ashburn Drive, Carlisle, PA 17013. 

*****

The author is indebted to Colonel Murray “Murf” Clark, Lieutenant Colonel Douglas A. Pryer, and

Mrs. Shara Barrett for their grammatical edits, clarifications, and content suggestions throughout this 

document.

*****

This Carlisle Paper is a companion piece to the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE) 

Professional Military Ethics Monograph Series, also published by the Strategic Studies Institute.

*****

All Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) publications may be downloaded free of charge from the SSI website. Hard copies of this report may also be obtained free of charge while supplies last by placing an order 

on the SSI website. SSI publications may be quoted or reprinted in part or in full with permission and 

appropriate credit given to the U.S. Army Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle 

Barracks, PA. Contact SSI by visiting our website at the following address: www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.

army.mil.

*****

The Strategic Studies Institute publishes a monthly e-mail newsletter to update the national security 

community on the research of our analysts, recent and forthcoming publications, and upcoming conferences sponsored by the Institute. Each newsletter also provides a strategic commentary by one of our 

research analysts. If you are interested in receiving this newsletter, please subscribe on the SSI website at 

www.StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil/newsletter/.

ISBN 1-58487-549-6
iii

PREFACE

The U.S. Army War College (USAWC) provides an excellent environment for selected military officers and government civilians to reflect and capitalize on their career 

experience to explore a wide range of strategic issues. To assure that the research conducted by USAWC students is available to Army and Department of Defense leaders, 

the Strategic Studies Institute publishes selected papers in its “Carlisle Papers” series.

ANTULIO J ECHEVARRIA II

Director of Research

Strategic Studies Institute

v

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

CLARK C. BARRETT is currently a member of the Michigan Army National Guard and 

is a civilian engineer for a major defense contractor. After graduating from West Point in 

1993, he was commissioned in the Infantry Branch and served in the 1st Armored Division in Germany. He branch transferred to Armor Branch, continuing his service in Bosnia and in the 4th Infantry Division at Fort Hood, TX. In 2000, Lieutenant Colonel Barrett 

departed active duty and joined the National Guard. As a Guardsman, he has served 

in Infantry, Armor, and Cavalry positions and deployed to Egypt and Iraq. Lieutenant 

Colonel Barrett focuses on the human and organizational dimensions of the military, 

specializing in leadership studies, motivation theory, and combat stress research. He has 

authored a number of articles in professional and scholarly publications including, most 

recently, “Unarmed and Dangerous: The Holistic Preparation of Soldiers for Combat,” 

published in Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry. Lieutenant Colonel Barrett holds 

a B.S. in mechanical engineering from the U.S. Military Academy, an M.S. in technical 

management from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University, an M.S. in strategic studies 

from the U.S. Army War College, and a Ph.D. in leadership from Andrews University.

vii

SUMMARY

The ethical lapses exemplified by Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah (Blackhearts), and Maywand (5/2 Stryker) are distressing symptoms of an even bigger, and potentially devastating, cultural shortcoming. The U.S. Army profession lacks an institutional ethical 

framework and a means of peer-to-peer self-governance. The frameworks the Army has 

may imply, but they do not explicitly dictate, an Army ethic. Other English-speaking 

nations’ ethical constructs can inform the development of an Army Ethic which serves 

to protect our organizational and individual honor from moral and ethical lapses which 

do great harm to the institution, undermine the American public trust, and hinder mission accomplishment. This Paper describes the problem, provides a review of literature, 

including current Army artifacts, reviews partner nation military ethics, and sketches 

the necessary philosophical underpinnings. The Paper also addresses the importance of 

promulgation, nontoleration, and the necessity for the Army to act as a learning organization. Finally, the Paper supplies and justifies a proposed institutional and individual 

Army Ethic and means of promulgation, ethical decisionmaking, and governance. The 

proposed Ethic would replace and integrates a number of disjointed and disconnected 

Army ethical prescriptions.

1

FINDING “THE RIGHT WAY”:

TOWARD AN ARMY INSTITUTIONAL ETHIC

Those skilled in war cultivate the Tao and preserve the laws and are therefore able to formulate 

victorious policies. Tu Mu: The Tao is the way of humanity and justice; ‘laws’ are regulations and 

institutions. Those who excel in war first cultivate their own humanity and justice and maintain 

their laws and institutions. By these means they make their government invincible.1

Sun Tzu

Around 500 BC, Sun Tzu wrote the opening epigraph, and around 800 AD, Tu Mu 

interpreted Sun Tzu’s words. The critical word Tao, literally “the right way,” translates 

variously, but the pertinent translation is “moral influence.” Sun Tzu recognized the 

importance of morality in warfare and placed moral influence first in order of war priorities.2

 Since Sun Tzu’s The Art of War focused on the strategy of war, one can infer that 

“those skilled in war” refers to generals and strategic leaders charged with “cultivat[ing] 

their own humanity and justice and maintain[ing] their laws and institutions.” Sun Tzu 

notes, “By these means, they make their government invincible.”3

So how does it happen that 2,500 years later, though aware of these ideas and their 

importance, the U.S. Army lacks the proper moral foundations upon which to operate? 

Despite the high profile blunders of Abu Ghraib, Mahmudiyah (Blackhearts), and May-�

wand (5/2 Stryker BDE), the Army still has not properly focused its efforts to prevent 

such crimes.4

 I believe these crimes are merely distressing symptoms of an even bigger and potentially devastating cultural shortcoming. The U.S. Army profession lacks 

a formal, comprehensive institutional ethical framework and a means of peer-to-peer 

self-governance. The Army’s total ethical canon, enormous in its scope and diversity, 

only implies and does not explicitly dictate an Army ethic. A true Army ethic may take 

the form of a single codified document, but ideally it would encompass and recognize 

the implicit norms, values, and underlying assumptions of the total organization.5 The 

ethics of other professional armies can inform the development of a U.S. Army ethic, 

which would help to protect the organizational and individual honor from ethical lapses 

which do great harm to the institution and hinder mission accomplishment. Ultimately, 

the Army’s strategic leadership must champion and promulgate such an ethic. 

This Paper defines the relevance of ethics in support of military ends and the Army 

profession, describes current Army culture and needs, compares allied nations’ responses to this problem, and ultimately offers a draft institutional Army ethic and methods for 

promulgation and self-governance for consideration and further discussion.

REVIEW OF RECENT U.S. ARMY ETHICAL FAILURES

Most people in the military are well aware of the most gratuitous examples of war 

crimes perpetrated by American Soldiers during the Global War on Terror in Iraq and 

Afghanistan. Nevertheless, a review of certain incidents, circumstances, and behavioral 

trends provides valuable insight. Sadly, U.S. forces committed other atrocities; these are 

simply the most infamous.
2

Abu Ghraib, Iraq.

The U.S. Army removed 17 Soldiers from duty, and charged 11 of those Soldiers with 

dereliction of duty, maltreatment, and aggravated assault and battery for participation in 

abuse of prisoners at Abu Ghraib from late 2003 through early 2004.6

 Between May 2004 

and March 2006, the Army convicted, imprisoned, and dishonorably discharged 11 enlisted Soldiers. The Army reprimanded and demoted the detention facility’s commander, Brigadier General Janis Karpinski.7

 Specialist Charles Graner, the group’s ringleader, 

and his former fiancée, Specialist Lynndie England, received the longest sentences of 

10 years and 3 years, respectively. After the perpetrators provided disks of incriminating photos and videos to Specialist Joseph Darby, he exposed the abuse and requested 

assistance from the Criminal Investigation Division.8

 When Darby initially questioned 

Graner about the photos, Graner stated, “The Christian in me knows it’s wrong, but the 

corrections officer in me says, ‘I love to make a grown man piss himself.’”9

Mahmudiyah, Iraq.

On March 12, 2006, four Soldiers from the 101st Airborne Division gang-raped and 

murdered a 14-year-old Iraqi girl, after killing her mother, 34; her father, 45; and her 

sister, 5. In revenge for the crime, Iraqi insurgents kidnapped, tortured, and beheaded 

two innocent Soldiers�— Private First Class Thomas Tucker and Private First Class Kristian Menchaca—from the same unit. In August 2007, Private First Class Jesse Spielman, 

23, was sentenced to 110 years in prison. Jurors convicted Spielman of rape, conspiracy 

to commit rape, housebreaking with intent to rape, and four counts of felony murder. 

Spielman pleaded guilty to lesser charges. In September 2009, Private First Class Steven 

Green, the instigator, received life in prison with no parole. The other Soldiers involved 

were also jailed. Private First Class Justin Watt reported the rape-murders after hearing 

from another Soldier what had occurred.

Maywand, Afghanistan.

In early 2010, a “kill team” from 5th Brigade, 2nd Infantry Division, murdered at 

least three Afghan civilians in the Maywand district. The Army charged five Soldiers 

who were allegedly involved in the killings. Seven other Soldiers were charged with 

crimes such as drug use, impeding an investigation, and attacking a whistleblower. The 

ringleader was Staff Sergeant Calvin Gibbs. On March 24, 2011, Specialist Jeremy Morlock pleaded guilty to three counts of premeditated murder. He testified that he had 

helped to kill unarmed Afghans in faked combat situations. Under a plea deal, Morlock 

received 24 years in prison and a dishonorable discharge for the crimes, in return for 

testimony against other Soldiers.10 On November 10, 2011, jurors found Gibbs guilty of 

all charges, including three counts of murder.11 Gibbs received a sentence of life without 

parole. Specialist Justin Stoner alerted military police to drug use by members of the 

unit.
3

Conclusion.

Three common elements are particularly noteworthy about these case studies. First, 

each was a clear war crime, which the Army would eventually punish by legal means. 

Second, each case had a charismatic ringleader, or moral pirate, who led other Soldiers 

astray.12 Finally, in each case, a whistle-blower junior Soldier ultimately stood up for 

what was right and reported the crimes.

Most Americans believe that while these crimes are repulsive and horrific, they do 

not represent the conduct of most Soldiers in combat zones. This is largely true. However, William Deresiewicz noted that only Abu Ghraib was widely discussed, and he 

asked the question, “How many more of these have there been?”13 Unfortunately, other 

information suggests the answer: immoral, illegal, and unethical conduct in theater is far 

more common than one might suspect. 

The 2007 report from the Military Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV in Iraq described just how pervasive the problem had become.14 The report revealed many disturbing facts, including the following:

• 41 percent of Soldiers and 44 percent of Marines believe torture is acceptable to 

save the life of a fellow warrior.

• 36 percent of Soldiers and 39 percent of Marines believe that torture is acceptable 

to gain intelligence on the insurgents.

• Less than 50 percent of Soldiers and Marines felt that noncombatants should be 

treated with dignity and respect.

• More than 30 percent of personnel admitted insulting and swearing at Iraqis.

• 4 percent of Soldiers and 7 percent of Marines confessed to hitting or kicking 

noncombatants.

• Nearly one-third said their officers had not made it clear that maltreatment is 

unacceptable.15

The results of this study prompted General David Petraeus to send out a theater-wide 

memo calling for increased professionalism and enhanced moral behavior in 2007.16 Notably, the results—referring to ethical questions—in that year’s follow-up study, MHAT 

V, were worse than the year before. MHAT VI (2008) eliminated “items that could be 

potentially incriminating,” which was essentially the ethical section of the survey.17

Finally, there is the debacle of enhanced interrogation techniques and detainee policy 

as implemented by the Bush administration. Much has been written on the matter, and 

arguments have been made in favor of the practice.18 Opponents argue that enhanced interrogation techniques were tantamount to torture and did not reflect American values.19

Top government officials and lawyers approved abusive techniques for use on Guantanamo prisoners. When these techniques were approved for use at Abu Ghraib, they led to 

even graver abuses.20 The interrogation issue has been heavily reported and studied and 

though not truly within the scope of this Paper, does suggest at least one relevant question: “Why did not more service members refuse to follow the orders to employ harsh 

interrogation techniques?”21 Even if the program was legal, was it also ethical or moral? 

Many military interrogators, most notoriously at Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib, did not 

seriously question such policies, though the post-World War II Nuremberg trials clearly 

established that “just following orders” is not a viable defense.22
4

These examples serve as “weak signals” or indicators of an Army whose long-term 

ethical health remains uncertain.23 Some might argue that “these things happen sometimes in wartime.” Stjepan Mestrovic, a specialist on the subject of war crimes, condemned the Army’s de facto notion that such crimes are characteristic of a few “bad 

apples” or “rogue platoons.”24 Such responses are as inappropriate as the dismissive 

clichés used to convey it. Indeed, the Army must studiously avoid even the air of impropriety that surrounds atrocity or near atrocity. In such cases, a zero-defects mentality 

becomes appropriate. 

The opportunity for transgression and the severity of the after-effects mean that the 

United States can ill-afford for its troops to commit even one atrocity. These activities 

have done irreparable harm. News of these crimes blazes through our information-age 

internet and television networks, handing motivational and recruitment tools to our 

enemies. The war efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan grow longer and more difficult as 

a result.25 The national character is besmirched, and the ability of the United States to 

exert diplomatic (moral) influence in the world is diminished. Finally, one cannot help 

wondering what the psychological impact has been on the Soldiers themselves.26 The 

strategic repercussions of atrocities demand hyper-vigilance and prior preparation, beyond what the Army currently requires.

The military has a robust legal system to deal with crimes and atrocities after the fact. 

The three case studies show that justice can be done, albeit in post hoc fashion. However, 

these case studies also demonstrate the need for stronger deterrence and for preparing 

the fighting force for moral and ethical challenges. The Army requires an Army institutional ethic aligned with the national character. The Army needs to revise the way it 

trains and sustains Soldiers’ moral awareness, their justification for killing the enemy, 

and their responsibility to ensure that atrocities do not occur.

DEFINITIONS

Because many terms in this study have multiple meanings, I have established below 

the working definitions to avoid confusion. These delineations are especially important 

with two terms—which the Merriam-Webster dictionary uses in circular reference to 

one another.

1. moral(s): “of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ethical <moral judgments>.”27 For the purposes of this Paper, “moral behavior” or “morals” denote 

an individual or personal characteristic.

2. ethic(s)/ethical: “a set of moral principles : a theory or system of moral values.”28

For the purposes of this Paper, “ethical behavior” or “ethics” refers to an institutional, 

organizational, professional, or group characteristic.29 An ethic can be informal or implied (e.g., Army ethic or ethos), but an Ethic (proper noun) will refer to an explicit code 

of Ethics (e.g., Army Ethic or Institutional Army Ethic).

3. moral/ethical: using both terms together implies that the person’s individual and 

institutional principles align, or should.

To understand the need for an Army institutional ethic, one must first understand 

the role moral behavior plays during war. Immoral or unethical conduct can negate 
5

efforts to win the war, as well as erode the American people’s trust in the organization. Inappropriate behavior can also call the integrity of the Army profession itself into 

question. In the end, to achieve our war aims we must act in accordance with a set of 

principles, while maintaining public expectations and trust.30

THE RELEVANCE OF ETHICS TO MILITARY ENDS

The ultimate goal of war is to achieve a better peace.31 Unfortunately, war waged in 

an immoral manner rarely ends well. Victims of injustice often refuse to seek a peaceful 

accord with their enemy. The rationale becomes, “better to die on the field of battle than 

to suffer injustice off the field.” Philosophers and politicians formulated theories of just 

war and rules of war in order to avoid unending war and chaos perpetuated by immoral 

conduct.

The just war tradition, as we know it in the West, is primarily a Roman and Christian construct with Cicero, St. Augustine, and St. Thomas Aquinas among the earliest 

contributors to the formal theories.32 During the medieval period, the code of chivalry—

from the Middle English chivalrie, Anglo-French chevalerie, and chevaler knight—grew 

from a simple set of rules for mounted knights to a code of ethical conduct for employment in and out of combat.33 In 1625, Hugo Grotius’ De Jure Belli Ac Pacis laid out humanitarian reasons for protecting prisoners. Later during the English Civil War of the 

1640s, Grotius’ treatise influenced the establishment of “Lawes of Armes” and codes of 

conduct to prohibit prisoner abuse. By the mid 1700s, most Western professional armies 

found such abuse inappropriate. In 1785, a treaty between Prussia and the United States 

further codified rules of war and prisoner treatment. In 1863, the Lieber Code became 

the Union Army’s official guide for conduct on Civil War battlefields, and later provided 

the basis for the 1899 Hague Convention.34

These few landmarks map the development of just war theory. The theories vary 

in their content, but as Professors Joseph Nye and David Welch note, “The just war 

tradition combines a concern for the intentions, means, and consequences of actions.”35

Generally, just war theory consists of two component parts, the justice of reasons for 

declaring war and the justice in how the war is waged.

1. Jus ad bellum (literally, the justice of war) is the responsibility of national leaders 

who determine the interests and ends and assess whether the use of force is morally 

permissible. As such, jus ad bellum falls outside the scope of this Paper.36

2. Jus in bello (literally, justice in war) pertains primarily to the military whose ways 

and means must achieve the political ends. According to Nye and David Welch, “The 

principles of jus in bello are (1) observe the laws of war, (2) maintain proportionality, and 

(3) observe the principle of noncombatant immunity.”37

As noted, the Lieber Code served as a template for both the Geneva and Hague Conventions, signed by the United States. As such, the U.S. Army trains Soldiers on these 

conventions, expects compliance with them, and punishes those who violate them. Furthermore, we expect Soldiers to disobey orders that would violate these laws and conventions. One Department of Defense (DoD) document, Armed Forces Officer, cautions 

officers on this point: “You, in turn, must follow superior direction or rules unless faced 
6

with a clear operational, legal, or moral reason to refuse or deviate.”38 For highly trained 

and loyal Soldiers, disobeying even an illegal, immoral, or unethical order is sometimes 

difficult, but such disobedience remains absolutely necessary.39

After all, as wise strategists and savvy leaders know, atrocities only perpetuate war. 

In his landmark treatise On War, Clausewitz noted:

It had ceased to be in harmony with the spirit of the times to plunder and lay waste the enemy’s land, which had played such an important role in antiquity. . . . It was rightly held to 

be unnecessarily barbarous, an invitation to reprisals, and a practice that hurt the enemy’s 

subjects rather than their government—one therefore that was ineffective and only served 

permanently to impede the advance of general civilization.40

B. H. Liddell Hart made a similar appeal, noting that:

The more brutal your methods the more bitter you will make your opponents, with the natural result of hardening the resistance you are trying to overcome. . . . [it is wise] to avoid 

extremes of violence which tend to consolidate the enemy’s troops and people behind their 

leaders.41

Even today, the incidents at Abu Ghraib and Guantanomo provide motivation to 

America’s foes to continue to fight.42 Our nation’s enemies remember offenses against 

their culture, people, or ideology in the same way Americans remember “the Maine, [the 

Alamo], Pearl Harbor, and 9-11 [September 11, 2001].”43 The 9-11 Commission stated the 

case quite clearly in their report: 

[The U.S. Government] should offer an example of moral leadership in the world, committed 

to treat people humanely, abide by the rule of law, and be generous and caring to our neighbors. America and Muslim friends can agree on respect for human dignity and opportunity.44

Moral/ethical battlefield conduct is necessary for achieving the ends of war. Such 

conduct also keeps faith with the American public and positively represents their best 

interests.

THE RELEVANCE OF ETHICS TO THE AMERICAN PUBLIC

The U.S. Army operates on behalf of the American people, and the public typically 

has high confidence in their military. Polls reveal that service members often command 

extremely high levels of respect.45

The American people also have a relatively high tolerance for military missteps. 

Mestrovic suggests that even a gross failure like Vietnam’s My Lai massacre was largely 

tolerated and viewed as a collective American failure, rather than the failure of just Captain Ernest Medina, Lieutenant William Calley, and the platoon.46 In the past, Americans 

felt a collective responsibility when they knew of their service members’ wartime atrocities, but, as Mestrovic explains, recent war crimes are less accepted today because they 

are attributed to “aberrations perpetrated by a derelict few [bad apples], rather than the 

inevitable results of institutional failures.”47 Nevertheless, public support of the military 
7

depends on the military’s good faith efforts to maintain that trust. Former U.S. Army 

War College (USAWC) instructor Colonel Lee Deremer, notes: 

Public trust can fade much more quickly than it is accumulated. It can wane for a variety of 

reasons, whether from tactical mistakes that have strategic consequences, or from failing to 

build and maintain a culture of competence, accountability and integrity.48

War crimes damage the faith Americans have in their Soldiers and in the wars their 

Soldiers are fighting. Minimizing this damage must be a top priority for the U.S. military 

if it is to achieve a lasting workable peace following its conflicts abroad.49

THE RELEVANCE OF ETHICS TO THE ARMY PROFESSION

Beyond the external ends of wartime efficacy and retention of the trust of the American public, the Army needs an institutional ethic to safeguard the Army profession. 

Definitions of what constitutes a profession vary widely. The dictionary version is perhaps too simplistic—”a calling requiring specialized knowledge and often long and 

intensive academic preparation.”50 Sociology Professor Magali Larson suggests that a 

profession requires the following characteristics: “professional association, cognitive 

base, institutionalized training, licensing, work autonomy, colleague control . . . and 

a code of ethics.”51 The common characteristics of a profession often include group association, specialized knowledge and training, and a certain level of autonomy granted 

in exchange for self-regulation and codes of behavior.52 The expert knowledge of a profession is applicable within a “significant field of human endeavor,” with high stakes 

for the client—the recipient of the professionals’ services—such as life, justice, and selfdetermination.53 The classic professions of medicine, law, and clergy clearly fall into this 

category. The military seems well-suited to the title of “profession” as well. 

According to historian Barbara Tuchman, the U.S. Army’s professional relationship 

with its client “is, first and foremost, [as] the nation’s obedient and loyal military servant. 

It takes pride in being the keeper of the essential skills of war that must be infused into 

the citizenry when they are called upon to fight.”54 Samuel Huntington, Morris Janowitz, 

and Charles Moskos are among the many academics who have labored to define and 

understand the military as a profession. This effort continues today.

This Paper assumes the Army is a profession and must hold to the basic tenets of a 

profession as described by Larson. The key characteristic of professions (using Larson’s 

terms) is the idea of work autonomy based on colleague control and a code of ethics.55

Simplified, the Army profession is “granted autonomy” by the client, in exchange for 

maintaining “a self-policing ethic.”56 This quid pro quo relationship remains in constant 

tension. The autonomy the American political leadership and public grants depends on 

the Army having an explicit Ethic, living by it, and enforcing it by means of self-policing. 

What then does it mean if the Army does not have those things? Such a situation would 

constitute both an institutional and individual crisis for the profession.

In 2010, Chief of Staff of the Army General George Casey and his successor, General 

Martin Dempsey, raised concerns with the state of the Army as a profession. As a re-
8

sult, they set the conditions for a rigorous study titled the Army Profession Campaign. 

This campaign, initiated on January 1, 2011, aimed to reevaluate the state of the Army 

profession after 10 years of war. The team’s work continues, but the significance of the 

effort demands recognition. That the institution has engaged in this self-reflective effort 

is commendable. The Army recognizes that embodying the characteristics of a profession—especially when most Americans demand such characteristics—becomes absolutely critical if the organization intends to maintain moral legitimacy, public trust, and 

support for its conflicts abroad. 

Early on the campaign team members defined the tenets of the Army Profession: 

Trust, Trustworthiness, Honorable Service, Esprit de Corps, Military Expertise, and 

Stewardship. The concept of Stewardship may encompass the notion of self-policing, 

but only if there is a clear and coherent ethic to do such policing and a method by which 

to police it. Currently, neither exists.

OTHER PROFESSIONS AND THEIR ETHICS

As noted before, the other classic professions have codes of ethics of their own. In 

contrast to the Army, these codes are explicit and easily understood. Indeed, many professions take their codes as an oath. The best known is the medical profession’s Hippocratic Oath. 

In approximately 400 BC, Hippocrates created one of the oldest binding codes in history, best known by its often-misattributed summation of “First Do No Harm.” Modern 

medical practitioners rarely use the classical form of the oath; they more frequently use 

Dr. Louis Lasagna’s 1964 version.57 Another form of this medical oath has its roots in 

World War II. Physicians at the time, horrified by the illegal, immoral, and unethical 

prison experiments conducted by Nazi doctors, put into place the Nuremberg Code in 

1947 and the Declaration of Geneva in 1948.58

Nevertheless, the Hippocratic Oath, whether in its classical or modern form, speaks 

to the specialized knowledge physicians have, their critical relationship with their clientpatients, and the self-governing actions of the medical community. While some question the usefulness and relevancy of the ancient oath, the medical profession has made 

continued efforts to ensure that they adhere to an updated version of the code, viz., the 

American Medical Association’s Principles of Medical Ethics.

59

The medical profession also has an almost universal method of apprenticeship, 

whereby aspiring professionals—medical school graduates—become fully certified 

members of the profession through residency programs within hospitals and the medical community. Attending physicians often supervise these apprentices under the tutelage of a “teaching hospital.” 

This pattern repeats in many ways within the other classic professions of law and 

divinity.60 Many other occupations which aspire to be professions have these codes of 

ethics, self-government, and means of integrating new professionals into their community.61 The Army might examine these other professions as possible models in order to 

improve their own. Although this Paper does not go into detail with regard to other 

professions, it does explore later how five other countries utilize such codes.
9

VIEWS OPPOSED TO AN ETHIC

While it may seem obvious that a code of ethics would benefit any organization, 

there are reasons not to adopt an institutional ethic.62 Some writers suggest that these 

sorts of professional codes are “pointless, unnecessary, and possibly pernicious.”63 One 

argument takes the view that there need not be any special delineation for professionals 

because all people have the same rights and duties as moral persons.64 Another argues 

that codes are so infrequently referred to, or so poorly constructed, that they become a 

detriment rather than an aid.65

In The Warrior’s Way, soldier-scholar Richard Gabriel provides a litany of commonly 

stated objections to a professional code of ethics. His list, briefly encapsulated, is as follows:

• Ethics cannot be taught.

• Ethics cannot be enforced externally.

• A code might substitute for ethical judgment.

• An idealized code is unattainable.

• A truly comprehensive code would be unwieldy and impossibly large.

• Codes can encompass concepts which are in conflict.

• Codes can be misapplied.

• Codes can endanger a user who blindly follows such a code.

• Codes imply that soldiers are inherently bad.66

Gabriel provides additional details on each of these claims and provides a superb 

counterargument for each of them. He remains a supporter of a code of ethics for the 

members of the military profession, and later in his book Gabriel provides an example 

of such a code.67

As Andrew Olson of the Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions has noted,

formulating a proper code of ethics is inherently difficult. The author must create a philosophically sufficient and comprehensive ethic, while leaving it open-ended enough to 

account for unforeseen situations. The ethic must also be appropriate and understandable for its target audience.68

HISTORY OF THE ARMY ETHIC

Assuming that a code of ethics provides value despite potential drawbacks, it becomes beneficial to review some past leadership guidance the U.S. Army issued that 

referred, or failed to refer, to ethics. Historically, the Army has used leadership manuals 

as the means to communicate guidance and intent regarding ethical issues.

The Army issued its first Army leadership manual, a pamphlet titled Leadership, 

in 1948.69 In 1973, the Army issued Military Leadership. The July 1990 issue of Military 

Leadership (Field Manual [FM] 22-100) contains the first reference in Army doctrine to an 

explicit professional ethic. FM 22-100 (1990) refers to FM 100-1 (presumably the 1981 

release), The Army, as the source of “the doctrinal statement of the professional Army 
10

ethic.”70 FM 22-100 (1990) goes further, by defining the “Four Elements of The Professional Army Ethics”: loyalty, duty, selfless service, and integrity. 71 These Four Elements 

are the obvious precursor to today’s seven Army Values. This edition of FM 22-100 

continues with “Ethical Responsibilities,” including “Be a Role Model, Develop Your 

Subordinates Ethically, and Avoid Creating Ethical Dilemmas for Your Subordinates.” 

Finally, FM 22-100 (1990) includes an Ethical Decisionmaking Process to assist leaders 

in dealing with ethical dilemmas.72 Although only six pages long, it provides the most 

coherent description of a U.S. military ethic in recent doctrine.73

FM 22-100, Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do, was updated and released in August 1999 

and included today’s seven Army Values (covered in greater detail later). 74 One reviewer, Major Jonathan Smidt, suggested that the 1999 release was an improvement on 1990’s 

“loosely connected principles, factors, ethics, competencies, and styles.” Smidt noted 

that the Army Values “capture the professional military ethos, an ethos that was implied 

but not codified.”75 Similarly, the warrior ethos is described in narrative form, but it is 

not codified in the 1999 edition.76 This manual pays more attention to the idea of character than its predecessor, but its multiple references to ethics are somewhat disjointed 

and dispersed throughout the manual. In 2002, USAWC students Lieutenant Colonels 

Mark Patterson and Janet Phipps found the doctrine ethically insufficient, “leav[ing] the 

readers unsure about how ethics fits into leadership.”77 The August 1999 edition does 

not provide the same level of emphasis that the 1990 version did. Tellingly, one article 

claimed that the release of the new manual was in no way a response to the high-profile 

problems of sexual misconduct in the 1990s such as the incident at Aberdeen Proving 

Grounds.78 To be sure, this claim was ill-founded. Unfortunately, the periodic interests 

in emphasis that the Army places on ethics have tended to coincide with emergent moral 

crises.

The current edition of Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and Agile (FM 6-22) describes the Army Values in detail, and codifies the Soldier’s Creed and Warrior Ethos.79

The manual places renewed emphasis on character and ethics, with some exposition on 

ethical reasoning and ethical orders, but, like all its predecessors, it fails to lay down an 

explicit code of ethics. 

The other manual which routinely refers to the professional military ethos and the 

raison d’être of the U.S. Army is appropriately titled The Army (initially known as FM 

100-1). In 1984, USAWC student Lieutenant Colonel Hugh Kelley analyzed the ethic 

provided in the 1981 edition of The Army (FM 100-1) and found it “omissive and too 

general for the inexperienced soldier.”80 Kelley proposed a new comprehensive and detailed Army Ethic. His proposal was appropriate but apparently found no traction in the 

organization as a whole. 

The Army published FM 100-1 editions in 1978, 1981, 1986, 1992, and 1994. The 2001 

edition was renumbered FM 1. Most recently, the Army released the 2005 edition—

reviewed in the next section of this Paper. These multiple generations of documents 

created some confusion. In 1996, another USAWC student, Lieutenant Colonel James 

Schroeder, evaluated the materials—specifically FM 100-1, from 1978 to 1996—and 

found each generation substantially changed. Schroeder suggested that the changes in 

individual values and the Army Ethic resulted in “soldiers who do not know what the 
11

Army ethic is.”81 He confirmed this claim by surveying his USAWC classmates, only 27 

percent of whom correctly identified the explicit Ethic of the time (duty, integrity, and 

selfless service).82

In summary, the Army has frequently addressed issues in the moral/ethical domain, 

most often implicitly. As Colonel Matthew Moten, Professor of Military History at the 

United States Military Academy (USMA), notes, “it is hard to get one’s arms around 

it.”83 The Army has even applied the term “Army Ethic” to a four-word construct which 

preceded the Army Values. Historically, the Army has used these field manuals, The 

Army and Army Leadership, as the primary medium for promulgating moral/ethical prescriptions. These manuals require supplementing to deliver an explicit Army Ethic. As 

Schroeder stated, the challenge will be to create a lasting code which can remain essentially unchanged and thereby bond generations of Soldiers in a shared ethic.

ETHICS IN THE CURRENT U.S. ARMY ENVIRONMENT

Culture.

Culture plays a significant role in the success of any organizational endeavor. Louis 

Gerstner, a former IBM chief executive officer (CEO), observed, “Culture isn’t just one 

aspect of the game—it is the game.” He also noted that “successful institutions almost 

always develop strong cultures that reinforce those elements that make the institution 

great.”84 When culture undermines institutional integrity, Gerstner continues, “management invites the workforce itself to change the culture.”85

Within the Army, senior leaders are responsible for providing vision, shaping the 

culture, and leading change. In particular, these leaders communicate declarative values 

and the strategic vision throughout the organization and ensure that members internalize them.86 For example, on December 8, 2008, President-elect Barack Obama signaled 

a bellwether change in vision and moral/ethical culture when he broke with his predecessor and announced he would rescind the use of enhanced interrogation techniques, 

despite the best efforts of the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) to maintain them.87

Army leaders could learn from that example and place similar emphasis on re-laying 

the Army’s moral and ethical foundations.

The Army’s Patchwork of Ethical Cues.

In the inaugural issue of the Professional Military Ethic Monograph Series, then Chief 

of Staff of the Army General George Casey spoke glowingly of an Army ethic. He stated 

unequivocally, “Our ethic is as old as the Army itself. Forged throughout our history, 

it remains relevant—even indispensable—in today’s era of persistent conflict.”88 However, General Casey did not state what this Ethic is, nor is it possible to find any explicit 

description of this Ethic in Army doctrine.89

Either the Army’s current doctrinal materials do not say enough on the matter of 

moral/ethical issues, or they provide confusing mixed signals.90 Lieutenant Colonel Celestino Perez notes that “the Army’s institutional approach to ethics hinges on lists and 

models.”91 The following are among the most prominent elements in the Army’s huge 

smorgasbord of ethical tidbits: The Army, Oaths of Office, Officer’s Commission, Officer 
12

Evaluation Report, Uniform Code of Military Justice (Articles 133 and 134), the Joint 

Ethics Regulation, the Code of Conduct, the Soldier’s Creed/Warrior Ethos, the Army 

Values, the Soldiers Rules, Laws of War, Standards of Conduct, Service Customs and 

Traditions, the Values of American Society, and the Constitution of the United States. 

Unfortunately, these numerous and diverse dictums often confound efforts to infer a coherent ethic. Another Army Profession campaign product, the Army: Profession of Arms 

pamphlet, validates the importance of an Army Ethic, but admits that such an ethic “has 

not been fully codified.”92 The pamphlet further highlights this proliferation of disparate 

guidance, filling much of eight pages with competing and overlapping dictums.93

The recent 2005 edition of The Army (FM 1) places the Army in historical context, 

describes the Army as a profession, and sets forth a mission and vision for the organization.94 In doing so, the manual emphasizes three ethical tools—the Army Values, the 

Soldier’s Creed, and the Creed’s embedded Warrior Ethos. There is value in referencing these ethical sources, but as individual learning tools, they require nesting within 

an overarching institutional ethic. The following quotation from the manual reveals its 

inadequacy as an ethical guide, “The profession holds common standards and a code 

of ethics derived from common moral obligations undertaken in its members’ oaths of 

office.”95 Although the officer and enlisted oaths do describe obligations, these obligations relate to service and loyalty to the President, the Constitution, or other officers. No 

moral/ethical prescription in the Oaths of Office exists beyond the charge to “well and 

faithfully discharge [their] duties.”96 Clearly, blind obedience to military authority is a 

poor substitute for a true professional ethic. 

The Army does reference various other sources such as the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence, the Law of Land Warfare, Uniform Code of Military Justice, and 

the Code of Conduct.97 However, adding more reference material without distilling this 

material into a coherent ethic only muddies the issue.

The Joint Ethics Regulation (JER) actually does supply meticulous details on proper 

standards of ethical conduct. Shockingly, the JER stands as the only doctrinal document 

with an explicit “Code of Ethics for Government Service.”98 It also provides a list of ethical values, and describes a means of ethical decisionmaking.99 Despite these strengths, 

the JER fails as a document that can help service members conduct themselves well in 

combat. Key topics in the JER range from fraud to political activity to conflicts of interest. 

Rules regarding such ordinary subjects are best suited for bureaucracies or businesses at 

home, not for small units in wars abroad.

The Code of Conduct is a by-product of the Korean War, during which many captive 

U.S. Soldiers made statements against the U.S. Government.100 The first and last articles 

of the Code speak well to unlimited liability (“I am prepared to give my life in their 

defense”) and the clients’ expectation (“. . . an American, fighting for freedom”). Unfortunately, the remaining four articles exclusively focus on conduct as a prisoner of war. 

The Code of Conduct is incompletely titled, sufficient for its explicit purpose but insufficient as a singular code of conduct in situations outside of the prisoner-of-war context.

Air Force Captain Michael Kearns, a Master Instructor for the military’s Survival, 

Evasion, Resistance, and Escape (SERE) program, also points out that the code without 

training is insufficient.101 Additionally, he notes that when society binds a service member to a code, it incurs an obligation to that service member.102 Should there be a quid pro 
13

quo “covenant” between service members and the society they serve?103 Perhaps a contractual element in an Army Ethic would build understanding and agreement between 

Soldiers and the American public. The concept of an overarching Code of Conduct, applicable in any circumstance, bears further consideration.

Within its 13 lines, the Soldier’s Creed includes the four lines of the Warrior Ethos. According to doctrine, this credo captures “the essence of what it means to be a soldier.”104

In combination, the Creed and Ethos speak to service to the nation, teamwork, expertise, 

and professionalism, but the Creed makes few statements about moral/ethical conduct. 

The Army authored the Soldier’s Creed/Warrior Ethos to create and reinvigorate the 

“every Soldier is an infantryman” ideal.105 Unfortunately, the Creed over-emphasizes 

Cold War era battle and is ill-suited, perhaps even counterproductive, in the current 

operational environment of insurgency cum nation-building.106

The Army Values, another set of individual character traits as opposed to ethical 

injunctions, also offer some utility. The Army Values take the form of an acronym, 

LDRSHIP, referring to such values as loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage.107 These ideals have short-form descriptions, usually found 

on wallet cards and ID tags, and longer expositions, including sections 4-5—4-41 in Army 

Leadership (FM 6-22).108 The short-form descriptions are perhaps too cryptic to be useful, 

and the longer expositions are confusing and overlapping.109 The acronym LDRSHIP, an 

abbreviation for leadership, where for example the “H—honor is described as meaning, 

“Live up to all the Army Values”—an unappealing and redundant construct.110 Patterson and Phipps correctly claim, “The Army Values are too general and do not provide 

soldiers with the framework for making tough decisions.”111 Furthermore, the stories 

and examples of FM 6-22 focus exclusively on Soldier-to-Soldier interactions.112 With 

the exception of a brief vignette regarding My Lai, the manual provides no examples of 

Soldiers interacting with noncombatants, which is a critical shortcoming, considering 

the nature of the last 10 years of America’s conflicts.113

The current issue of FM 6-22 offers no mention of ethics in its description of the Army 

Values paradigm. FM 6-22 provides a compelling section about character and ethics, 

which refers back to the Army Values, but the Army Values do not reference morality 

or ethics themselves.114 Ultimately, the Army must nest the individually focused Army 

Values within a higher institutionally focused ethical framework if we hope to create a 

consistent moral/ethical foundation for Army implementation.

Finally, the Abu Ghraib incident compelled the development of the Soldier’s Rules 

in 2007-08.115 As such, they are the most up-to-date and best formulation of simplified 

rules for conduct with respect to enemy combatants and noncombatants. The Soldier’s 

Blue Book, published for all Soldiers beginning Initial Entry Training (IET), includes the 

Soldier Rules. This material, along with the Soldiers Creed, Army Values, and other ethical guidance, is among the many instructions new Soldiers learn during basic training. 

Training.

Dick Couch, a retired Navy Captain and author of The Tactical Ethic, states that Army 

basic training spends “somewhere between 35 and 45 hours on formal” Army core values training.116 Prior to the Global War on Terror, specialists like judge advocate generals 
14

(JAG) or chaplains often administered this training. However, high operational tempo 

and lack of personnel at basic training sites has now forced drill sergeants to administer 

nearly all of this training.117 In the absence of JAGs and chaplains, commanders would 

be a better, more authoritative choice to provide this kind of training. 

One key block of IET training that focuses on Operational Law deserves evaluation. 

This block of instruction covers many of the standard precepts of the Law of Land Warfare, Geneva and Hague Conventions, and Detainee Operations. A 3.5-hour block, it 

also covers Rules of Engagement and the Code of Conduct.118 Some unstructured discussions and practical exercises offer the opportunity for class participation and checks on 

learning. Interestingly, the Training Support Package for this block conveys the Soldier’s 

Rules in different language than the version of the Rules in the Soldier Blue Book and 

other Army documents. This discrepancy could create confusion among new Soldiers. 

Otherwise, the training appears adequate, but highly depends on each instructor’s 

knowledge, teaching proficiency, and degree of authority.

Once Soldiers reach their follow-on units, they receive little in the way of moral/ethical training beyond a small block of annual training on the Army Values and, if they are 

to deploy, short blocks of instruction on the Law of Land Warfare and Rules of Engagement. Considering the paramount importance today of ethical conduct in the current 

war, this shortfall should set off alarms.

Limited Progress. 

Recent Army-wide efforts provide encouraging signs of progress in the area of training. The Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (CAPE), founded in November 2007, 

now acts as the proponent on matters related to the profession and military ethics. CAPE 

also leads the aforementioned effort for the Army-wide Army Profession Campaign.

One result of the campaign, a recent Army White Paper titled The Profession of Arms, 

uses a methodology cribbed from British doctrine to begin resolving the cognitive dissonance between the Army’s moral and ethical domains.119 This nondoctrinal document 

describes the idea of an Army Ethic better than any current doctrinal guide does. However, the White Paper still falls short of creating a concise, digestible, explicit code of 

ethics that would meet the needs of the Army community while gaining the support of 

the U.S. public. The Army Profession of Arms Campaign remains a work in progress, so 

time remains to continue building on these incremental successes.

Another useful product of this campaign is the Army Professional Military Ethic 

Framework (Figure 1).120 Campaign team members created this two-variable coordinate 

system to highlight the tensions between the legal/moral and institutional/individual 

dimensions of an Army ethic. This diagram serves as a common “framework for [future] 

dialogue,” and may be useful as work toward an Army ethic progresses.121 The doctrinal 

gaps in the framework highlight the need to develop the moralistic-institutional (upperright) section of the quadrant.
15

Figure 1. Army Professional Military Ethic Framework.

CAPE also continues to develop curriculum and materials for Army Profession and 

Ethic Trainers (APET) and Master Army Profession and Ethic Trainers (MAPET).122 Additionally, CAPE is producing training products designed to increase awareness of moral/ethical issues in the force. One novel example is a “first person shooter” computer 

game, titled Moral Combat, which locates Soldiers in ethically challenging situations. The 

game perhaps succeeds in superseding “traditional, case-study [and lecture] based instruction” with a more exciting and interactive learning format.123 Unfortunately, while 

CAPE generates plenty of thought-provoking material, it remains a somewhat small and 

tertiary effort for the Army.

Another encouraging sign is the creation and installation of the first ethics chair at 

the U.S. Army Command and General Staff College (CGSC), Fort Leavenworth, Kansas. 

Retired Colonel Dr. John Mark Mattox, a specialist in just war theory, assumed this 

visiting professorship at the beginning of the CGSC Third Annual Ethics Symposium in 

November 2011.124 Every level of professional military education should receive similar 

emphasis on education and training in moral and ethical issues.

The rise of CAPE, the CGSC chair selection, and the establishment of the symposium 

are all small but favorable signs that moral/ethical issues are increasing in importance. 

However, without additional high-level emphasis, the CAPE and CGSC efforts will have 

little impact on the rest of the Army.

Legal Foundations

Quadrant 1: Legal-Institutional

•	 The U.S. Constitution

•	 Title 10, U.S. Code

•	 U.S. Treaties

•	 Status of Forces Agreements

•	 Law of Land Warfare

•	 Decentralized Decision-Making

•	 Low Level Risk Acceptance

•	 Transitioning from Conventional 

Warfare to LIC and Nation-Building

Quadrant 3: Legal-Individual

•	 Oath of Commission

•	 Standards of Exemplary Conduct

•	 UCMJ

•	 ROE

Quadrant 4: Moral-Individual

•	 Appreciation for universal human

rights

•	 “Golden Rule”

•	 Army Values

•	 Army Creed

•	 Warrior Identity/Ethos

Army as 

Profession

(Institutional

values/norms)

Soldier as

Professional

(Individual

values/norms)

Moral Foundations

Quadrant 2: Moral-Institutional

•	 Declaration of Independence

•	 Just War Tradition

•	 Army Culture- “Can-Do”, “The Big

War”

•	 Preference for Conventional War but 

Rich Counter-Insurgency Experience

•	 Garrison VS Deployed mindset
16

A Failure of Vision. 

A number of authors (including some who work at CAPE) argue that a palpable 

moral/ethical tension exists within the Army institution today. This tension results, 

these authors believe, from an Army that wants to wage conventional war but is stuck in 

counterinsurgency conflicts fraught with moral/ethical pitfalls because of the proximity 

of Soldiers to host-country civilians.125 As ethicist Dieter Baumann states, “A simplified 

warrior ethos is no longer enough to cover the demands of today’s battlefields.”126 Therefore, these authors argue, any future Army ethic must be applicable to the full spectrum 

of operations. These authors are almost certainly right. Unfortunately, the Army’s “future” documents appear no more focused on ethical matters than those of the past. 

In 2009, the Army completed the Army Capstone Concept, a significant futuring 

exercise designed to determine capabilities the Army will need in the “era of persistent 

conflict”—specifically the years 2016–28. U.S. Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC) 

Pamphlet 525-3-0 summarizes the exercise.127 Regrettably, the pamphlet makes almost no 

comment on the importance of morality and ethics. Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) analyst Dr. Don Snider noted that the Capstone Concept is “essentially amoral.”128 The concept lacks any uniquely American ethical coloring; it might apply to any nation. Snider 

called for an amendment to correct these deficiencies, but no such change occurred.129

Joint future documents share the same essential amorality. The Capstone Concept for 

Joint Operations, authored by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff office, also envisions a future force for the years 2016-28. The Capstone Concept offers many recommendations to improve the force for future conflicts, but not one of these recommendations targets the morality or ethics of the force. 130 For example, the authors suggest a 

need to provide leaders with “training and education that facilitate flexible and creative 

problem-solving,” but they fail to say that this problem-solving should address moral/

ethical issues as well as operational.131 

Similarly, the National Military Strategy (NMS) of 2011 makes no mention of moral/

ethical behavior other than a reference to our nation’s “respecting universal values,” and 

conducting wars “in a precise and principled manner.”132 The NMS does stipulate that 

service members must “reinforce U.S. values, maintain the trust and confidence of . . . 

the public, provide frank and professional military advice, remain good stewards and 

vigorously execute lawful orders.”133

The Capstone Concepts and the NMS all missed an opportunity. The guidance these 

documents intend to provide does not align with the needs of the force in the critical 

realm of moral/ethical action. These military futuring documents place little to no emphasis on the important human dimension of conflict, even as the tales of lapses in Iraq 

and Afghanistan continue to make headlines and subvert the objectives of U.S. national 

strategy.

REVIEW OF PARTNER MILITARY ETHICS

In Dr. Snider’s critique of the Army Capstone Concept, he noted that British moral/

ethical doctrine surpasses our own in ethical context.134 Indeed, many international allies 

explore and document their institutional ethics in far greater depth than does the U.S. 

Army. This section provides a comparative analysis of the ethical guidance provided 
17

by five professional armies: Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel. 

I have limited my investigation to those nations first for the simplicity, clarity, and 

understanding, and second because these are allies and partners with whom, in many 

ways, the United States shares values and moral approaches to warfare.135

At least some of these nations’ investigations and emphasis on morality and ethics 

appear driven by their own earlier moral lapses. For instance, the Canadian Army’s leadership disbanded the Canadian Airborne Regiment and made strong efforts to prevent 

any future such atrocities after learning that their soldiers had tortured and murdered a 

Somali teen in 1992.136 Similarly, the British Army engaged in war crimes and torture in 

the area around Basra, Iraq, in 2003, including noncombatant beatings and the drowning 

of a teen.137 One defendant in that case claimed—in violation of the lessons learned at 

Nuremberg—”We were told to put looters in the canal. I was the lowest rank, and we 

were told we weren’t paid to think. Just follow orders. I don’t know why the army went 

ahead with the prosecution . . . . We were scapegoats.”138 These tragedies highlight the 

problems every military encounters in war; however, these armies have each reacted in 

a manner befitting those committed to learning and to preventing future errors. Their 

efforts merit further study.

Canada.

Canada seems committed to ethical performance on and away from the battlefield. 

The Canadian Defence Forces (CF) have a robust website presence dedicated to educating 

the force on ethical issues within the Defence Ethics Programme.139 Their organizational 

chart demonstrates the emphasis placed on ethics, with members at the highest levels 

of the organization serving on the Ethics Advisory Board.140 The website also features 

training materials, tools, surveys, rules for ethical decisionmaking, and a bibliography. 

A frequently updated “What Would You Do?” section offers interesting case studies and 

scenarios for discussion.141

Canada also has a robust academic research program as demonstrated by a series of 

military ethics books released by the Canadian Defence Academy Press.142 These texts 

focus predominately on professionalism, leadership, and ethics. Among those books are 

two multinational anthologies describing the profession and ethics: Professional Ideology 

& Development: International Perspectives and Military Ethics, respectively.143 Both are excellent resources. Finally, Dr. Richard Gabriel’s The Warrior’s Way: A Treatise on Military 

Ethics, also published by the Canadian Defence Academy Press, is a summation of the 

Canadians’ Strategic Leadership Writing Project and a superior and timely addition to 

the body of knowledge in military ethics.

Finally, the CF have researched, created, and promulgated a simple and consistent 

military ethos. The CF describe their ethos in terms of its purpose; Canadian national 

values; and military beliefs, expectations, and values.144 Their ethos is remarkable in 

both its scope and conciseness. (See Figure 2.)
18

Figure 2. The Canadian Defence Forces Military Ethos.145

Canadian Army Forces train this Ethos in a pyramid construct of “ethical awareness, 

ethical decisionmaking, obligation to act, and ethical leadership.”146 In addition, the 

Army’s Lamplighter program and the use of Unit Ethics Coordinators afford military 

service members the opportunity to “cast a light” and highlight discrepancies in ethical 

behavior. The Lamplighter program features a reporting system to foster nontoleration 

of immoral and unethical behavior. The Canadians use Diogenes—a Greek philosopher 

who reputedly roamed the land with a lantern by the light of day searching for an honest man—as a symbol for the need to offer a philosophical background and avoid dumbing down material for the military audience.147

The CF prioritized the moral component of warfare and created a system of implementation in support of their goals. Overall, the CF ethical work and descriptive ethos 

should be an exemplar for the construction of a similar U.S. Army program. 

Beliefs and

Expectations

about Army

Service

Canadian

Army

Values

Perform

Duty with

Discernment

Canadian

Values,

Expectations

and Beliefs

•	 Unlimited Liability

•	 Fighting Spirit

•	 Teamwork

•	 Discipline

Ethos Shapes

•	 Professionalism

•	 Unit Cohesion

•	 Combat Effectiveness

•	 Ethical Certainty

Conditions and values

essentiall for Combat

effectiveness

Provides Philosophy

of Service Shaped for

Canadian Values

Governs

Conducts

•	 Duty

•	 Loyalty

•	 Integrity

•	 Courage

•	 Democratic Principles

•	 Peace, Order and

Good Government

•	 Rights and Freedoms

•	 Respect the Dignity

of all Persons

•	 Obey and Support

Lawful Authority
19

Great Britain.

Great Britain—specifically the British Army—does not have the website presence 

that Canada does with respect to moral/ethical issues and materials. However, it does 

a superior job of nesting its values and standards within a moral justification for war 

and the context of employment of land combat forces. Indeed the Army Doctrine Publication Land Operations (AC 71819) divides “Fighting Power” into three components: 

conceptual, physical, and moral.148 AC 71819 dedicates 12 pages to the description of 

the moral component of fighting power as it relates to the British land forces. This wellwritten material, which encompasses ethics, motivation, and moral cohesion, should be 

adopted in some form by the U.S. Army in order to flesh out the upper right quadrant 

of the Army Professional Military Ethic Framework (Figure 1). In the U.S. context, this 

institutional aspect would lie between the national values and Army individual values.

The British also describes the “Values and Standards of the British Army” in a publication by that name.149 The brief introduction summarizes some of the ideas fleshed 

out in AC 71819 regarding the moral use of fighting power. The document, however, is 

largely dedicated to describing the six British Army values, which are similar to the U.S. 

Army Values: Selfless Commitment, Courage, Discipline, Integrity, Loyalty, and Respect for Others. Authorities also expect soldier compliance with the standards, “Lawful, Appropriate Behaviour, and Total Professionalism.” The Values and Standards document also conveys the importance of continual emphasis on these values and standards, 

which “pervade all training activity, career development, and leader focus—not just a 

short block of annual instruction.”150 Finally, the document calls for strict enforcement 

of the values and standards and provides a service test allowing soldiers to determine 

whether a questionable act constitutes misconduct.151 In general, this readable publication provides more guidance to British soldiers regarding their Army’s core values and 

standards than is provided by any comparable American publication.

The final British doctrinal document of note is the Military Covenant. AC 71819 describes this “agreement,” showing that the British people are willing to make certain 

concessions in support of their British military.152 In exchange for service member loyalty and unlimited liability, the British people willingly agree to “value, respect, sustain, 

and reward them and their families with appropriate terms and conditions of service.”153

Americans may hold to the same ideals, but, once again, ours is merely an implicit obligation, whereas the British model is explicit and codified. This concept, previously 

described by Kearns, merits additional research and investigation.

Australia.

Australians also have demonstrated a deep interest in improving their ethical doctrinal material. Their internet presence exceeds Britain’s, but does not rise to the level of 

Canada’s. Nevertheless, the Australian Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics, established in 2002, has a wealth of resources.154 The website describes their research efforts, 

recommends reading materials, and provides information about ethics symposiums. 

For example, the 2009 Symposium on Ethical Leadership included presentations on both 

Canada’s ethical failures in Somalia and Britain’s failures in Basra. The symposium also 
20

included a case study review of the ethical lapses which resulted in the Royal Australian 

Navy’s loss of nine sailors in an April 2005 helicopter crash due to poor maintenance 

efforts.155

Australia covers the gamut with its formal doctrine. Defense-level documents address basic business ethics and are similar in nature to the U.S. Joint Ethics Regulation.156

The Defence Leadership Framework makes frequent mention of the need to “behave 

professionally and ethically,” to act upon “organizational values and codes of conduct,” 

and to “display high ethical and professional standards in all aspects of work.”157 Notably, this framework includes officers, enlisted soldiers, and civilians.

Additional Australian material is even more enlightening. The Executive Series Leadership in the Australian Defence Force (ADDP 00.6) manual describes the moral component 

of war in the same manner as the British doctrine, but the Australian construct substitutes the term “intellectual” for “conceptual” when referring to the three components of 

war.158 Their guide also references Sun Tzu’s concept of the “Tao” as the critical moral 

component of war. The Australian authors believe that the moral component is the most 

important of the three, because military service should be a “force for good.”159 The authors also note that a leader’s responsibility includes assisting others in moving from an 

early moral development stage to a “more internally controlled state.”160

While the Australian Army publishes some excellent material, the Navy products 

are genuinely novel and uniquely useful. The Australian Navy Ethic provides the best 

example for development and understanding of ethics and the notion of a military profession.161 While its booklet is nominally described as a Leadership Ethic, it is in fact 

a treatise on moral conduct in war. This gem of a guide meticulously describes in an 

ethically consistent manner key aspects of leadership. The authors address, in sequence, 

the issues of Conscience, Profession, Values, Followership, Command, and Power. They 

continue with relevant case studies and a section on Ethical Decision Making. The manual’s Ethical Decision-Making Model includes three simple tests that service members 

can use when facing moral dilemmas.162 A “Key Points” page beautifully summarizes 

the booklet.163 U.S. Army authorities will recognize that this manual uses the same “Be, 

Know, Do” model as the U.S. Army. The Australians also use a list of principles similar 

to the U.S. Army “Leadership Principles”—which we no longer use.

For simplicity, the creators of the Australian Navy Ethic subdivided three key sections into stand-alone two-page documents titled “Definition of Leadership,” “Leadership and Followership,” and “The Profession of Arms.” In total, these Navy products 

are superior in content and detail to almost any other modern guides currently in use. 

U.S. doctrine developers would benefit greatly from a detailed review of this Australian 

work.

The services of the Australian Defence Forces promote slightly differing core values. 

The overarching Australian Defence Forces espouse the values of “honour, duty, selfless commitment, courage, discipline, and loyalty.”164 The Australian Army’s choices are 

“courage, initiative, and teamwork,” while the Australian Navy’s are “honour, integrity, 

courage, honesty, and loyalty.”165 The Australian Air Force uses a different construct; 

they describe their values as what “the Air Force stands for, what they aim to accomplish, and what they expect of their people.”166
21

New Zealand.

New Zealand’s doctrinal material relies heavily on Australian and, to a lesser extent, 

British documents. Given its colonial and cultural heritage, proximity, and close working relationship with the others, this comes as no surprise. Foundations of New Zealand 

Military Doctrine (NZDDP–D), the baseline document for New Zealand Forces (Kiwis), 

briefly describes a Warfighting Ethos.167 The Kiwis also break “Fighting Power” into the 

same three components (conceptual, physical, and moral) as their British brethren.168

When defining these components, the Kiwis clearly state their national interests and 

military needs. The New Zealand and British documents vary only in fine delineations.

The only area of substantial difference is values. The New Zealand Defence Ministry 

and Army’s shared values are Courage, Comradeship, Commitment, and Integrity. The 

New Zealand Navy replicates most of the list, excluding Integrity. The New Zealand Air 

Force diverges, relying upon its own construction, Service and Allegiance, Professionalism, Integrity, Teamwork, Traditions and History, and Discipline.169 One author notes 

that New Zealand’s efforts to develop Ethos and Values started in 1995 and continues today.170 The New Zealand corpus is not substantially different from Canada’s and Great 

Britain’s, but it does provide another useful data point for construction of a U.S. Army 

Ethic.

Israel.

The Israeli Defense Force (IDF) takes a minimalist approach to its ethical doctrine.171

Its single doctrinal webpage includes an IDF Mission statement, an Ethics sub-section, 

and a Main Doctrine sub-section. Within the Ethics sub-section, the authors include additional sections called “The IDF Spirit,” “Spirit of the IDF—Definition and Origins,” 

“Basic Values,” and “The Values.”172 “The IDF Spirit” is a role statement referencing 

subordination to the state, while the “Spirit of the IDF” depicts traditions and sources of 

IDF strength. The Basic Values of the IDF are “Defense of the State, its Citizens and its 

Residents, Love of the Homeland and Loyalty to the Country, and Human Dignity.” The 

Values of the IDF are listed as “Tenacity of Purpose in Performing Missions and Drive 

to Victory, Responsibility, Credibility, Personal Example, Human Life, Purity of Arms, 

Professionalism, Discipline, Comradeship, and Sense of Mission.”173

Overall, the IDF description of their national and military objectives and values is 

concise and complete. They present the material in a manner similar to the simplified 

construct of the Canadian Defence Forces. Despite some confusion in how the sub-sections relate to one another as well as some redundancy in terminology, clearly much 

effort went into this elegant exposition of core values.174

Ally Survey: Conclusion.

Reviewing these partner nations’ materials is enlightening. Each nation has made a 

solid effort to construct ethical guidelines for its service members. Many use the threecomponent model to describe the significance of land combat in service to the nation. 

Those who do use this three-component model stress the importance of the moral com-
22

ponent, recognizing that warfare is, at its heart, a human endeavor fraught with issues 

of right and wrong. All discuss the importance of soldiers’ unlimited liability, and the 

institutional subordination of the military to the state. Most properly nest their military 

values within their national interests and values. All espouse important values, and 

many share similar values. Great Britain, Canada, and New Zealand share their ideas 

among themselves and capitalize on American references as well. The U.S. military 

would be wise to reciprocate such open receptivity.

In-depth study beyond this brief review of literature would be valuable. The U.S. 

Army should analyze materials generated by Canada, Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and Israel and cherry-pick from the most promising and applicable ideas. CAPE 

is the right proponent to lead this effort, but the Army’s strategic leadership must also 

better champion and resource the work.

PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF A U.S. ARMY ETHIC

As mentioned previously, U.S. Army trainees receive a single 3.5-hour Operational 

Law class. During this class, only one of the 90 slides covers “Why Do You Need to 

Follow the Law of Warfare?” The reasons cited for such followership are “maintaining 

discipline, sustaining public support, facilitating an early end to hostilities, upholding 

reciprocity, doing the right thing, avoiding legal and international consequences, and 

averting the condemnation that comes with a crime or violation.”175 Unfortunately, the 

classroom training support package provides little further detail beyond these eight bullets. The Operational Law training package exemplifies the problem as a whole. Instructors often teach the what of proper battlefield conduct, but not the why. Soldiers must 

understand why it is a bad idea to maltreat enemies and noncombatants. Only thus will 

they buy in. In order to buy in, they need to have at least a basic understanding of the 

philosophical underpinnings of the right and wrong of combat. 

Philosophy. 

Soldiers need not receive a semester’s worth of philosophy, but they should receive 

some basic formulations. Two main philosophical approaches for this education are 

worth considering: the outcome-based (teleological), and the act-based (deontological) 

approaches. 

Outcome-based theories are “those which consider only the consequences of alternative actions in determining whether those actions are morally right or wrong.”176 Because this approach measures the consequences or the utility of certain choices, ethicists 

often call this consequentialism or utilitarianism. In simplified terms, utilitarianism 

holds that moral rules should remain unbroken, but when moral dilemmas arise, (two 

or more moral rules are in direct conflict), one should select the action which produces 

the “greatest happiness to the greatest number of people” or the consequence which 

avoids the greatest harm.177

One of the problems with the utilitarian approach is that the question must still be 

asked, “Greatest happiness or least harm exactly to whom?” A Soldier in combat can 

easily take the stance that his happiness (or safety) is significantly more important than 
23

a noncombatant’s happiness (or safety). When people take utilitarianism to the extreme, 

the ends will likely justify any means.178

Another key problem with utilitarianism is that it often relies upon false dichotomies. A person may perceive an either/or choice even when an entire spectrum of options may actually exist. In television’s 24 action-drama, the character Jack Bauer was 

sometimes presented with a moral dilemma in which he was “forced” either to torture 

an enemy agent or to permit a mass casualty event—the classic “ticking time bomb” 

scenario.179 The George W. Bush administration employed just such scenarios to help 

justify the employment of enhanced interrogation techniques.180

Alternatively, Soldiers could apply the act-based or principle-based theories. These 

deontological theories presume that “certain principles are worth upholding because of 

their inherent rightness and regardless of their outcome.”181 This notion suggests that 

there are absolutes of right and wrong and that people should strive to do that which is 

right, come what may. 

Using this notion of absolutes, Immanuel Kant formulated the best known of the actbased theories, known as Kantian absolutism. This theory argues that one should choose 

an action, not because it serves any best consequence or one’s rational self-interest, but 

because it is morally the “right” thing to do.182 This theory describes a powerful sense 

of duty. Indeed, because this adherence to the absolutist ideal supersedes rational selfinterest, service members accept their higher duty to the state even at the risk of their 

lives. We call this “unlimited liability.” 

At the heart of Kantian absolutism is the categorical imperative. Kant generated numerous variations of this imperative, but the most relevant to this Paper are the “universal law” and “respect for persons” rules. The “universal law” imperative demands 

that one should “act on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that 

it should become a universal law.”183 At least on the surface, this is reminiscent of the 

“Golden Rule,” which holds that one should “do unto others as you would have them 

do unto you.”184 If everyone is acting in accordance with this ideal, no one should be 

harming others. The “respect for persons” imperative demands that one should “act in 

such a way that you always treat humanity never simply as a means but always at the 

same time as an end.”185 Therefore, people should not use or manipulate others toward 

the achievement of an otherwise desired or permissible outcome. This ideal directly contradicts the Machiavellian method and also precludes the consequentialist formulation 

of preferring the needs of the many over the needs of the few or the one. 

Historically, American ideals have often been absolutist ideals. The Declaration of 

Independence, with its reference to “unalienable rights,” provides the most obvious 

example of such ideals.186 Another more modern example is National Security Council 

Report 68 (NSC-68), which served as a guide to U.S. strategic foreign policy for the latter 

half of the 20th century. NSC-68 spoke directly to principle-based ethics:

The free society values the individual as an end in himself, requiring of him only that measure of self-discipline and self-restraint which make the rights of each individual compatible 

with the rights of every other individual. The freedom of the individual has as its counterpart, therefore, the negative responsibility of the individual not to exercise his freedom in 

ways inconsistent with the freedom of other individuals and the positive responsibility to 

make constructive use of his freedom in the building of a just society.187
24

While the absolutist solution to a given ethical problem is normally clearer and lessdebatable than the utilitarian solution—and this simplicity makes the entire approach 

appear more desirable at first look—neither act-based nor outcome-based formulations 

will work in every situation. As David Perry writes:

The strengths of the utilitarian theory lie in its consideration of the well-being of all sentient 

beings potentially affected by proposed actions and its goals of ameliorating suffering and 

enhancing happiness. The chief virtue of Kantian ethics is its respect for individual human 

autonomy, dignity, and worth. Unfortunately, utilitarianism often undermines justice and 

basic rights, while absolutism undercuts the significance of compassion.188

Efforts to adhere to an absolute while attempting to fulfill utilitarian needs can result 

in some compelling but worrisome mind games. Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Galipeau 

reiterated the ideas of Oren Gross, a law professor, who suggested that it was possible 

to have an absolute ban on torture while allowing for the possibility of justification of 

using torture techniques in the extreme case of the “ticking time bomb” scenario. Gross 

noted that “resorting to torture may be defensible (pragmatic absolutism) and that government officials may find it necessary to violate that legal ban (official disobedience) 

in those instances.”189 Charitably, this is a tortured argument—pun fully intended. The 

notion of a “pragmatic absolutism” is, by definition, oxymoronic. The same could be 

said for the idea of “official disobedience.”190 Finally, the ticking time bomb scenario on 

a world-cataclysm scale remains theoretical, a contingency that has no precedent in historical events. However, this is evidence of the moral quandary our military must face, 

and ultimately act upon. 

Accounting for these inadequacies, the Army must still provide Soldiers with the 

basic knowledge of these ethical theories, and teach them how to apply logic. Soldiers 

would then be better equipped to understand what makes an action right or good, and 

how to avoid those actions that are wrong or bad. One moral quandary that particularly 

requires education and understanding, and which is in conflict with the absolutist ideal, 

is the moral justification for killing.

Moral Justification for Killing.

Regardless of where one stands on the teaching of ethical theory to Soldiers, it is 

deeply disappointing that they do not receive even rudimentary training on the moral 

justifications for their lawful actions in war. The fact that we avoid teaching moral justifications is not due to the complexity (and expense) of what must be taught. As Major 

Peter Jennings and Colonel Sean Hannah note, it is difficult “to make the preeminent 

military task—killing and dying—morally redeeming both for those who must undertake the task and the society they serve.”191 However, we must make the effort, especially since studies show a strong correlation between the infliction of death in combat 

and subsequent Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.192
25

Lieutenant Colonel Peter Kilner, an ethicist and West Point professor, does a superior 

job of describing the obligation to teach Soldiers about killing and its moral justification: 

The Army should include the moral justification for killing in combat in training not only 

because it would enhance the Army’s effectiveness but also because it is the right thing to 

do . . . . [Military leaders] devote their lives to preparing soldiers mentally, physically, and 

materially for the rigors of combat . . . . Unfortunately, they fail to prepare them morally, and 

in doing so, they fail [their Soldiers]. They leave soldiers unprepared to deal with their post 

combat consciences and unprepared to make morally right decisions about who to kill in 

morally ambiguous circumstances.193 

Couch makes a strong case that the U.S. military should strive to return its service 

members to society “better than when [they entered] battle. Implicit in [this mandate] 

is to bring them home having done nothing of which or which may cause psychological 

damage.”194 Indeed, it would be tragic if they “all came home physically well, but mentally broken, because they did something [with which they could not live].”195

From a teleological viewpoint, self-care may be the most convincing moral justification for treating enemies and noncombatants well—to best pursue their own self-interest, Soldiers should treat others well, because by doing so, they avoid moral dissonance 

and preserve their conscience and psychological health. This approach may also provide 

the means to solve the problem with the absolutist imperative of not inflicting “unnecessary” harm on others: this imperative cannot describe what battlefield behavior it actually condoned, only what might be condemned. Such a compromise may not be ideal, 

but it may very well be the most useful solution.

Philosophical Goals.

In comparing the desirable with the desired, behavioralists Geert and Gert Hofstede 

suggested that “in the case of the desirable, the norm is absolute, pertaining to what is 

ethically right. In the case of the desired, the norm is statistical: it indicates the choice 

made by the majority.”196 The Army must strive for the desirable, and minimize the statistical. While the goal might be to achieve an absolutist ideal, there is merit in considering both the absolutist and utilitarian arguments. According to Deremer, the goal of this 

education and training is to produce 

The moral or ethical person [who] understands that there is a defensible notion of right and 

wrong, of truth and falsehood, and of fairness, justice and accountability. He also recognizes 

that these notions are not just proper for their own sake, but that they also work. They are in 

fact practical guides for living in community with others.197

There are other notable, competing philosophical visions. For example, Gabriel notes 

that there is an ethics of duty, and an ethics of virtue.198 Alternatively, these ethics of 

duty and ethics of virtue have been described by CAPE authors Jennings and Hannah 

as the morals of obligation and morals of aspiration. They consider the morals of obligation a “moral floor” or a baseline expectation, while the moral of aspiration is a “moral 

ceiling.”199 Perhaps the utilitarian notion is at or near the “floor,” and the absolute ideal 
26

is at the “ceiling.” Jennings and Hannah suggest that the floor must never descend, and, 

while the field between the floor and the ceiling can expand, the goal of a military ethic 

should be to elevate both the floor and the ceiling toward a level of “supererogatory behavior above and beyond the call of duty.”200 Whether or not this goal is the real ultimate 

goal of the U.S. military ethic—or even an achievable goal—remains debatable. In any 

case, any practical, sustainable Ethic must unify competing philosophical visions via a 

dialectic approach.201

Lawrence Kohlberg’s moral stages of development allow for just such an approach. 

Kohlberg’s model describes a progression of moral development largely dependent on 

personal maturation and experience. One developmental stage sets the conditions for 

subsequent stages. (See Figure 3.) 

Figure 3. Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development.202

The Kohlberg model allows for various forms of argument and questioning at different stages. Will a Soldier do the right thing because of duty or obligation, or do it 

because of an aspiration or virtue? Will a Soldier do something to avoid punishment, or 

is his motive based on the belief that the action is the right thing to do? Most likely, the 

answer will be some of both and vary in accordance with the Soldier’s level of moral maturity. Regardless of the level of individual moral development, the institution should 

always strive to guide Soldiers along the path toward higher moral attainment.203 At a 

Level Stage Dominant Theme

1. Preconventional (Children,

some adults) 1 Fear of punishment

2 Opportunistic— “what’s in it for me?”

2. Conventional (Most adults) 3 Good boy—nice girl— “will people think well of

me?”

4 Law and order— “can’t break the rules.”

3. Post-conventional

(A few highly developed adults) 5

Social contract— “the greatest good for the

greatest number.” Laws should generally be

followed, but there are expections.

6

Universal ethical principles—a few basic principles always apply—life liberty, human rights,

and respect for the dignity of man—irrespective

of specific laws, rules, or orders.
27

minimum, the Army must teach and train its Soldiers to achieve Stage 4 of moral development, and military leaders and educators should be expected to attain Stage 5, if not 

Stage 6.

A few critics argue that any kind of ethical norming is impossible to achieve among 

Soldiers. The Army draws recruits from the population at large, they argue, and new recruits may not share the values of the organization upon entry. But the mere fact that the 

Army’s recruiting pool is ethically varied and that ethical training is difficult does not 

mean that such training is unachievable. In any event, we must try. In an age in which 

the evidence of gruesome war crimes is transmitted across the world in vivid color at the 

speed of light, it is just as important to develop Soldiers morally as to develop their skill 

with their assigned weapons. 

While Kohlberg’s model might serve to describe a Soldier’s stage of moral development, Benjamin Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Outcomes could serve as a means of 

measuring that development. The Army uses Bloom’s taxonomy only at the upper educational levels (e.g., CGSC, USAWC). This taxonomy demarcates learning in six stages 

of increasing difficulty and scope: knowledge, comprehension, application, analysis, 

synthesis, and evaluation. Figure 4 describes each learning level.

Figure 4. Bloom’s Taxonomy of Cognitive Outcomes.204

Level Stage Dominant Theme

Knowledge 1 Remembering previously learned material,

facts, vocabulary, concepts, priniciples

Comprehension 2 Grasping the meaning of material

Application 3 Using abstractions, rules, principles, ideas, and

other information in concrete situations

Analysis 4 Breaking down material into its constituent

elements or parts

Synthesis 5 Combining elements, pieces, or parts to form a

whole or constitute a new pattern or structure

Evaluation 6 Making judgments about the extent to which

methods or materials satisfy extant criteria
28

Most entry-level training focuses on tasks that require learning no more advanced 

than Stages 1 and 2. Soldiers understand what they are supposed to do, but may not 

learn why. This level of learning is clearly not sufficient for tasks involving moral reasoning skills. For the most rudimentary of such tasks, Soldiers must achieve at least Stage 3 

of learning; reaching a Stage 6 would be most desirable. 

This combination of Bloom’s Taxonomy and Kohlberg’s stages of moral development offers both floor and ceiling guidelines for the ethical training of Soldiers, and also 

describes the minimum versus desired levels of understanding. (See Figure 5.)

Figure 5. Bloom’s Taxonomy and Kohlberg’s Moral Stages.

PROMULGATION OF A U.S. ARMY ETHIC

Chaplain (Colonel) John Brinsfield has commented that old Soldiers traditionally 

“bemoan the fact that new recruits do not seem to subscribe to the old values.”205 The 

purpose of Combat Basic Training is in part to indoctrinate new recruits and train them 

in those values. But that training has proven insufficient. Cycles of emphasis are too 

often tied to cycles of crisis.

For example, in the review of the Vietnam My Lai massacre, investigating officer 

Lieutenant General William Peers identified nine factors which contributed to the war 

crimes there. All of Peer’s recommendations are worthy of review, but the real interest 

lies in what the institutional military can do to prevent such crimes. Peers’s recommendations regarding “Lack of proper training” and “Attitude toward the [combatants and 

noncombatants]” apply. Robert Reilly argues that “lack of training in today’s Army is 
29

not a problem because all units receive training on Law of War, safeguarding of noncombatants, and rules of engagement prior to deployment.”206 This efforts covers the 

legal side of the ethic framework (Figure 1) but neglects the moral side.207 Reilly also 

equivocates by saying that personnel and battlefield turbulence attenuate the training’s 

usefulness over time, and that quality and quantity of the training must be sufficient to 

compensate.208 The counterargument would be that there is very little quality or quantity of training, and recent high profile examples like the 5/2 Stryker “kill teams” demonstrate that the training and/or attitudes toward our foes remain unsatisfactory.

As USAWC instructor Stephen Gerras has noted, most of the training—beyond the 

paltry schoolhouse introduction—regarding these kinds of war crimes is a direct “kneejerk” reaction to recent cases.209 The Army is vulnerable to the charge of forcing expedited, reactive, case-specific remediation on units, which more often than not addresses 

only the superficial symptoms of the most recent problem rather than the proximate 

cause.

The Joint Operating Environment (JOE) analysis for 2010 stressed that Professional 

Military Education was the critical key to the future health of the Army. It listed a myriad 

of useful disciplines upon which service members of the future will need to capitalize, 

among them “history, anthropology, economics, geopolitics, cultural studies, the ‘hard’ 

sciences, law, and strategic communication.”210 But what of the knowledge of philosophy, morality, and ethics, so that service members may apply that important knowledge 

in a moral/ethical manner? These topics receive no attention in the JOE analysis.

In 2002, USAWC students Mark Patterson and Janet Phipps performed a study, “Ethics: Re-directing the Army’s Moral Compass,” which set forth the need to propagate better forms of ethical training within the service.211 They identified a number of shortfalls 

in the current programs of instruction, and presented recommendations for an overhaul 

of the Professional Military Education system in order to fulfill that promise. Much of 

their commentary remains relevant and usable. 

Nathaniel Fick, a former Marine and CEO of the Center for a New American Security, argues that the military should not separate ethical training from operational—the 

two must be taught concurrently and in direct relation to each other.212 Couch offers a 

number of interesting methods of melding the two worlds, but the key issues remain 

the same—Soldiers must learn the means to discern “what is right?” and “how do I 

choose?”213 Soldiers will also benefit from understanding why a given action is right or 

wrong, even if the sole reason is that it does not fit within the profession’s Ethic. Usually, 

there is a better answer than that, but relying on the Ethic alone can and should suffice 

for those whose level of maturity is low.

The goal of promulgating ethical doctrine is to ensure that the force understands 

the guidance and expectations, takes ownership, and can apply lessons in a manner 

consistent with Army expectations as set forth in Figure 3. In the future, there can be 

no bifurcations between garrison and deployed, school and field armies. Soldiers must 

employ the lessons learned at the schoolhouse while operating in garrison and the field.

Finally, there must be a wholesale effort to train as we fight. Couch offers some ideas 

to incorporate ethical training into operational training, but in any event, we cannot 

allow unethical behavior within our training environment.214 For example, Lieutenant 

Colonel Douglas Pryer, a U.S. Army human intelligence officer, and the previously 
30

mentioned SERE instructor Michael Kearns, have both suggested that the benefits of 

the SERE course—which teaches, among other things, resistance-to-torture/interrogation techniques—come at too great a cost.215 Specifically, trainers must reconsider the 

mock torture events at the school so that our military does not tacitly endorse the use 

of methods in the schoolhouse which one would find abhorrent outside it. Ultimately, 

the well-meaning tactics approved for training of service members at SERE migrated 

to Guantanamo, Iraq, and Afghanistan and did great harm to the military institution.216

The Army must promulgate, train, and explain an Army Ethic. However, an Ethic 

alone is insufficient without a means of self-policing. 

THE IMPORTANCE OF PEER-TO-PEER SELF-GOVERNANCE

Even if the Army had a comprehensive Army Ethic, and the Army fully promulgated 

that Ethic and ensured every Soldier in the ranks understood it, there would still be 

transgressions. Even if the Army established a best-in-class training program, which fully trained Soldiers on the philosophy of ethical behavior to high levels of understanding 

and moral development, there would still be bad actors in the ranks. In The Tactical Ethic, 

Couch describes exactly this problem. He notes that Soldiers and Marines inculcated at 

the basic training schoolhouse remain susceptible to the effects of the moral pirates in 

their garrison organizations.217 These charismatic but unethical actors often subvert the 

“better angels of our nature” by their proximity and power. 

The investigation into the 5-2 Stryker Brigade atrocities in Afghanistan’s Maymund 

district cited “weak leaders, who [lacked] confidence, [and acted in a] self-serving manner, . . . failed to enforce standards, and [were] not engaged in the platoon’s daily activities” for the inability to police the platoon.218 The chain of command failed, but what 

about the Soldiers? Some platoon members disapproved. Early on, a few Soldiers unsuccessfully tried to report wrongdoing, but some of them perpetrated similar crimes 

later.219 Why did none of the Soldiers prevent the atrocities, or report them when it became clear they could not stop them?

An all-encompassing moral/ethical framework and provision for a self-policing 

force are required. Without those elements, one should not be surprised when ethical 

failures are overlooked. The elements of stewardship, self-policing, and a robust spirit 

of nontoleration for behavior outside the accepted norms must exist if the organization 

is to move forward with its honor intact.

According to a recent Army Public Affairs video, “Stewardship [is] policing the profession every day to maintain its ethic.” In the same video, Vice Chief of Staff Peter 

Chiarelli adds, “That is absolutely the foundation of our profession; ethics, leadership, 

moral courage, a soldier that does right even when no one is looking.” Then, as the video 

continues, Lieutenant Peter Yorck offers, “Our trust, that we have established with the 

American people, is maintained through a moral ethical standard that has to be upheld, 

especially in combat.”220 Does the reality match the publicity?

The self-policing character of the organization is critical to the Army’s status as a 

profession.221 The institution would benefit from a code of ethics that capitalizes on the 

principle of self-policing; indeed this concept of self-governance could become a defining characteristic of not just the code but the institution as a whole. This ideal would be 
31

similar to that embodied in the Honor Code at the USMA. Its history sheds light on this 

topic and the efficacy of such a code.

USMA HONOR CODE ORIGINS

The USMA Motto, “Duty, Honor, Country,” reflects the great emphasis the institution places on personal honor. This emphasis is further reinforced by the USMA’s famous Honor Code, “A Cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, or tolerate those who do,” which 

is a defining imperative of the academy.222

Lewis Sorley wrote Honor Bright, an excellent history of the West Point Honor Code 

and Honor System. Sorley describes five specific ideas that underpin the creation and 

propagation of the Honor Code. First, the Honor Code was always a work in progress, 

whose “practices of implementation became established, and only later were those practices to be codified in officially written form.”223 In many ways, the Academy cadets 

themselves created and codified the system. On at least one occasion, in 1933, a cadet 

leader conceived, constructed, published, and promulgated a significant code document 

without the knowledge or approval of the faculty administration.224 Even more remarkable, given those unusual circumstances, the cadet’s clandestine effort survived and 

thrived. 

Second, the code applies to all cadets from the moment they enter the system. The 

Academy recognizes that cadets come from many different backgrounds, just as the 

Army’s Soldiers come from different backgrounds.225 The organization recognizes that 

though they are young adults, new cadets—like young basic trainees—are still young 

enough to learn a system and internalize a sense of honor.226 These new cadets receive 

training on the code and when there are missteps, the Honor enforcement committee 

takes into account a cadet’s time and experience under the Honor System.227 However, 

the overarching theme holds that there exists only one standard; faculty and upperclass 

cadets expect new cadets to meet that standard from the day they receive their introduction to the system.

Third, cadets are guardians of the code, a system in effect every day of their cadet 

experience.228 Cadets have the opportunity to learn and grow within the system; they 

frequently experience the difficulties of ethical decisionmaking with regard to moral dilemmas. In short, they get practical experience when the stakes are lower so that they are 

better prepared later when lives may be on the line. Cadets construct, teach, administer, 

and enforce the code.

Fourth, the nontoleration clause, “or tolerate those who do,” often presents the most 

difficult challenge for cadets. The Code compels cadets not just to maintain their personal honor, but to enforce it among peers and police the organization as a whole. There 

is a constant tension between loyalty to one another and loyalty to important principles 

greater than oneself. “In keeping with this impartial outlook, any cadet will report any 

other cadet, or even himself, for a violation of honor.”229 Cadets seek not just to meet 

the letter of the code, but its spirit. Likewise, Sorley notes that professions demand high 

standards:
32

Every pursuit worthy of being considered a profession understands the necessity for its 

members to establish admirable standards of conduct . . . and to uphold those standards, 

both as individuals and corporately. With such aspirations come obligations, very demanding ones.230

The nontoleration clause is the demand on that aspiration; the clause remains “integral to the spirit of the Code and essential to its viability.”231

The fifth and final lesson from the USMA Honor Code is simple; cadets who violate 

the code most often face separation. Honor committees normally recommend expulsion 

of cadets found guilty of an honor violation. There is little sympathy for misconduct. “It 

is no part of the function of West Point to become a reformatory of morals.”232

Even though the USMA code is exemplary in many ways, it focuses too much on 

issues arising from the academic environment and not enough on those from the field 

Army milieu. Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Peter Fromm, an ethicist and former USMA 

philosophy professor, argues that the code focuses too narrowly on lying, cheating, and 

stealing, and not for other important derelictions (e.g., cruelty), even for the environment for which it was intended.233 Sorley recognizes that the USMA code, while necessary, is “not sufficient in and of itself as a complete guide to an honorable life.”234 Any 

simplified code faces this problem. 

Many argue that the code exemplifies the USMA experience, and the nontoleration 

clause differentiates the code from other academic codes. The USMA Honor System, 

Honor Code, and the nontoleration clause serve as valuable exemplars for the promulgation and enforcement of the Army Institutional Ethic.

THE IMPORTANCE OF NONTOLERATION

Couch suggests that a “passionate intolerance” is necessary, that ignoring immoral 

conduct is a de facto moral dereliction, no different from a physical abandonment of the 

Soldier on the battlefield—and just as unpalatable.235 To implement such a “passionate 

intolerance” in the Army force at large, we need a variation of the USMA Honor Code 

with the merit and strength of its nontoleration clause. 

Couch suggests 10 rules for combat, which he calls Battlefield Rules of Ethics (ROE) 

a play on the Army’s Rules of Engagement. All 10 are worth investigation, but the last 

one, the Righteous Rule, is the most powerful of the rules. Couch’s Righteous Rule, similar to the USMA nontoleration clause, states that service members who “deviate from 

the standards of moral conduct will be summarily removed from the unit”—reassigned 

in garrison, or sent home from the battlefield—in shame [his emphasis].236 Jennings and 

Hannah, in a similar vein, note, “The morality of obligation is thus based on the potential condemnation from one’s social group.”237 Make no mistake; this is an absolutist 

response to an absolutist problem.

If an Army Ethic is to have teeth, it must have the backing of an organization vested 

in a spirit of nontoleration for actions that violate it. Soldiers must self-police and govern 

the Ethic. Such nontoleration demands efforts beyond chain-of-command enforcement. 

Nontoleration requires an omni-directional means of governance. Akin to the USMA 

Honor system, the Army Ethic system would not supplant regulations or the Uniform 
33

Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Instead, the Army Ethic system must validate and support the UCMJ. 

Such an Army Ethic would be one vehicle for the organization to self-police, but an 

Ethic would require supportive enablers. Day-to-day rituals must assist in inculcation, 

reminding the Soldiers of their duty to give effect to honor. For this purpose, we may 

again look to the USMA Honor Code history and the concept of the “All Right.”

The “All Right” was once used at USMA. The utterance of “All Right” was a cadet’s 

response to a fellow cadet—usually during an inspection of sorts—that all was well and 

that the cadet being queried was operating in accordance with the Honor Code. The 

query “All Right?” was answered with the respondent’s statement “All Right” if all was 

in order.238 If the respondent was in the wrong on some matter, the respondent could 

take the opportunity to correct the wrong, or admit to the failure, rather than provide a 

false response of “All Right.” To the outsider looking in, this seems foreign, but among 

the USMA Corps of Cadets, it became easily understood and routine.

The problem with the “All Right” was that its use was often co-opted—by the Academy’s administration—as a means of legalistically checking on adherence to regulations.239 The Academy leadership finally deemed the constant tension generated by the 

“All Right” tool—between self-policing honor on one hand, and legalistic compliance 

with rules on the other— unacceptable and abandoned the practice in the early 1990s. 

However, our modern Army could use something similar to the “All Right” principle in 

conjunction with the proposed Army Ethic.

Adoption of the “All Right” device would not only be reflective of an organization 

honor-bound to an explicit Army Ethic, it would also represent a team working together 

toward a single goal. The dual meaning of the term “All Right” would indicate not only 

adherence to the moral code, but a readiness to get the job done. This would fit well with 

the “can do/just do it” attitude, which has permeated the Army culture from the beginning. “All Right” has the power to go “hooah” one better. 

Some would greet this program with skepticism, calling it an anachronism. However, many would relish the idea of working in an organization with clear-cut and wellaligned ethical guidelines. USMA, under the Honor Code, continues as something of an 

ethical oasis. Authorities accept a cadet’s word without question. 

Envision a circumstance in which Soldiers, angered by death and destruction on the 

battlefield and tempted toward immoral conduct, check themselves when one wise Soldier asks the timely question, “All Right?” It may appear Pollyannaish, but this method 

worked for many decades at USMA. As long as the use of “All Right” is not abused, it 

could provide the outward daily symbol to remind Soldiers of their code and honor, and 

provide some small check on improper behavior.

ETHICAL DECISIONMAKING

The Army Ethic proposed at the conclusion of this Paper is a code of ethics, a directive for honorable conduct as a member of the Army Profession. The Ethic intends to 

guide moral/ethical behavior. Nevertheless, it needs support in the form of a model for 

ethical decisionmaking or assisting tools. Recall that an earlier version of Military Leadership (FM 22-100) included such a model. However, that model was still rather abstract. 
34

The Joint Ethics Regulation also provides an Ethical-Decisionmaking Plan, but that plan 

is too mechanical, and more akin to the Military-Decisionmaking Process—requiring 

substantial time, energy, and information to move through the steps.240

At USMA, cadets facilitate the Honor Code with three rules of thumb. Unlike the 

complicated model in the JER, cadets can easily memorize and quickly implement these 

three rules. A cadet who is questioning his/her or another’s decision uses these rules of 

thumb in order to evaluate whether the action is honorable or not:

Does this action attempt to deceive anyone or allow anyone to be deceived?

Does this action gain or allow the gain of privilege or advantage to which I or someone else 

would not otherwise be entitled?

Would I be satisfied by the outcome if I were on the receiving end of this action?241

However, as discussed earlier, the Cadet Honor Code is narrow in scope, dealing 

only with lying, cheating, stealing, and tolerating that behavior.242 There are many other 

threats to honorable conduct. The Air Force Academy uses an expanded schema to assist 

its cadets in determining whether an action is honorable:

Is it clearly right or wrong?

Is it a situation that includes conflict between two or more moral values, principles, or rules?

Did I get all the facts and have I explored all possible courses of action?

Is my decision a selfish decision?

Would I go public with my decision?

How would others perceive my decision?

Did I apply ethical principles and values to my decision?

Am I treating others as I would want to be treated?243

The Air Force method would be a useful means to educate the Army about the new 

code of ethics and the means of implementation of that code. Soldiers deserve a litmus 

test, a rule of thumb.244 Such self-questioning should be required of any knowledgeable 

member of the Army Profession, one who is endeavoring to live by the code and rise to 

the upper levels of ethical awareness and discrimination (in accordance with Figure 5).

THE U.S. ARMY AS A LEARNING ORGANIZATION

In 2002, Patterson and Phipps recommended that the Army inaugurate an ethics 

instructor course.245 The good news is that such a course now exists, although it likely 

does not garner sufficient attention. CAPE has established courses for Army Profession 

and Ethics Trainers (APET) and Master Army Profession and Ethics Trainers (MAPET). 

APET appears to be open to most Soldiers; MAPET eligibility is restricted to Staff Sergeants, Chief Warrant Officer 2, or Captain and above. These trainees should be the 

banner carriers of a new code of ethics for the U.S. Army as a whole, serving a role 

equivalent to that of Canadian Lamplighters and Unit Ethics Coordinators. 246

APET and MAPET graduates should greatly aid the establishment of a coherent, 

effective Army Ethic. However, to further the effectiveness of the Army Ethic means 

improving the Army as a learning organization. We can accomplish this by employing 

Learning officers within the battalion and brigade structure. This major or senior captain 
35

would focus on the training of entry-level supervisors and serve as the chief adviser to 

the unit commander in the areas of learning, counseling, mentoring, and moral/ethical 

development.247

This mid-grade officer position would equate to the medical Chief of Residents (or 

Attending Physician)—the chief learning officer in a hospital teaching environment.248 In 

the medical profession, interns and residents get on-the-job training under the watchful 

eye of attending physicians. In the Army case, first-line leaders and the Chief Learning 

Officer would supervise the development of lieutenants and junior noncommissioned 

officers (NCOs). The Chief Learning Officer would ensure fulfillment of professional 

military education and ethical developmental gates as Soldiers move from “aspiring 

professionals” to certified “acting professionals.”249 The Chief Learning Officer would 

also act as the Lead Unit Ethics Coordinator. Soldiers would address matters of concern 

through the chain of command or the Ethics Coordinators, but ultimately the Ethics 

Coordinators would exist to supplement the chain of command, not supersede it. 

The U.S. Army takes great pride in its reputation as a learning organization, but it is 

surprisingly bereft of the organizational trappings of such an entity.250 The creation of 

the learning officer position at various staff levels would advance the goal of creating 

organizations dedicated to learning from both successes and failures.

ARTICULATING THE U.S. ARMY INSTITUTIONAL ETHIC

When speaking of disconnects within the 5-2 Stryker Brigade, Stjepan Mestrovic 

stated, “For a society to be functional, the beliefs and norms must have synchronicity.”251 Mestrovic could have been speaking of the organization as a whole. The Army’s 

individual ethical dictums are not nested within an institutional ethic, and synchronicity 

is therefore lost. The framework as recalled in Figure 1 highlights the unfilled gap.

Accordingly, the first goal of the Army Ethic should be to bridge this gap by aggregating the scattered snippets of ethical import within a coherent master code. To cite national documents like the U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, without 

providing complementary guidance, is futile. I have described how the formal elements 

of the U.S. Ethic as currently promulgated are woefully deficient. I have also described 

how this new Ethic should accommodate the competing philosophical approaches. Dr. 

Snider suggests that such a code must answer the following significant questions: 

• What is the moral content of war and therefore of land combat power? What is 

Landpower’s purpose? What good does it provide?

• Why do we as a nation need land combat power? What uniquely American purpose should it serve?

• How do Americans apply Landpower effectively while maintaining institutional 

integrity and staying true to our nation’s regard for basic human rights?

• How do we as Soldiers maintain unit and individual integrity? Just how violent 

should American Soldiers become in war?252

British officer Lieutenant Colonel Bowyer notes that “codes of conduct define not 

simply how to fight but how to fight our [his emphasis] way.”253 Ideally, the new text 

of the Army Ethic and Code of Conduct would address all Soldier behavior—not just 
36

behavior in captivity. To avoid excessive legalism, I suggest that the Code of Conduct be 

presented as a normative statement of desirable principles. 254 These principles would be 

open to some interpretation and judgment. Such a statement of the Army Professional 

Ethic would encapsulate and improve upon the Soldier’s Rules and the Army Values. 

The statement must address behavior toward other Soldiers and behavior directed at the 

enemy, noncombatants, and our civilian constituency. The Code would integrate all the 

other important ethical dictums.

Administratively, the Code must be operative in any environment—schoolhouse, 

garrison, field, and combat. The statement should take a “big tent” approach and address all members of the Army Profession—officers, enlisted, government service and 

contract employees, and, where applicable, retirees. Finally, and perhaps most dauntingly, this statement must be as short, simple, and understandable as possible.255

All members of the profession must achieve an adult, analytical understanding of the 

Code. Ideally, however, members of the profession will transcend that level and achieve 

wholly autonomous mastery. The Code would supply “moral direction—to know what 

is right—and inspire moral commitment—in order to motivate members to act in accordance with their knowledge.”256

RECOMMENDATIONS 

With the foregoing review of the historical background, ethical approaches by allies, 

philosophical underpinnings, and precedents of promulgation, ethical decisionmaking, 

and nontoleration, we can now examine a notional Army Ethic that attempts to fulfill the 

needs of the Army Profession. This recommended Army Ethic will be accompanied by 

recommended means of promulgation and enforcement of that ethic.

The Army Ethic.257

Note: The following proposed Ethic is based on and adapted from multiple sources, many 

of which I have excerpted verbatim. Quotation marks have been omitted for the sake of simplicity and clarity. Endnotes will reflect verbatim quotes or excerpts. Any exception to this 

convention is clearly indicated in the endnotes.

Article 1: Purpose. The purpose of the Army Ethic is to codify the moral and ethical 

context in which the U.S. Army defines its mission and derives its motivation.The Army 

Ethic sets the institution of the Army and its purpose in context—that of service to the 

larger institution of the nation, and fully responsive to the needs of the people.258

Article 2: Membership.259 The membership of the Army Profession subject to this Ethic 

consists of officers, enlisted Soldiers, government service and contract employees, and, 

to the extent possible, retired nonacting professionals. The Army Profession is composed 

of Soldier and civilian experts skilled in the ethical design, generation, support, and application of land combat power, serving under civilian authority, entrusted to defend 

the Constitution and the rights and interests of the American people.260
37

Article 3: Narrative of the National Values—Who We Are.261 The Founding Fathers of the 

United States of America forged the nation on July 4, 1776, with the signing of the Declaration of Independence. The authors of the Declaration rooted the fledgling nation in the 

ideals of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as unalienable rights. These three ideals became the moral foundation of the Nation and its principles, laws, and institutions.

The U.S. Constitution supplanted the Articles of Confederation on September 17, 

1787. The Constitution repeats liberty and justice as values in its preamble, these being 

prerequisites to securing domestic welfare, tranquility, and the common defense.262 The 

national purpose necessitates our determination to maintain the essential elements of 

individual freedom, as set forth in the Constitution and the Bill of Rights; our determination to create conditions under which our free and democratic system can survive and 

prosper; and our determination to fight if necessary to defend our way of life.263

The people of the United States expect their country to serve as an exemplar of freedom, fairness, equality, and dignity in the world.264 This national expectation requires 

that our security emanate from the justness of our cause, the force of our example, and 

the tempering qualities of humility and restraint.265 The U.S. military must operate within this moral context.

Article 4: Narrative of the Army Institutional Ethic—Why We Fight.266 The origins of the 

U.S. Army predate the United States. Citizen-Soldiers established the militia in 1636 to 

defend the colonial settlements in case of attack.267 The nation assumed command of the 

Troops of the United Provinces of North America on June 14, 1775.268

The national character and expectations create and drive the normative Army Institutional Ethic. The Constitution contains the moral and legal justification for our profession—to provide for the Common Defense. We defend American society. We defend our 

territory, our values systems, our way of life, and our basic institutions.269

For us, the role of military power is to serve the national purpose by deterring an attack upon us while we seek by other means to create an environment in which our free 

society can flourish.270 When deterrence fails, we must win a lasting, sustainable peace 

from any war that is forced upon us without destroying the institutions of our civilization in the process.271 We fight, when necessary, to defend the integrity and vitality of 

our free society and to defeat any aggressor.272 Ours is an honorable profession with 

an ethical purpose entirely consistent with our basic view that whatever protects and 

enhances life is good.273

Landpower plays a critical role in fulfilling the national interests. Air, maritime, and 

special forces rarely achieve decisive results on their own.274 Landpower is uniquely 

capable of comprehensively defeating other land forces, seizing or securing terrain, influencing civilian populations, and enabling other agencies to function in their proper 

role. Landpower also represents the strongest evidence of political commitment and the 

greatest and most credible deterrent force.275 The U.S. Army is the primary Landpower

arm of our Nation’s Armed Forces.276 You may fly over a land forever; you may bomb it, 

atomize it, pulverize it, and wipe it clean of life—but if you desire to defend it, protect it, 

and keep it for civilizations, you must do this on the ground, the way the Roman legions 

did, by putting your young Soldiers in the mud.277
38

The Army should be organized, trained, and equipped to achieve, through war, a 

peace that leaves our nation better protected than it was before the war. Ultimately, 

the members of the Army Profession are specialists in the management and application 

of violence. Therefore, the Army must maintain flexible, adaptable, well-trained, wellequipped, deployable, and sustainable expeditionary forces that are culturally attuned 

and able to impose a peace that is politically and morally acceptable to locals on the 

battlefield, to Americans at home, and to the international community.278

Upon the institution of the Continental Army in 1776, George Washington wrote 

that “it is Subordination and Discipline (the life and Soul of an Army) which next under 

providence, is to make us formidable to our enemies, honorable in ourselves, and respected in the world.”279 The U.S. Army is, first and foremost, the nation’s obedient and 

loyal military servant. It takes pride in being the keeper of the essential skills of war that 

must be infused into the citizenry when they are called upon to fight. The Army is at its 

core an institution committed to discipline and order, strictly governed by the laws of 

war.280

Article 5: Statement of Army Professionals’ Ethics—How We Fight.281 The American way 

of war is distinctive. 282 When necessary, we have not shied from ferocious combat, driven 

by a conviction in the justness of our cause and a love of country that is second to none. 

However, we have also prosecuted war in a way that is typically more humane than the 

way of our enemies. Indeed, our history has also demonstrated a willingness to show 

kindness, humane conduct, and acts of chivalry in even the most bitter struggles.283 Our 

Founding Fathers, for example, were determined not only to win the war, but also to do 

so in a way consistent with their moral principles and their core belief in human rights.284

General George Washington led from the front in such matters. In written orders, he 

directed that enemy captives be treated with humanity and be given no reason to complain of brutal treatment.285

In 1863, lawyer Francis Lieber drafted the Union Army’s Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field as the first codified law of warfare for the 

U.S. Army. The Lieber Code became the foundational document for the 1899 Hague 

Convention. Critically, Lieber noted:

As martial law is executed by military force, it is incumbent upon those who administer it 

to be strictly guided by the principles of justice, honor, and humanity—virtues adorning a 

soldier even more than other men, for the very reason that he possesses the power of his arms 

against the unarmed.286

More recently, a retired U.S. colonel and military ethicist rightly concluded:

Without moral purpose war is simply the exercise of destructive power against other human 

beings in the pursuit of self-interest. From the American perspective, war without moral purpose is always wrong. [Therefore,] the strength of our military forces lies in our commitment 

to a coherent and stable military ethic.287

The present Statement of Ethics intends to fulfill that goal. 
39

Statement of Army Professionals’ Ethics.

I am an Army professional. I promise to live by, to the best of my ability and judgment, this Army Ethic.288 On or off duty, I adhere to the virtues of honor, duty, courage, 

commitment, and respect.289

Principles of Honor.

• I always render honorable service to the United States and the Army. I do everything to uphold them and nothing to dishonor them.290 I will obey and support 

lawful and moral authority, and reject and report illegal or immoral orders.291

• I recognize that honor requires ethical conduct, moral behavior, honesty, integrity, 

and trust. I understand that ends, no matter how worthy, never justify unethical 

means.292 I do not bring shame to my country and Army through unethical or illegal actions.

• I do not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate those who do. I pursue honor and truth 

regardless of personal consequences. I am dedicated to fairness and justice.293

• I accept full responsibility for my actions and the actions of those in my charge.294

I train them and expect them to be honorable.

• I always remember and honor the brave men and women who have served before 

and who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom and the honor and integrity of our Army.”295

Principles of Duty.

• I always place duty, service, and allegiance to nation before self.

• I am duty-bound to support and defend the Constitution; I uphold the laws and 

regulations of the United States.296 I always adhere to the principle that subordinates the military to civilian authority.297 I am nonpartisan and avoid conflicts of 

interest in my professional life.298

• I am prepared to do my duty and, if necessary, to make sacrifices or to risk my life 

to protect the security and people of the United States.299

• I am a steward of the Army profession. I display dedication, initiative, and discipline while fulfilling my mission.300 I develop and maintain my professional 

knowledge and skill. I do my utmost to ensure that my fellow Soldiers and I are 

trained and equipped to carry out our duties.301 I am a zealous steward of U.S. 

resources.

• I am a defender of those who cannot defend themselves. I am committed to putting the lives of my fellow Americans and all noncombatants on the battlefield 

before my own.

Principles of Courage.

• I always demonstrate physical, mental, and moral courage in the face of 

adversity.302

• I am courageous, but not reckless.303 I endanger myself and my comrades only to 

the extent required to carry out the mission.304 I share risk, endure hardships, and 

face danger with my comrades.305

• I show courage in restraint, even when doing so involves personal danger.306
40

• I persevere with courage, determination, and strength of character.307 I condition 

myself to act correctly in the presence of danger and fear.308 I do not quit.

• I demonstrate moral courage, even at the risk of ridicule or danger. I insist on 

maintaining the highest standards of decency and behavior at all times.309

Principles of Commitment.

• I am committed to defending the United States of America. I serve whenever and 

wherever I am needed, whatever the difficulties or dangers may be.310

• I am committed to the U.S. military. I understand that loyalty is a commitment not 

only to a cause but also to those who share that cause. I recognize that loyalty is 

reciprocal, based on mutual trust and respect.

• I am committed to my unit. I take pride in our unit, our discipline, our military 

expertise, and our training.311

• I am committed to the welfare of my fellow Soldiers, based on common purpose, 

equality, trust, tolerance, and friendship.312 I will never leave a fallen comrade. I 

will not fail those with whom I serve.313

• I recognize that when loyalty and honor are in competition, wrongdoing cannot be condoned or covered up. I am committed to honor as my highest military 

principle.314

Principles of Respect.

• I always respect the dignity of all persons.315 I treat others with respect for their 

core human rights and according to the laws of war.

• I recognize the supreme value of human beings regardless of their origin, religion, nationality, gender, status, or position.316 I demonstrate tolerance and esprit 

de corps and, by my conduct, win the respect of others.317

• I uphold the international laws, conventions, and regulations of armed conflict.318

I use force only to the extent necessary and only in a way that will maintain my 

humanity.319 Even in the midst of mortal combat, I will treat my honored foe with 

dignity and respect. I avoid the use of force motivated by hate, revenge, or pleasure. I use force only under duress or when it is necessary to defend a community 

on the basis of the rule of law.320

• I do not harm human beings who are noncombatants or detainees, and I do all in 

my power to avoid causing harm to their lives, dignity, and property.

• I do not tolerate unethical or illegal conduct. I do my best to prevent violations of 

either the Law of War or the Army Ethic and report all violations to the appropriate authority.321

• I always remember that I am an American, a defender of the republic, a member 

of a time-honored profession, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the 

virtues of honor, duty, courage, commitment, and respect.322

Article 6: Promulgation—How We Train. A code of military ethics goes hand-in-hand 

with education and training in the development of military virtues in producing an 

ethical Soldier.323 The manual that describes and details the Army Ethic and the Army’s 

ethical training program is FM 1-1, The Army Ethic. This manual complements FM 1, The 
41

Army, and FM 6-22, Army Leadership, and it is the Army’s third capstone manual.324 At 

the heart of this manual is the principle that the Army incorporates ethics into all training as a primary, rather than a secondary, concern. 

Article 7: Ethical Decisionmaking— How We Decide..325 If we expect a moral military, we 

must have a thinking military. The following ethical decisionmaking tool is designed 

to help Soldiers think through ethical problems to arrive at the best possible course of 

action. 

How to choose the harder right:

1. What are the relevant facts of the situation?

2. What are the alternative(s) available?

3. Who will be affected?

4. What moral (and ethical) principles of the Army Ethic are involved?

5. How would these principles be advanced or violated by each alternative action?326

6. How would I feel if I, or someone I cared about, were on the receiving end of this 

action?327

Article 8: Nontoleration— How We Maintain. Ethical violations of standards of conduct 

impair the trust and confidence placed in officers by superiors and subordinates, and 

undermine the public’s respect for the Army.328 As demanded by the Statement of the 

Army Professionals’ Ethics, all violations of the laws of war and the Army Ethic must 

be reported to the appropriate authorities. No one should be allowed to remain in the 

profession who cannot support the Army Ethic or who cannot comprehend the reasons 

for it.329

Article 9. The Covenant. General Creighton Abrams declared, “There must be, within 

our Army, a sense of purpose and a dedication to that purpose. There must be a willingness to march a little farther, to carry a heavier load, to step out into the darkness and 

the unknown for the safety and well-being of others.”330 There is a special relationship 

of loyalty and trust between the U.S. Army and the nation. In this context, the self-conception of the members of the U.S. Army is based on their commitment to loyally serve 

the nation and steadfastly defend the rights and freedom of the American people.331 The 

American people desire and expect this level of dedication from the members of the U.S. 

Armed Forces.

Members of the Army Profession are often called upon to make personal sacrifices—

including the ultimate sacrifice—in the service of the nation. In putting the needs of the 

nation and the Army before their own, they forego some of their rights enjoyed by those 

outside the Armed Forces. In return, U.S. Soldiers must always be able to expect fair 

treatment, respect as individuals, as well as sustainment and reward for their families to 

a degree commensurate with the Soldier’s terms and conditions of service.332

Serving honorably, the Soldier will be sustained by the nation, cared for through 

illness or injury and shielded through life if disabled in service. Toward no other profession does the nation express its obligation more fully. Most Americans view this special 

status of the military with pride rather than envy—agreeing with the principle that exceptional advantage should attend exceptional and unremitting obligation.333

This mutual obligation forms the military covenant between the nation, the Army, 

and each individual Soldier, an unbreakable common bond of identity, loyalty, and re-
42

sponsibility which has sustained the Army throughout its history.334 The covenant is 

the basis of a code that determines what society expects of its military professionals. If 

an Army Professional meets those expectations, he will be valued and honored by the 

society he serves.335

CONCLUSIONS 

The Army responded to the 5-2 Stryker crimes and photos by declaring that such actions were “repugnant to us as human beings.”336 Certainly, this was true, but it was not 

enough to condemn those actions. Now it is necessary to prevent future similar events 

by providing the right tools and establishing the right processes.

This Paper has taken a hard look at the current institutional framework, individual 

instructions, and training related to the Army’s Ethic, and found them wanting. To correct this problem, the U.S. Army should start by surveying the Ethics of other professional militaries, and incorporating their best practices. Likewise, exemplars also reside 

in the medical and legal professions. 

In 1984, Lieutenant Colonel Hugh Kelley, a USAWC student, offered an idea for an 

Army Ethic and a means of promulgation. One lonely copy in the USAWC Library is the 

only evidence of his effort. No one heeded his message. Perhaps Kelley’s paper came 

out at the wrong time when there was no pressing need.337 Given the events of the last 

10 years, the current need is clear.

Iraq provides a final example of the lasting impact of moral/ethical indiscretions. 

After the combat force withdrawal, the United States still had a national interest in 

maintaining forces in Iraq in an “advise and assist” role. On October 4, 2011, Iraqi leaders “agreed on the need to keep American [troops in Iraq into 2012], but they declared 

that [those] troops should not be granted immunity from Iraqi law.”338 Without the immunity provision, U.S. service members in Iraq might have faced trial under Iraqi jurisdiction. This was politically unacceptable for the United States, and the Iraqi decision 

necessitated an unplanned full departure from Iraq in 2011. So what caused this change? 

The Iraqi government cited dissatisfaction with U.S. military adjudication in war crimes 

cases, specifically Abu Ghraib and Haditha. These tactical crimes, some of which had 

occurred over 7 years earlier, still rippled and created complications. 

Instead of being “invincible” in the fashion of Sun Tzu, our nation is vulnerable. 

Strategic efforts, such as remaining in Iraq to maintain the costly and tentative peace and 

protect against undue Iranian meddling, have been derailed because of moral/ethical 

failures like Abu Ghraib. Moral influence, as Sun Tzu saw it, is absolutely required to 

ensure victory.

As a junior officer, George C. Marshall noted that “once an army is involved in war, 

there is a beast in every fighting man which begins tugging at its chains. And a good 

officer must learn early on how to keep the beast under control, both in his men and 

himself.”339 Marshall’s statement conveys a fundamental truth, but officers no longer 

monopolize that role. All Soldiers must participate in the self-governance of the profession.

As stewards of the profession, strategic leaders develop the culture of the organization, provide a vision, and ensure the fulfillment of the organizational purpose. The U.S. 
43

Army’s strategic leaders must recognize the danger of a directionless and amoral organization and prioritize efforts to balance the force from a moral/ethical perspective.340

One Soldier spoke of the 2006 rape-murders at Mahmudiyah: 

If people continue to treat this like a mysterious event that came out of nowhere, and we 

don’t change how we lead soldiers and we don’t honestly look at what caused this to happen, 

it’s going to happen again. I mean, this isn’t the only time. It’s just the most notorious time.341

Sadly, that Soldier’s prediction has already proved true; the Maywand killings in 

Afghanistan followed the Mahmudiyah murders in Iraq. In January 2012, a video of 

U.S. Marines (including an officer Platoon Commander) urinating on dead Afghans hit 

the news.342 Almost simultaneously, Afghan President Hamid Karzai demanded the immediate turnover of detention facilities in Afghanistan, citing possible U.S. abuse of 

prisoners.343 The cycle continues.

Until the Army dramatically changes course, U.S. forces will continue to risk winning 

the battle but losing the war. There can be no “better peace” from our grand strategy if 

friends, foes, and noncombatants, embittered by our war crimes, later, recall our actions 

to our detriment. The American people lose faith with the Army when military actions 

are not in line with American expectations for moral/ethical behavior. Collectively, we 

need to do some hard reflection and internal soul-searching. As General Jacob Devers 

asked in 1945, “How is the Army going to progress unless its mistakes are seen and 

studied?”344 More optimistically, General Creighton Abrams declared: 

The Army is and always will be people. Our people are really good. It is a rare man who 

wants to be bad, but a lot of men are not strong enough to be good all by themselves, and a 

little help is enough. It does not make a difference where they come from . . . . If we have faith 

in them and encourage them and keep standing for the right ourselves, the Army will [be] 

what the country needs and has to have.345

Our people are truly good. Nevertheless, we must arm them with strength of character. Dr. Mattox, the newly installed CGSC ethics chair, suggests, “We must make active 

reflection upon ethics and virtue a fundamental part of our professional lifeblood.”346

Soldiers must “know what is right, and have the courage to do what is right.”347

A new Army Ethic is not a panacea for correcting the Army’s problems. In fact, an 

Army Ethic alone offers little potential beyond the ill-founded bumper sticker neologisms we currently use. But an explicit set of ethics, in conjunction with appropriate 

training and education, renewed focus on proper ethical conduct, a high spirit of nontoleration, and genuine enforcement would create real potential for moral progress in 

the organization. Ultimately, the Army must collectively realize that the moral/ethical 

component of combat is the primary, not secondary or tertiary, focus of the fight. As 

military ethicists Peter Fromm, Douglas Pryer, and Kevin Cutright observed, “War is a 

moral force.”348 The Army Ethic can provide the source of our motivation to fight, and 

the means to fight morally, in accordance with our country’s core values.

Matthew Moten declared, “The Army tends to reform at the end of wars that have 

accentuated its shortcomings of one kind or another.”349 For example, due to the Korean 

War prisoner-of-war (POW) problem, the DoD took the initiative to create the Code of 
44

Conduct.350 However, the long war in which the United States is currently engaged has 

not afforded the opportunity for reflection and change.351 Ethical shortcomings highlighted during the Global War on Terror should provide the impetus for the creation 

of another broader code of ethics for the Army, if not the DoD as a whole. A splendid 

opportunity exists to forge a new ethic and, in an age of scarce resources and persistent 

conflict, the means to cull the ranks of marginal moral/ethical performers. Politicians 

often say, “Never waste a good crisis.”352 As the U.S. military faces downsizing due to 

budget pressures, we may capitalize on a new Army Ethic to ensure we keep the right 

people in the force. 

The Army, perhaps the entire DoD, should adopt this proposed Ethic or develop one 

similar to it. The American people deserve an Army trained under an overarching moral 

institutional framework which best serves the people’s interests. Our American fighting 

forces deserve the knowledge and moral influence to “cultivate their own humanity 

and justice and maintain their laws and institutions [and] make their government invincible.”353 Sun Tzu’s lessons remain as true as they are timeless. Hopefully, the U.S. Army 

will learn the lesson, and find “the right way.” The stakes for the profession and those 

who serve it are high. We dare not fail.

ENDNOTES 

1. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, Samuel Griffith, trans., New York: Oxford University Press, 1963, p. 88.

2. Ibid., p. 63.

3. Lieutenant Colonel Peter Fromm and his coauthors also used this quotation to frame their argument 

in Peter D. Fromm, Douglas A. Pryer, and Kevin R. Cutright, “War is a Moral Force: Designing a More Viable Strategy for the Information Age,” Joint Forces Quarterly, No. 64, 1st Quarter 2012, p. 42.

4. Seymour Hersh, Chain of Command: From 9/11 to Abu Ghraib, New York: HarperCollins, 2004; Jim 

Frederick, Black Hearts: One Platoon’s Descent into Madness in Iraq’s Triangle of Death, New York: Crown 

Publishing, 2010; Craig Whitlock, “Members of Stryker Combat Brigade in Afghanistan Accused of Killing Civilians for Sport,” September 18, 2010, available from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2010/09/18/AR2010091803935.html.

5. Edward H. Schein, Organizational Culture and Leadership, San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass, 1986, p. 

17. See also Lloyd J. Matthews, “The Need For an Officers’ Code of Professional Ethics,” Army Magazine, 

March 1994, pp. 21-29.

6. Anthony R. Jones, AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Prison and 205th Military Intelligence Brigade, 

and George R. Fay, AR 15-6 Investigation of the Abu Ghraib Detention Facility and 205th Military Intelligence 

Brigade, provided by FindLaw.com. Also noteworthy is Douglas A. Pryer, The Fight for the High Ground: The 

U.S. Army and Interrogation During Operation Iraqi Freedom May 2003-April 2004, Fort Leavenworth, KS: 

Command and General Staff College (CGSC) Foundation Press, 2009, pp. 4-5.

7. PBS.org, Interview Janis Karpinski, available from www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/torture/

interviews/karpinski.html.

8. Michael Rowland, “Abu Ghraib Whistleblower Feared for his Life,” August 16, 2006, available from 

www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2006/s1716503.htm.
45

9. Scott Higham and Joe Stephens, “Punishment and Amusement,” May 22, 2004, available from www.

washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A46523-2004May21?language=printer.

10. Compiled from Mark Boal, “Behind the American ‘Kill Team’ in Afghanistan,” March 28, 2011, 

available from www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42304341/ns/world_news-south_and_central_asia/t/behind-american-killteam-afghanistan/#.TtKbw_LNkqM; William Yardley, “The Young US Soldier Both Loved and Hated,” October 5, 2010, available from www.ndtv.com/article/world/the-young-us-soldier-both-loved-and-hated-57019; Statement of the U.S. Army, “DoD News Release: 5/2 Stryker Kill Teams,” March 28, 2011, available from www.

usmilitarymobile.com/military-news/military-abuse.html; Hal Bernton, “ Stryker Soldiers Allegedly Plotted to 

Kill Afghan Civilians,” August 24, 2010, available from seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2012712859_

civiliandeaths25m.html; Adam Ashton, “The Lost Platoon,” October 16, 2011, available from www.thenew

stribune.com/2011/10/16/1866929/lost-platoon.html; Adam Ashton, “Lost Platoon’s Leader of Trust; had a 

Dark Side,” October 17, 2011, available from www.thenewstribune.com/2011/10/16/1867914/leader-of-trusthad-dark-side.html#storylink=mirelated.

11. Mark Schone and Matthew Cole, “Calvin Gibbs, Leader of ‘Thrill Kill’ Soldiers, Guilty of 

Murder,” November 10, 2011, available from abcnews.go.com/Blotter/leader-thrill-kill-soldiers-found-guilty/

story?id=14924863#.Tr7TnfKwVVo.

12. Retired Navy SEAL Dick Couch coined the term “moral pirate” in Dick Couch, A Tactical Ethic: 

Moral Conduct in the Insurgent Battlespace, Annapolis, MD: Naval Institute Press, 2010, pp. 5-6.

13. William Deresiewicz, “An Empty Regard,” August 20, 2011, available from www.nytimes.

com/2011/08/21/opinion/sunday/americas-sentimental-regard-for-the-military.html?_r=2&pagewanted=1.

14. Office of the Surgeon, Multi-National Force Iraq, “Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Operation Iraqi Freedom 05-07 Final Report,” November 17, 2006, pp. 34-42.

15. Colonel Castro, the MHAT IV Team Leader provides a Powerpoint synopsis of the full report in 

Carl A. Castro, “Mental Health Advisory Team (MHAT) IV Brief General James T. Conway Commandant 

of the Marine Corps,” briefing slides, April 18, 2007, pp. 21-25.

16. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 56, and Appendix I.

17. Luke Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man,” April 27, 2011, available from www.

nytimes.com/2011/05/01/magazine/mag-01KillTeam-t.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print.

18. Peter Finn, Joby Warrick, and Julie Tate, “How a Detainee Became an Asset: Sept 11 Plotter Cooperated After Waterboarding,” August 28, 2009, available from www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/

article/2009/08/28/AR2009082803874.html.

19. Yale psychologist Charles A. Morgan III asked, “How did something used as an example of what 

an unethical government would do [in the SERE program] become something we do?” in Scott Shane, 

“Soviet-Style ‘Torture’ Becomes ‘Interrogation’, “ June 3, 2007, available from www.nytimes.com/2007/06/03/

weekinreview/03shane.html?ei=5090&en=6959a25f746dcadd&ex=1338523200&adxnnl=1&adxnnlx=1313954076

-NP5zGQWj+UlKvDpKiSGW9w&pagewanted=print. Likewise, “Democratic societies don’t use torture under any circumstances. It is illegal and immoral,” said Tom Parker, policy director for counterterrorism and 

human rights at Amnesty International. See Finn, Warrick, and Tate, “How a Detainee Became an Asset.”

20. Major Douglas Pryer gives an excellent overview of how the policies intended for use at Guantanamo migrated to Afghanistan and Iraq in Pryer, The Fight for the High Ground. Alternatively, see the comprehensive history provided in Jon L. Lightner, “Voyage to the Dark Side: The Tortured Path of United States’ 

Detainee Interrogation Policy,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2007. To understand the legal basis 

used to justify the enhanced interrogation techniques, see K. Krewer, “The “Torture Memos”: A Failure of 

Strategic Leadership,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2009.
46

21. These sources offer examples of interrogations that did not rely on coercive techniques. Hanns 

Scharff was a noted World War II Luftwaffe interrogator whose methods are described in Raymond T. 

Tolliver and Hanns Joachim Scharff, The Interrogator: The Story of Hanns Joachim Scharff: Master Interrogator 

of the Luftwaffe, Atglen, PA: Schiffer Publishing, 1997. A current example is available from Matthew Alexander’s description of how his interrogation team tracked down terrorist Abu Musab Al Zarqawi. Matthew 

Alexander and John Bruning, How to Break a Terrorist: The U.S. Interrogators Who Used Brains, Not Brutality, 

to Take Down the Deadliest Man in Iraq, New York: Free Press, 2008. Douglas Pryer notes that 1st Armored 

Division interrogators largely rejected the option when it was afforded to them. Clearly, many other interrogators, military police personnel, and others turned a blind eye or participated in the program. See Pryer, 

The Fight for the High Ground, pp. 66-79.

22. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, USMA, Leadership in Organizations, Garden City 

Park, NY: Avery Publishing, 1988, p. 428.

23. Charles D. Allen, “Of Interest: Army Strong - Really?” Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. 

Army War College, April 2011, p. 2.

24. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”

25. Matthias Gebauer and Hasnain Kazim, “US Army Apologizes for Horrific Photos from Afghanistan,” March 21, 2011, available from www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,752310,00.html.

26. Peter Kilner, “Military Leaders’ Obligation to Justify Killing in War,” Military Review, Vol. 72, No. 

2, March-April 2002, pp. 24-31.

27. Merriam-Webster, “Moral,” available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/moral.

28. Merriam-Webster, “Ethics,” available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/ethics.

29. Retired Chaplain (Colonel) Brinsfield documents 30 years of the Army’s struggles to describe internal “values, ethics, and leadership doctrine” in John W. Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics: A Search for 

Consistency and Relevance,” Parameters, Vol. 28, No. 3, Autumn 1998, p. 70. 

30. Don Snider, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, September 13, 2011.

31. B. H. Liddell Hart, Strategy, 2nd Ed., New York: Meridian, 1991, p. 353.

32. Joseph S. Nye, Jr., and David A. Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation: An Introduction 

to Theory and History, 8th Ed., New York: Longman, 2011, p. 26.

33. Merriam-Webster, “Chivalry,” available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chivalry.

34. Colin Woodard, “The History of Torture—Why We Can’t Give It Up,” August 9, 2011, available 

from www.historynet.com/the-history-of-torture%E2%80%94why-we-cant-give-it-up.htm/1.

35. Nye and Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, p. 25.

36. British Army Lieutenant Colonel Bowyer notes that, due to formulations such as the Geneva Conventions, jus in bello issues of “the moral had been abrogated to the legal.” He suggests that the discussion 

has been largely focused on jus ad bellum issues on war’s legitimacy until very recently in the 21st century. 

Darren G. Bowyer, “Challenges to the Military Code of Ethics: How New Wars and New Protagonists 

Challenge the Concept of Warrior Honour,” available from isme.tamu.edu/ISME07/Bowyer07.html.
47

37. Nye and Welch, Understanding Global Conflict and Cooperation, p. 26. David Forsythe further explores 

noncombatant immunity, noting that “it was widely accepted that when a combatant was out of the fight 

due to injury, the wounded soldier ceased to be an active political agent and reverted to being a person 

meriting humane treatment as an individual.” In David P. Forsythe, The Politics of Prisoner Abuse, New 

York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 3. 

38. Department of Defense, “Responsibility, Accountability, and Discipline,” Armed Forces Officer, 

Washington, DC: National Defense University Press and Potomac Press, 2007, pp. 61-71; Strategic Thinking: 

Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 297.

39. Larry Colburn was a door gunner assisting helicopter pilot Hugh Thompson in mitigating the 

horrors of My Lai. My Lai remains a key incident in the U.S. Army’s history as it relates to atrocities and 

following inappropriate orders. Few Soldiers disobeyed their officers that day, but some quietly refused 

to participate in the slaughter. Colburn almost had to fire on fellow Americans to protect Vietnamese noncombatants. “Interview—Larry Colburn—Why My Lai and Hugh Thompson Matter,” February 07, 2011, 

Vietnam Magazine, available from www.historynet.com/interview-larry-colburn-why-my-lai-hugh-thompsonmatter.htm.

40. Carl von Clausewitz, On War, Michael Howard and Peter Paret, eds. and trans., Princeton, NJ: 

Princeton University Press, 1976, pp. 590-591.

41. Liddell Hart, Strategy, p. 357.

42. Matthew Alexander, “I’m Still Tortured by What I Saw in Iraq,” November 30, 2008, available from 

www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/11/28/AR2008112802242.html.

43. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 78.

44. National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States, The 9/11 Commission Report, 

New York: W. W. Norton & Company, 2004, p. 376. 

45. Gallup data from June 2006 is in Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 25. Gallup data from 2009 is also cited in 

Lee Deremer, “Stewardship: What’s In It for You?” in Strategic Leadership: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, 

Carlisle Barracks, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 276. This is a vast improvement from the nadir of 

military respect prevalent during the Vietnam War as noted in Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics,” p. 4.

46. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”

47. Ibid.

48. Deremer, “Stewardship,” p. 276.

49. Fromm, Pryer, and Cutright, “War is a Moral Force,” p. 46.

50. Merriam-Webster, “Profession,” available from www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/profession.

51. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism: A Sociological Analysis, Berkeley, CA: University 

of California Press, 1978, p. 208.

52. Don M. Snider, “The U.S. Army as Profession,” in The Future of the Army Profession, 2nd Ed., Don M. 

Snider and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., New York: McGraw Hill, 2005, p. 14.

53. Murray Clark, “Officership and Civil-Military Relations: A Brief Summary of Huntington and 

Janowitz,” in Strategic Leadership: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 

2011, p. 321.
48

54. Barbara W. Tuchman, “Human Nature is Responsible,” in The American Military: Opposing Viewpoints, David L. Bender, ed., St. Paul, MN: Greenhaven Press, 1983, p. 74, available from Carl H. Builder, The 

Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University 

Press, 1989, p. 20.

55. Magali Sarfatti Larson, The Rise of Professionalism, p. 208. See also Lloyd J. Matthews, “Is the Military 

Profession Legitimate?” Army Magazine, January 1994, pp. 15-23.

56. Snider, “The U.S. Army as Profession,” p. 14.

57. Peter Tyson, “The Hippocratic Oath Today,” available from www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/

hippocratic-oath-today.html.

58. See “The Nuremberg Code,” December 13, 2005, available from h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A6110777; an 

overall description of the various codes, including the Declaration of Geneva, is available from “The Hippocratic Oath,” August 20, 2003, available from h2g2.com/dna/h2g2/A1103798.

59. Colonel Ronald Smith, a former USAWC student, attempts to reconcile the tension of being both a 

medical and a military professional in an ethical quandary—physician support to detainee interrogation. 

Smith’s efforts reflect the changing demands placed on the two professions. This subject treads close to the 

World War II issues that the Nuremberg Code and Declaration of Geneva were designed to curtail. See 

Ronald E. Smith, Jr., “An Ethical Framework for Physician Involvement in Interrogations,” Carlisle, PA: 

U.S. Army War College, 2006.

60. One verbose example is located at Legal Information Institute, “New York Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility,” available from www.law.cornell.edu/ethics/ny/code/NY_CODE.HTM.

61. The Illinois Institute of Technology Center for the Study of Ethics in the Professions maintains a 

growing compilation of over 500 different codes of ethics online at Center for the Study of Ethics in the 

Professions, Index of Codes by Professional Category, Illinois Institute of Technology, available from ethics.

iit.edu/index1.php/Programs/Codes%20of%20Ethics/Index%20Of%20Codes.

62. Former Army officer and philosophy professor Richard De George provides seven supporting reasons for establishing a Military Code of Ethics. See Richard T. De George, “Defining Moral Obligations: The 

Need for a Military Code of Ethics,” Army, December 1984, pp. 22-30.

63. John Ladd, “The Quest for a Code of Professional Ethics: An Intellectual and Moral Confusion,” 

Ethical Issues in Engineering, Deborah G. Johnson, ed., Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1991, pp. 130-

136, in Illinois Institute of Technology, “The Function and Value of Codes of Ethics,” available from 

ethics.iit.edu/index1.php/Programs/Codes%20of%20Ethics/Function%20and%20Value%20of%20Codes%20of%20

Ethics.

64. Ibid., pp. 130-136.

65. Heinz C. Luegenbiehl, “Codes of Ethics and the Moral Education of Engineers,” Business and Professional Ethics Journal, Vol. 2, 1983, pp. 41-61, in Ethical Issues in Engineering.

66. Richard A. Gabriel, The Warrior’s Way: A Treatise on Military Ethics, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: 

Canadan Defence Academy Press, 2007, pp. 164-174.

67. Ibid., pp. 174-183.

68. Andrew Olson, “Authoring a Code of Ethics: Observations on Process and Organization,” available 

from ethics.iit.edu/index1.php/Programs/Codes%20of%20Ethics/Authoring%20a%20Code%20of%20Ethics.
49

69. Jonathan J. Smidt, “Army Leadership: Doctrine and the New FM 22-100,” Military Review, Vol. 78, 

No. 3, May/June 1998, p. 83.

70. Field Manual (FM) 22-100, Military Leadership, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, July 

31, 1990, p. 29.

71. Ibid., pp. 29-30.

72. Ibid., pp. 30-32.

73. Successive editions of this manual reduce or eliminate references to ethics and ethical 

decisionmaking.

74. Field Manual 22-100, Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, 

August 31, 1999, pp. 2-2 - 2-10.

75. Smidt, “Army Leadership,” p. 84.

76. FM 22-100, Army Leadership: Be, Know, Do, p. 2-21.

77. Mark S. Patterson and Janet E. Phipps, “Ethics: Re-directing the Army’s Moral Compass,” Carlisle, 

PA: U.S. Army War College, 2002, p. 22.

78. “FM 22-100 Scheduled for Spring Release,” Army Logistician, March/April 1998, Vol. 30, No. 2, Military Module, p. 43. Brinsfield describes the Aberdeen sex crimes in Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics,” 

p. 75.

79. Field Manual 6-22, Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and Agile, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, October 12, 2006, pp. 4-14 - 4-16.

80. Although I did not find Kelley’s document until well into my own research, his document became a 

spiritual predecessor and inspiration of this Paper. I have used some of his constructive ideas. In particular, 

I adopted his idea of promulgation, but not his method. His notion of enforcement does not match my idea 

of self-policing governance, although there may be overlaps. Hugh A. Kelley, “A Proposal for the United 

States Army Ethic,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 1984.

81. James T. Schroeder, “Ethics and Values in the Army Today,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 

1984, p. 7.

82. Ibid., pp. 16, 23.

83. Matthew Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic—Past, Present, and Future,” Carlisle, PA: 

Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, February 2010, p. 20.

84. Louis V. Gerstner, Who Says Elephants Can’t Dance? New York: HarperBusiness, 2002, p. 182.

85. Ibid., 189.

86. Stephen J. Gerras, ed., Strategic Leadership Primer, I, 3rd Ed., Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 

2010, pp. 48-49.

87. Bob Woodward, Obama’s Wars, New York: Simon & Schuster, 2010, p. 56.
50

88. Don M. Snider, Paul Oh, and Kevin Toner, The Army’s Professional Military Ethic In An Era of 

Persistent Conflict, Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College, October 2009, p. iii.

89. Don Snider, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, September 13, 2011. Dr. Snider concurred that there 

is no explicit ethic, though the monograph makes frequent mention of the idea.

90. Major Douglas A. Pryer performed a similar deconstruction of the Army’s official guidance in 

Douglas A. Pryer, “Steering America’s Warship toward Real Communication (and Success) in the 21st Century,” July 4, 2011. I assisted Pryer in the editing of the document. Pryer’s DePuy award-winning article—

based on the draft—is in Douglas A. Pryer, “Steering America’s Warship toward Real Communication (and 

Success) in the 21st Century,” Military Review, Vol. 92, No. 1, January-February 2012, pp. 24-34.

91. Celestino Perez, Jr., “The Embedded Morality in FM 3-24 Counterinsurgency,” Military Review, Vol. 

89, No. 3, May-June 2009, p. 27.

92. Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, Army: Profession of Arms 2011: The Profession After 10 Years 

of Conflict, Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, October 2010, p. 

2. A newer version of this document detailing the progress of the campaign was published in 2012, but a 

codified ethic was not a part of that progress.

93. Ibid., pp. 29-37.

94. Field Manual 1 (FM 1), The Army, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, June 14, 2005.

95. Ibid., pp. 1-11.

96. U.S. Army Center of Military History, “Oaths of Enlistment and Oaths of Office,” available from 

www.history.army.mil/html/faq/oaths.html.

97. Field Manual 1 (FM 1), The Army, pp. 1-14.

98. Joint Ethics Regulation 1-6, 5500.7, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Defense, p. 153.

99. Ibid., pp. 155-158.

100. Michael S. Kearns, Master Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) instructor (specializing in Escape and Evasion and Resistance to Interrogation) and retired U.S. Air Force Captain made these 

comments in his Master of Organizational Leadership thesis in Michael S. Kearns, “Code of Conduct,” 

Spokane, WA: Gonzaga University, 1991, p. 7.

101. Ibid., p. 9.

102. Ibid., pp. 11-12.

103. Don Snider, interview by author, September 13, 2011. Dr. Snider discussed the notion of a Soldier’s 

Covenant, an agreement between the Soldier and the state. He remarked that this would be unpalatable to 

the politicians because no member of Congress is willing to tie the hands of a future Congress. 

104. Pamphlet 600-4, The Soldier’s Blue Book, Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters U.S. Army Training and 

Doctrine Command, U.S. Department of the Army, October 1, 2010, p. 15.

105. Some believe that the Soldier’s Creed was created in direct response to the 507th Maintenance 

Company’s failure to defend itself in Nasiriyah, Iraq, on March 23, 2003. This is the ambush where Private 

First Class Jessica Lynch was injured and captured. The unit’s poor response to the attack on their convoy 
51

was largely attributed to a lack of basic Soldier’s skills. The work on the Soldier’s Creed began in May 2003, 

and the final product was released November 13, 2003. 

106. Debusk suggests that the Ethos be modified to include the statement “I am an expert and a professional and I adhere to the highest ethical standards.” This is an improvement, but only if those “highest ethical 

standards” are detailed elsewhere. See Steven S. Debusk, “The Warrior Ethos Revisited: Implications for 

the Future,” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, pp. 17-18. 

107. Army: Profession of Arms 2011, p. 37.

108. Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and Agile, pp. 4-2 - 4-9.

109. A DoD document uses slightly different terminology and expands the seven Army Values to 

nine with the addition of “Excellence” and “Commitment.” Technically, this is not a doctrinal source, but 

it is highly relevant. Notably the definition of “Integrity” calls for “holding oneself to a strict moral code 

in word and deed, a code that forms the foundation for all interaction with subordinates, peers, and superiors alike.” Again, the code is implied but not explained, and the reference is internal rather than both 

internal and external. See Department of Defense, “Character: Nobility of Life and Action,” Armed Forces 

Officer, Washington, DC: National Defense University Press and Potomac Press, 2007, pp. 43-49, in Strategic 

Thinking: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, pp. 284-286.

110. I made this assessment prior to discovering that Colonel John Mark Mattox used similar logic 

and almost the same language in John Mark Mattox, “Values Statements and the Profession of Arms: A 

Re-evaluation,” Paper presented at the Command and General Staff College Ethics Symposium, 2010, p. 9, 

available from www.leavenworthethicssymposium.org/resource/resmgr/2010_General_Papers/Mattox.pdf. Lieutenant Colonel (Retired) Timothy Challans describes how this mnemonic came to be. See Timothy Challans, Awakening Warrior: Revolution in the Ethics of Warfare, Albany, NY: State University of New York Press, 

pp. 102-103. 

111. Patterson and Phipps, “Ethics,” p. 18.

112. I came to this conclusion prior to reading Lieutenant Colonel Tim Challans’ article. Challans, the 

principal author of the 1999 edition of FM 6-22, notes with chagrin that his efforts to include “respect [to] 

our enemies” in the manual were dismissed in committee. See Tim Challans, “Leading Our Leaders,” Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 5, September-October, 2009, p. 123.

113. The My Lai incident is discussed in many generations of the Leadership manuals, but each generation seems to place less emphasis on the material. A case study, which consumed a page or two previously, 

now only warrants three paragraphs in the current manual. See Army Leadership: Competent, Confident, and 

Agile, pp. 4-14.

114. Ibid., pp. 4-14– 4-16.

115. The Soldier’s Blue Book, pp. 16-17. Army: Profession of Arms 2011 cites the source of the Soldier’s 

Rules as Army Regulation (AR) 350-1, para. 4-14B. An International Red Cross webpage references a set of 

Soldier’s Rules which are very similar to the U.S. Army version, available from www.icrc.org/eng/resources/

documents/misc/57jmeb.htm. Scott Heintzelman, e-mail message to the author, September 14, 2011. Lieutenant Colonel Heintzelman, who previously commanded a Combat Basic Training unit, described the 

origins of The Soldier’s Blue Book. TRADOC constructed the Blue Book to support Initial Entry Training (aka 

Combat Basic Training). Heintzelman cited Lieutenant General Benjamin C. Freakley as the champion of 

the Soldier’s Rules. Craig Curry, e-mail message to the author, October 17, 2011. Colonel Curry noted that 

both Lieutenant General Freakley and Lieutenant General Mark P. Hertling made additions to the Soldier’s 

Rules, but the Army G1 office likely created the original version. This might explain the multiple variations.
52

116. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 46.

117. Scott Heintzelman, e-mail message to the author, September 12, 2011.

118. U.S. Department of the Army, Overview of Operational Law for Basic Combat Training, Training Support Package and Slides 805-B-0067, Charlottesville, VA: The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and 

School, March 1, 2010.

119. Don Snider, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, August 29, 2011. Dr. Snider referenced Department 

of the Army, Army White Paper: The Profession of Arms, Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters U.S. Army Training 

and Doctrine Command, December 2, 2010, pp. 11-16. Dr. Snider said that this document purposely relied 

heavily upon the British document, Directorate General Development and Doctrine, AC71819 Army Doctrine Publication ‘Land Operations’, London: UK: Ministry of Defense, May 2005. He repeated the concept in 

Don M. Snider, “The Army’s New Capstone Concept: Something is Missing!” Remarks to Army Center for 

the Professional Military Ethic (ACPME) on April 28, 2010, p. 2.

120. Snider, Oh, and Toner, The Army’s Professional Military Ethic, p. 11.

121. Ibid., p. 10.

122. Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, available from cape.army.mil/index.html.

123. U.S. Department of the Army, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, Moral Combat Computer 

Game, Fort Monroe, VA: Headquarters U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command, October 2010.

124. Melissa Bower, “Mattox Installed as CGSC’s First Ethics Chair,” November 10, 2011, available 

from www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/community/x1691079272/Mattox-installed-as-CGSC-s-first-ethics-chair.

125. A number of authors reflect this thinking. Among them, Dick Couch bases his entire premise on 

this notion in Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 46. CAPE summarizes the importance of an exemplary ethic as relevant to the COIN battlefield, in Peter L. Jennings and Sean T. Hannah, “The Moralities of Obligation and 

Aspiration: Towards a Concept of Exemplary Military Ethics and Leadership,” Military Psychology, Vol. 23, 

No. 5, pp. 18-19. Another COIN example is found in Perez, “The Embedded Morality,” pp. 24-31. Matthew 

Moten also notes the difficulty in identifying the enemy and contending with an enemy who does not follow the law of warfare in Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic,” p. 15.

126. Dieter Baumann, “Military Ethics: A Task for Armies,” Military Medicine, Vol. 172, No. 1, 

December 2007, p. 37.

127. Pamphlet 525-3-0, The Army Capstone Concept 2016-2028, Washington DC: TRADOC, U.S. Department of the Army, December 21, 2009.

128. Snider, “The Army’s New Capstone Concept: Something is Missing!” p. 1.

129. Ibid.

130. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Capstone Concept for Joint Operations, Vol. 3, January 2009, pp. 28-35.

131. Ibid., p. 34.

132. Chairman, Joint Chiefs of Staff, The National Military Strategy of the United States of America, 

February 2011, pp. 4, 7.

133. Ibid., p. 16.
53

134. Snider, “The Army’s New Capstone Concept: Something is Missing!” p. 2.

135. Bowyer notes the similarities in the British, Canadian, and U.S. values documents in Bowyer, 

“Challenges to the Military Code of Ethics.”

136. Liz Williams describes the murder and the problems with hazing which the Canadian Airborne 

Regiment experienced. See Liz Williams, “Soldiers Like Rules: An Examination of the Necessity and Desirability of ROE to Soldiers in the Field” (unpublished manuscript), Royal United Services Institute of 

Vancouver Island, available from www.rusiviccda.org/oralhistory/essays/williams_essay.htm. Paul Watson 

describes the significance of lessons learned after Somalia as Canadian Forces operated in Afghanistan, 

and avoided the same mistakes. See Paul Watson, “My 9/11: After Somalia, A Reporter Finds Pride 

with Canadian Troops in Afghanistan,” September 10, 2011, available from www.thestar.com/news/world/

article/1051103--my-9-11-after-somalia-a-reporter-finds-pride-with-canadian-troops-in-afghanistan.

137. Like so many of these modern crimes, the onlookers documented the beatings on video. See 

Thomas Harding, “Army fears backlash over video showing soldiers beating Iraqis,” February 13, 2006, 

available from www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/iraq/1510386/Army-fears-backlash-over-videoshowing-soldiers-beating-Iraqis.html.

138. The torture and drowning are described in alarmist terms in Felicity Arbuthnot, “The British Military in Iraq: A Legacy of War Crimes and Atrocities,” available from globalresearch.ca/index.

php?context=va&aid=20878.

139. Canadian Defence Forces, “Defence Ethics Programme,” available from www.dep-ped.forces.gc.ca/

dep-ped/index-eng.aspx.

140. Canadian Defence Forces, “Organization Chart,” available from www.dep-ped.forces.gc.ca/dep-ped/

about-ausujet/org-eng.aspx.

141. Canadian Defence Forces, “What Would You Do?,” available from www.dep-ped.forces.gc.ca/

scenarios/index-eng.aspx.

142. Canadian Defence Academy Press, “Current Titles,” available from www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfli-ilfc/

CurrentTitles-eng.asp.

143. Jeff Stouffer and Justin C. Wright, eds., Professional Ideology & Development: International Perspectives, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2008. Also see Jeff Stouffer and Stefan 

Seiler, eds., Military Ethics, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2008.

144. For a brief summary, see Bill Bentley, “Professional Ideology in the Canadian Forces,” in Stouffer 

and Wright, Professional Ideology & Development, pp. 4-5. For details see Chief of Defence Staff, Duty with 

Honour: The Profession of Arms in Canada 2009, Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Defence Academy 

Press, 2009, pp. 24-35.

145. Chief of Defence Staff, Duty with Honour, p. 35.

146. Canadian Defence Forces, “Army Ethics Program Workshop,” available from www.army.forces.

gc.ca/land-terre/aep-peat/courseware-telechargements-eng.asp.

147. Canadian Defence Forces, “Appendix 2: A Soldier’s Primer on Military Ethics,” available from 

www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/aep-peat/duty-servrir/appendix_2-appendice_2/primer-introduction-eng.asp. Diogenes is described as an originator of Cynicism and Stoicism in Encyclopedia Britannica, “Diogenes,” 

available from www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/164151/Diogenes.
54

148. Directorate General Development and Doctrine, Land Operations, p. 143.

149. British Army, Values and Standards of the British Army, Ministry of Defence, January 2008.

150. Ibid., p. 29.

151. Ibid., pp. 31-33.

152. Directorate General Development and Doctrine, Land Operations, p. 146. Also see Ministry of Defence, “The Armed Forces Covenant,” available from www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/WhatWeDo/

Personnel/Welfare/ArmedForcesCovenant/.

153. Ibid., p. 146.

154. Centre for Defence Leadership and Ethics, “Home,” available from www.defence.gov.au/adc/centres/

cdle/cdle.html.

155. Joint Education, Training and Warfare Command, Proceedings of the Chief of Defence Force 

2009 Warrant Officer and Non-commissioned Officer Leadership Forum - Ethical Leadership,” Weston 

Creek, New Zealand: Joint Education, Training and Warfare Command, October 2009, available from www.

defence.gov.au/adc/docs/cdle2010/CDLE_WOandNCOforumproceedings2009.pdf.

156. Defence Fraud Control Policy and Ethics Directorate, Ethics Matters: in Defence Resource Management, July 2002.

157. The Defence Leadership Framework: Growing Leaders at all Levels, Canberra, Australia: Government, 

Department of Defence.

158. Director Centre for Defence Leadership Studies, ADDP 00.6, Executive Series Leadership in the 

Australian Defence Force Australian Defence Doctrine Publication, Canberra, Australia: Defence Publishing 

Service, March 22, 2007, pp. 2-6.

159. Ibid., pp. 2-6.

160. Ibid., pp. 2-15.

161. Sea Power Centre, The Royal Australian Navy Leadership Ethic, Canberra, Australia: Commonwealth 

of Australia, Defence Publishing Service, 2010.

162. Ibid., pp. 87-91.

163. Ibid., p. 73.

164. Director Centre for Defence Leadership Studies, Executive Series Leadership, pp. 2-13.

165. The Royal Australian Army Core Values are found at Royal Australian Army, “Traditions and 

Values,” available from www.defencejobs.gov.au/army/LifeStyle/traditionsAndValues.aspx. The Navy Values 

are found in Sea Power Centre, The Royal Australian Navy Leadership Ethic, pp. 37-40.

166. The Royal Australian Air Force Values are found at Royal Australian Air Force, “Traditions and 

Values,” available from www.defencejobs.gov.au/airforce/Lifestyle/traditionsAndValues.aspx.

167. NZDDP–D, Foundations of New Zealand Military Doctrine, Wellington, New Zealand: Headquarters 

New Zealand Defence Force, November 2008, pp. 6-3 - 6-4.
55

168. Ibid., pp. 7-5 - 7-8.

169. Murray Simons, “Professional Ideology in the New Zealand Defence Force,” in Stouffer and 

Wright, Professional Ideology & Development, pp. 78-79. The Royal New Zealand Air Force Values can be 

found at Royal New Zealand Air Force, “RNZAF Mission Statement,” available from www.airforce.mil.nz/

about-us/rnzaf-mission-statement.htm.

170. Don Parker and Peter Greener, “Ethics Research: Moral Psychology and its Promise of Benefits for 

Moral Reasoning in the Military,” in Military Ethics, Jeff Stouffer and Stefan Seiler, eds., Kingston, Ontario, 

Canada: Canadian Defence Academy Press, 2008, p. 25.

171. Israeli Defense Forces, “Doctrine,” available from www.idf.il/1497-en/Dover.aspx.

172. Ibid.

173. Ibid.

174. Although not within the scope of this analysis, it is worth noting that the German Bundeswehr also 

uses a one-page construct to convey the origins of its service, its relationship to the state, the characteristics 

of the Army, and its guiding principles. It is quite similar to the Canadian and Israeli descriptions in content and arrangement. The Bundeswehr ethic can be found at the CAPE website at German Bundeswehr,”

Self Conception,” available from cape.army.mil/repository/ProArms/2010-12-08%20Self%20Conception%20

German%20Army.pdf.

175. TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-0, slide 4.

176. David L. Perry, Partly Cloudy: Ethics in War, Espionage, Covert Action, and Interrogation, Lanham, 

MD: Scarecrow Press, 2009, p. 4.

177. John Stuart Mill refined Utilitarianism. Peter Kreeft, What Would Socrates Do? The History of Moral 

Thought and Ethics, New York: Barnes and Noble Audio, 2004, p. 65.

178. Machiavelli “taught that, in politics, whether an action is evil or not can only be decided in the 

light of what it is meant to achieve and whether it successfully achieves it.” Niccolo Machiavelli, The Prince, 

George Bull, trans., New York: Penguin Books, 1981, p. 24.

179. In many ways “24,” a television show developed prior to the attacks on September 11, 2001, became a morality play and revenge fantasy for viewers when it aired. These ideas are explored in detail in a 

five part web-series in Aaron Aradillas and Matt Zoller Seitz, “5 on 24, Pt. 1: Ticking Clock,” May 18, 2010, 

available from www.movingimagesource.us/articles/5-on-24-pt-1-ticking-20100518. The time bomb scenario is 

described as a moral cheat or trick designed to influence an absolutist to accept a consequentialist argument 

in David Luban, “Liberalism, Torture, and the Ticking Time Bomb,” Virginia Law Review, Vol. 91, September 15, 2005, pp. 1440-1445.

180. George W. Bush, Decision Points, New York: Crown Publishing, 2010, pp. 168-170. Also see Dick 

Cheney, In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir, New York: Threshold Editions, 2011, pp. 358-362.

181. Lee Deremer, “Cultivating Ethical Habits of Mind for Strategic Decision Making” in Strategic 

Thinking: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 273.

182. Garrett Thomson, On Kant, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth, 2000, p. 63.

183. Ibid., p. 66.
56

184. Deremer, “Cultivating Ethical Habits of Mind,” p. 274. I reference the “Golden Rule” with some 

apprehension. Critics note that the “Golden Rule” falls short of its potential; it is not as universal as some 

might hope. See Alan Donagan, The Theory of Morality, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press, 1975, pp. 

57-66, in Timothy Challans, Awakening Warrior, pp. 103, 203. It is often remarked that every major faith has 

a variation of the Golden Rule; some are better constructed. For example, the Wiccan Rede “An ye harm 

none, including yourself; do what ye will” avoids the problems presented by the Golden Rule. Other examples of the “ethic of reciprocity” are available from thesynthesizer.org/golden.html.

185. Thomson, On Kant, p. 67.

186. Deremer, “Cultivating Ethical Habits of Mind,” p. 274.

187. National Security Council, A Report to the President Pursuant to the President’s Directive of 

January 31, 1950, NSC 68, April 7, 1950, p. 7.

188. Perry, Partly Cloudy, p. 17.

189. Oren Gross, “The Prohibition on Torture and the Limits of the Law,” in Torture: A Collection, Sanford Levinson, ed., New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 232, referenced in Douglas A. Galipeau, 

“Torture and the War on Terrorism: Time to Think the Unthinkable?” Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 

2005, pp. 8-9.

190. Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz also proposes splitting the difference between absolutist 

prohibition against abuse and consequentialist acceptance by suggesting the use of “torture warrants” in 

extreme cases. Alan Dershowitz, Why Terrorism Works: Understanding the Threat: Responding to the Challenge, 

New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2003, found in David P. Forsythe, The Politics of Prisoner Abuse, New 

York: Cambridge University Press, 2011, p. 9.

191. Jennings and Hannah, “The Moralities of Obligation and Aspiration,” p. 3.

192. Peter Kilner, “A Moral Justification for Killing in War,” Army, Vol. 60, No. 2, February, 2010, 

pp. 55-58.

193. Kilner, “Military Leaders’ Obligation to Justify Killing in War,” p. 31.

194. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 96. British Lieutenant Colonel Bowyer also remarks that “professional 

militaries must act with restraint�— as individuals�— if they are not to be irreparably damaged as human beings by the need to do violence on behalf of their fellow citizens.” See Bowyer, “Challenges to the Military 

Code of Ethics.”

195. Clark Barrett, “Unarmed and Dangerous: The Holistic Preparation of Soldiers for Combat,” Ethical 

Human Psychology and Psychiatry, Vol. 13, No. 2, 2011, p. 106.

196. Geert Hofestede and Gert Jan Hofestede, “Introduction: The Rules of the Social Game,” in Culture 

and Organizations: Software of the Mind, Danvers, MA: Copyright Clearance Center: 2005, pp. 1-36, reprinted 

in Strategic Leadership: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 185.

197. Deremer, “Cultivating Ethical Habits of Mind,” p. 270.

198. Richard A. Gabriel, To Serve With Honor, New York: Prager, 1987, quoted in Michael S. Kearns, 

“Code of Conduct,” p. 3.

199. Jennings and Hannah, “The Moralities of Obligation and Aspiration,” pp. 6-7.
57

200. Ibid., p. 1.

201. Ibid., p. 8.

202. Department of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership, USMA, Leadership in Organizations, Garden 

City Park, NY: Avery Publishing, 1988, p. 422.

203. Patterson and Phipps also identify Kohlberg’s stages as critical to ethical education. Patterson and 

Phipps, “Ethics,” pp. 5-6.

204. Marcy P. Driscoll, Psychology of Learning for Instruction, 2nd Ed., Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and 

Bacon, 2000, p. 348.

205. Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics,” p. 75.

206. Robert Reilly, “The Inclination for War Crimes,” Military Review, Vol. 89, No. 3, May-June 

2009, p. 19.

207. Couch notes that training is mostly focused on rules of engagement, as opposed to what he calls 

warriorship or warrior ethics. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 82.

208. Reilly, p. 19.

209. Stephen J. Gerras, “Thinking Critically About Critical Thinking: A Fundamental Guide for Strategic Leaders,” August 2008, in Strategic Thinking: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army 

War College, 2011, p. 64.

210. Joint Futures Group, “The Joint Operating Environment 2010,” Suffolk, VA: U.S. Joint Forces Command, 2010, pp. 69-70.

211. Patterson and Phipps, “Ethics,” pp. 34-37.

212. Nathaniel Fick in the foreword to Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. xi.

213. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 16.

214. Ibid., Appendix V.

215. The Bush administration principals have all conceded that enhanced interrogation techniques 

were co-opted from SERE. Former President Bush notes that the CIA developed the list of techniques in 

Bush, Decision Points, p. 169; Former Vice President Cheney establishes the link between the CIA list and 

the SERE training in Cheney, In My Time, p. 358. I had numerous personal communications with both 

USAF Captain (Ret.) Michael S. Kearns, a former SERE instructor, and Lieutenant Colonel Douglas A. 

Pryer, a former SERE facilitator and Human Intelligence Officer. Both noted that SERE instructors could 

train students without using torture-like circumstances. Kearns is interviewed in Jason Leopold and Jeffrey 

Kaye, “CIA Psychologist’s Notes Reveal True Purpose Behind Bush’s Torture Program,” March 22, 2011, 

available from www.truth-out.org/cia-psychologists-notes-reveal-bushs-torture-program68542. Pryer describes 

SERE in Pryer, The Fight for the High Ground, pp. xxi-xxiv.

216. Pryer, The Fight for the High Ground, pp. 22-28.

217. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 54.

218. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”
58

219. Ibid.

220. America’s Army: The Strength of the Nation: The Army Profession, DVD, Washington, DC: U.S. Army 

Office of the Chief of Public Affairs, 2011.

221. Don Snider, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, September 13, 2011.

222. Lewis Sorley, Honor Bright: History and Origins of the West Point Honor Code and System, New York: 

McGraw-Hill, 2009, p. 12.

223. Ibid., p. 23.

224. Ibid., p. 46.

225. Ibid., p. 19.

226. Ibid., p. 12.

227. Ibid., pp. 121-122.

228. Ibid., pp. 51, 138.

229. Ibid., p. 48.

230. Ibid., p. 76.

231. Ibid., p. 79.

232. Ibid., p. 35.

233. Peter Fromm, “Cool on Honor: Sadism, Cruelty, and Character Development at West Point,” 2011, 

available from www.foreignpolicy.com/files/fp_uploaded_documents/111202_WestPointPersonalEssay.pdf.

234. Sorley, Honor Bright, p. 156.

235. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 8.

236. Ibid., pp. 102-109.

237. T. M. Jones and L.V. Ryan, “The Link Between Ethical Judgment and Action in Organizations: A 

Moral Approbation Approach,” Organization Science, Vol. 8, pp. 663-680, quoted in Jennings and Hannah, 

“The Moralities of Obligation and Aspiration,” p. 7.

238. Sorley, Honor Bright, p. 28.

239. Chapter 1, The Cadet Honor Code, available from www.west-point.org/publications/honorsys/chap1.

html#106.

240. Joint Ethics Regulation 1-6, 5500.7, pp. 157-158.

241. Chapter 1, The Cadet Honor Code. 

242. Richard Gabriel highlights shortcomings of the USMA Honor Code, and the USMA implementation of ethical training. See Gabriel, To Serve With Honor, pp. 131-136.
59

243. United States Air Force Academy Character Development Manual, December 1994, in Patterson 

and Phipps, “Ethics,” p. 21. Colonel (Ret.) Larry Donnithorne, former USMA Assistant Dean, proposed a 

model similar to this Air Force model. See Larry R. Donnithorne, The West Point Way of Leadership: From 

Learning Principled Leadership to Practicing It, New York: Currency, 1993, pp. 65-67. The model is 1) What are 

the relevant facts of the situation? 2) What are the alternative actions available? 3) Who will be affected? 4) 

What moral principles are involved? and 5) How would these principles be advanced or violated by each 

alternative action?

244.The Royal Australian Navy Leadership Ethic, p. 91.

245. Patterson and Phipps, “Ethics,” p. 36.

246. J. Romaniec and Associates, UEC_CTP_2010_Sep Course Training Plan, Instructor’s Manual for 

Unit Ethics Coordinator Qualification Course, Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, 2010.

247. This proposed position would focus on junior supervisors, including lieutenants, corporals, sergeants, and staff sergeants. Opponents might suggest this is another “gradeplate” burden which the Army 

could ill-afford. However, as the Army faces a drawdown, these veterans (who as majors and senior captains have likely served their entire careers during the Global War on Terror) are people the Army will 

want to retain.

248. To entice the best candidates for such a job, this position must be categorized as a “Key Developmental” position that would satisfy a Major’s branch qualification requirements.

249. This Chief Learning Officer position would include the duties related to “schools” currently managed by Operations Officers. The “aspiring professional” vs “acting professional” dichotomy is from the 

Army Profession campaign as explained in Don M. Snider, “Strategic Leadership of a Military Profession,” lecture, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, PA, October 2011, cited with permission of Dr. Snider,

slides 16-18.

250. Strategic Studies Institute researcher Steven Metz recommends improving professional development in an environment with too much to do and not enough time to do it. See Steven Metz, “Junior Leader 

Development: Who Has the Time?” April 2011, available from www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1060.pdf.

251. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”

252. Dr. Don Snider suggested these four formative questions. Don Snider, interview by author, Carlisle, PA, September 13, 2011.

253. Bowyer, “Challenges to the Military Code of Ethics.”

254. USMA philosophy professor Major John Cazier avoids the term “code” in favor of “expression/

articulation of the professional military ethic.” See John Cazier, “The Basic Nature of Ethics,” unpublished 

manuscript, July 10, 2011, p. 13, received from author on December 6, 2011.

255. Brinsfield notes the tension between philosophical consistency and “no-kidding” relevancy, and 

the danger of creating a hodge-podge of disconnected ethical principles in Brinsfield, “Army Values and 

Ethics,” p. 78.

256. Cazier, “The Basic Nature of Ethics,” p. 2.

257. Structured similarly to the U.S. Charter, United Nations, Charter of the United Nations and Statute 

of the International Court of Justice, San Francisco, CA: United Nations, 1945.
60

258. Field Manual 100-1, The Army, Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Army, August 14, 1981, p. 

24. See Carl H. Builder, The Masks of War: American Military Styles in Strategy and Analysis, Baltimore, MD: 

Johns Hopkins University Press, 1989, p. 20.

259. Membership section answers the question “Who are the person or groups of persons affected by 

your organization or the members of your organization, and how are they prioritized?” Each section is 

designed to answer the questions posed by Andrew Olson in Olson, “Authoring a Code of Ethics.” 

260. America’s Army, DVD.

261. Ethics professor and author Dr. Martin L. Cook suggests the need for this historical review, noting 

that “few modern 18-22 year old Americans have been educated well if at all on the distinctive Constitutional and historical aspects of the United States.” See Martin L. Cook, “Professional Military Ethics Across 

the Career Spectrum,” Fort Leavenworth Ethics Symposium: Exploring the Professional Military Ethic Symposium 

Report November 15-17, 2010, Fort Leavenworth, KS: CGSC Foundation Press, 2010, p. 8.

262. Christopher R. Colbert, “National Character vs. National Security: Conflict in the Making?” 

Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 5.

263. National Security Council, A Report to the President, p. 5.

264. Barack H. Obama, “Remarks by the President on National Security,” May 21, 2009, in Colbert, “National Character vs. National Security,” p. 5, available from www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/Remarks-bythe-President-On-National-Security-5-21-09/. 

265. Barack H. Obama, “Inaugural Address,” January 20, 2009, in Colbert, “National Character vs. National Security,” p. 5, available from www.whitehouse.gov/blog/inaugural-address/.

266. Institutional ethic section answers the question “What are your organization’s main areas of action?” in narrative form. Each section is designed to answer the questions posed by Andrew Olson in 

Olson, “Authoring a Code of Ethics.” Lieutenant Colonel Celestino Perez notes that “a narrative is an organizational scheme which represents an identity in story form” in Perez, “The Embedded Morality,” p. 27.

267. Army National Guard, ARNG 98-106, The Story of the Army National Guard, Washington, DC: National Guard Bureau, 1998, p. 3; and R. S. Hunter, D. M. Gordon, D. L. Smith, and A. L. Gordon, 2003 

National Guard Almanac: Family Member Edition, Falls Church, VA: Uniformed Services Almanac, 2003, p. 

148, in Clark Barrett, An Evaluation of Reserve Component Leaders’ Attitudes and Motivation as They Relate to 

Situational Leadership in a Peacekeeping Operational Environment, Berrien Springs, MI: Andrews University, 

November 2007, p. 2.

268. Field Manual 1 (FM 1), The Army, p. 1-2. 

269. Clay T. Buckingham, “Ethics and the Senior Officer: Institutional Tensions,” Parameters, Autumn 

1985, pp. 23-32, reprinted in Strategic Leadership: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. Army 

War College, 2011, p. 282.

270. National Security Council, A Report to the President, p. 12.

271. Sorley, Honor Bright, p. 95.

272. National Security Council, A Report to the President, p. 12.

273. Buckingham, “Ethics and the Senior Officer: Institutional Tensions,” p. 282.
61

274. Directorate General Development and Doctrine, Land Operations, p. 6.

275. Ibid., p. 7.

276. FM 1, Foreword.

277. T.R. Fehrenbach, This Kind of War: A Study in Unpreparedness, New York: MacMillan, 1963, in FM 

1, p. 1-1.

278. NATO, “Multiple Futures Project: Navigating Towards 2030, Final Report April 2009,” May 8, 

2009, p. 8, available from www.scribd.com/doc/15832019/Multiple-Futures-Project-Final-Report.

279. George Washington, General Orders, Headquarters, Cambridge, MA, January 1, 1776, in The Papers of George Washington, W. W. Abbot et al., eds.; Revolutionary War Series, No. 3, January to March 1776, 

Philander D. Chase, ed., Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia, 1988, pp. 1-3, in Richard Swain, 

“Reflection on an Ethic of Officership,” Parameters, Spring 2007, p. 12.

280. Forsythe, The Politics of Prisoner Abuse, p. 95.

281. The Statement of Army Professionals’ Ethics answers the questions “What unethical decisions and 

actions would your organization like to prevent, and how could they be prevented?” and “What type of 

ethical problems are members of your organization most likely to encounter?” in code form from Andrew 

Olson in Olson, “Authoring a Code of Ethics.”

282. Eliot Cohen, “America’s Distinctive Way of War,” November 11, 2011, available from online.wsj.

com/article/SB10001424052970203687504577005804147626694.html. 

283. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, pp. 24-25.

284. David Hackett Fisher, Washington’s Crossing, New York: Oxford University Press, 2004, p. 375.

285. Ibid., p. 379.

286. Francis Lieber,”The Lieber Code of 1863,” available from www.civilwarhome.com/liebercode.htm, in 

Swain, “Reflection on an Ethic of Officership,” p. 14.

287. Anthony E. Hartle, Moral Issues in Military Decision-making, 2nd Ed., Lawrence, KS: University 

Press of Kansas, 2004, p. 229.

288. Peter Tyson, “The Hippocratic Oath Today,” available from www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/hippocratic-oath-today.html.

289. The Soldier’s Blue Book, p. 12. I selected these virtues through analysis of the collective common 

values of the United States and partner nations. I also used the logic found in John Cazier, “The Basic Nature of Ethics,” pp. 4-8. I later discovered a similar virtues construction by Timothy Challans, Awakening 

Warrior, pp. 86-91. 

290. Psalm B. C. Lew, “Preparing Values-based Commanders for the 3rd Generation Singapore Armed 

Forces,” in Military Ethics, Jeff Stouffer and Stefan Seiler, eds., Kingston, Ontario, Canada: Canadian 

Defence Academy Press, 2008, p. 125.

291. Canadian Government, “Canadian Government Statement of Defence Ethics,” available from 

ethics.iit.edu/indexOfCodes-2.php?key=12_205_1480.
62

292. U.S.Department of Defense, “Character: Nobility of Life and Action,” p. 284.

293. Chief of Defence Staff, Duty with Honour, p. 33.

294. Michael P. Manning, “A Codified Joint Professional Military Ethic: The Cornerstone of 21st Century U.S. Military Transformation,” Newport, RI: Naval War College, September 15, 2010, pp. 18-19.

295. U.S.Department of Defense, “Character: Nobility of Life and Action,” p. 288.

296. Manning, “A Codified Joint Professional Military Ethic,” p. 18; Joint Ethics Regulation 1-6, p. 154.

297. German Bundeswehr, “Self Conception.”

298. Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic,” pp. 17-18, 22.

299. Royal New Zealand Air Force, “RNZAF Mission Statement”; German Bundeswehr, “Self 

Conception.”

300. Chief of Defence Staff, Duty with Honour, p. 32.

301. Royal New Zealand Air Force, “RNZAF Mission Statement.”

302. Manning, “A Codified Joint Professional Military Ethic,” p. 18.

303. Lew, “Preparing Values-based Commanders,” p. 125.

304. Israeli Defense Forces, “Doctrine.” 

305. Gabriel, The Warrior’s Way, p. 179.

306. British Army, Values and Standards of the British Army, p. 10.

307. Canadian Government, “Canadian Government Statement of Defence Ethics.”

308. FM 100-1, p. 26, quoted in Kelley, “A Proposal for the United States Army Ethic,” p. 23.

309. British Army, Values and Standards of the British Army, p. 10.

310. Ibid., p. 8.

311. Lew, “Preparing Values-based Commanders,” p. 125.

312. FM 100-1, p. 24, quoted in Kelley, “A Proposal for the United States Army Ethic,” p. 20; Royal 

Australian Army, “Traditions and Values.” 

313. Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics,” p. 81.

314. Joint Ethics Regulation, p. 153; and British Army, Values and Standards of the British Army, p. 14.

315. Canadian Government, “Canadian Government Statement of Defence Ethics.”

316. Israeli Defense Forces, “Doctrine.”

317. Lew, “Preparing Values-based Commanders,” p. 125.
63

318. Canadian Government, “Canadian Government Statement of Defence Ethics.”

319. Kilner, “A Moral Justification for Killing in War,” p. 60.

320. Baumann, “Military Ethics: A Task for Armies,” pp. 37-38.

321. The Soldier’s Blue Book, pp. 16-17.

322. Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic,” pp. 5, 13.

323. Gabriel, To Serve With Honor, p. 173.

324. FM 1; and Field Manual (FM) 3, Operations, are the two current capstone manuals.

325. The governance section answers the question “How can conflicting principles be resolved?” from 

Andrew Olson in Olson, “Authoring a Code of Ethics.”

326. Donnithorne, The West Point Way of Leadership, pp. 65-67.

327. Chapter 1, The Cadet Honor Code.

328. Harold Lord, ed., How the Army Runs: A Senior Leader Reference Handbook 2011-2012, Carlisle, PA: 

U.S. Army War College, 2011, p. 456.

329. Gabriel, To Serve With Honor, p. 209.

330. Sorley, Honor Bright, p. 158.

331. German Bundeswehr, “Self Conception.”

332. The Airborne Network: Utrinque paratus, “The Military Covenant,” available from www.

abnetwork.org/articles/military-covenent.

333. Pamphlet 600-2, The Armed Force Officer, Washington DC: U.S. Department of the Army, July 22, 

1975, p. 1, quoted in Kelley, “A Proposal for the United States Army Ethic,” p. 19.

334. The Airborne Network: Utrinque paratus, “The Military Covenant.”

335. Couch, A Tactical Ethic, p. 26. As Dr. Don Snider and Colonel Murray Clark both note, such a covenant cannot be created by the Army without endorsement of the civilian authorities.

336. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”

337. De George notes that retired General Maxwell Taylor called for a military code of ethics in the 

1980s. See De George, “Defining Moral Obligations,” p. 24.

338. Tim Arango and Michael S. Schmidt, “Iraq Denies Legal Immunity to U.S. Troops After 2011,” 

October 4, 2011, available from www.nytimes.com/2011/10/05/world/middleeast/iraqis-say-no-to-immunity-forremaining-american-troops.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss.

339. Mogelson, “A Beast in the Heart of Every Fighting Man.”

340. Deremer, “Stewardship: What’s In It for You?” p. 270. Deremer asks “What would an organization that acted on the belief that people are its most important resource look like?” He argues that the U.S. 
64

military is such an organization. I would suggest that such an organization would ensure that its moral/

ethical boundaries are well known and adhered to. Resourcing and communicating those norms, values, 

and underlying assumptions and ensuring compliance would be a priority rather than a secondary or tertiary concern.

341. Frederick, Black Hearts, p. 349.

342. Nancy A. Youssef, “Unit Commander Among Marines Urinating on Corpses,” February 2, 2012, 

available from www.military.com/news/article/unit-commander-among-marines-urinating-on-corpses.html.

343. Kay Johnson and Rahim Faiez, “Afghan Commission Alleges US Detainee Abuse,” January 8, 

2012, available from www.foxnews.com/world/2012/01/07/afghan-commission-alleges-us-detainee-abuse/. See 

also Matthew Rosenberg, “Karzai’s Ultimatum Complicates U.S. Exit Strategy,” January 9, 2012, available 

from www.nytimes.com/2012/01/09/world/asia/karzais-ultimatum-on-afghan-prison-complicates-us-exit-strategy.

html?pagewanted=all.

344. Eliot A. Cohen, “The Historical Mind and Military Strategy,” Orbis: A Journal of World Affairs, Vol. 

49, No. 4, Fall 2005, reprinted in Strategic Thinking: Selected Readings Core Curriculum, Carlisle, PA: U.S. 

Army War College, 2011, pp. 223-224. 

345. Brinsfield, “Army Values and Ethics,” p. 72.

346. Melissa Bower, “Mattox Installed as CGSC’s First Ethics Chair,” November 10, 2011, available 

from www.ftleavenworthlamp.com/community/x1691079272/Mattox-installed-as-CGSC-s-first-ethics-chair.

347. Sorley, Honor Bright, p. 157.

348. Fromm, Pryer, and Cutright, “War is a Moral Force,” pp. 40-46.

349. Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic,” pp. 18-19.

350. Kearns, “Code of Conduct,” p. 7.

351. Moten, “The Army Officers’ Professional Ethic,” pp. 18-19.

352. Many politicians reputedly used this quotation or something like it. Secretary of State Hillary 

Clinton made this remark about climate change in Pete Harrison, “Never Waste a Good Crisis,” March 7, 

2009, available from in.reuters.com/article/2009/03/06/us-eu-climate-clinton-idINTRE5251VN20090306.

353. Sun Tzu, The Art of War, p. 88.
U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

Major General Anthony A. Cucolo III

Commandant

*****

STRATEGIC STUDIES INSTITUTE

Director

Professor Douglas C. Lovelace, Jr.

Director of Research

Dr. Antulio J. Echevarria II

Author

Lieutenant Colonel Clark C. Barrett

Director of Publications

Dr. James G. Pierce

Publications Assistant

Ms. Rita A. Rummel

*****

Composition

Mrs. Jennifer E. Nevil
FOR THIS AND OTHER PUBLICATIONS, VISIT US AT

StrategicStudiesInstitute.army.mil

U.S. ARMY WAR COLLEGE

This Publication SSI Website USAWC Website