FACE IN THE MIRROR: AN ETHICS CODE FOR THE ARMED FORCES

We must be clear that ends matter as well as means. To serve an immoral cause, to forswear one’s Constitutional Oath, to engage in treason, even acting within the rules of conduct in war, is not a cause for public adulation.

The American military needs a code of ethics. The American military places considerable emphasis on the ethical aspects of service through instruction in leadership, military ethics, and the various sets of branch core values. Very often, however, reality falls far short of the ideal. Military service can blunt or misdirect the ethical sense. Trauma, disillusionment, an exaggerated sense of entitlement, and what has been termed “moral injury” (MI) can lead a servicemember astray in their ethical behavior. Reminders of this are not hard to find. They include the spectacle of veterans’ difficulties assimilating into civil society, and revelations of war crimes and other forms of misconduct, to include sexual assault. A disproportionately high percentage of those who attacked the U.S. Capitol on 6 January were, shamefully, military members and veterans. White supremacist groups have gained a foothold in all branches and among veterans. The idea that racist and fascist ideology is compatible with military service, even that it complements service in the American armed forces, has somehow been allowed to take hold and to grow. The Armed Forces has an ethics problem.

A notable example demonstrating the need for an explicit statement of ethics with clearly defined right and left boundaries comes from the highest levels of the military. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs General Mark Milley’s participation in a partisan political event with then-president Donald Trump was the subject of much criticism. To his credit, Milley recanted his conduct, and he later pointed to his Constitutional obligation of principle over parties and persons during the transfer of Presidential power to Joe Biden. Still, the fact that the senior officer in the whole of the armed forces, the president’s principal adviser on military matters, underwent a period of public confusion regarding his professional and ethical obligations is a clear indicator of the need for more clarity and conversation regarding the vital ethical underpinnings of military service.

The need for a code is furthermore illustrated by the debate over Confederate monuments. We must be clear that ends matter as well as means. To serve an immoral cause, to forswear one’s Constitutional Oath, to engage in treason, even acting within the rules of conduct in war, is not a cause for public adulation. We may try to understand the reasons for such desertion, and even feel a degree of respect for those who fought well, but in this instance the egregiousness of the Confederate’s cause, described by U.S. Grant as one of the worst for which men have fought, puts them beyond the pale of honors, reward, or public expressions of admiration.  The current debate over the handling of Confederate monuments is a contentious issue which a clear ethics code would help clarify.

Unethical behavior erodes public trust. We have seen in recent months a crisis of confidence in law enforcement among many Americans. How far the “defund the police” movement will go remains to be seen, but it should serve as a reminder of the consequences of a respected public institution failing to hold itself accountable, to “police its own ranks.” Since 6 January, polling has shown declining numbers of people expressing trust in the military, and not without reason.

This is a time for the armed forces to recommit itself to high standards of conduct. A DoD Ethics Code would communicate our commitment to the American people, from whom we draw our members, spirit, and strength, and to whom we are finally and fully accountable. I propose the following DoD Ethics Code for consideration: 

The code would serve as doctrine, as a bridge of understanding concerning the most vital, “top ten” ethical underpinnings of military service.

The code would apply to all members of the armed forces and Defense Department. It reflects the U.S. Constitution, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Law of Armed Conflict, the U.S. Uniform Code of Military Justice, the services’ core values and Code of Conduct, along with other documents pertaining to ethics in the military, such as the Joint Ethics Regulation.

The code would serve as doctrine, as a bridge of understanding concerning the most vital, “top ten” ethical underpinnings of military service. This code of ethics would be a clearly defined pledge by service members not to waver or compromise in matters of ethics, but to remain faithful to the American people and to the high ideals that should sustain us in times of peril and adversity. Bright lines combined with honest dialogue are needed. To paraphrase Shakespeare’s King Lear, too little mind has been taken of this subject. We are living through what one writer has described as an epistemological crisis, a crisis over of truth.   Clear thinking, as Pascal remarks, is the first principle of ethics. A DoD Code of Ethics would provide for such clear thinking in simple, clear language.

Some might argue that to add another set of rules regarding ethics is unnecessary given the guidelines and cultural norms already in place. I disagree. The existing guidelines are in fact often ethics-neutral, or insufficiently clear and explicit as to what kind of ethical conduct is expected of a service member. The Marine Corps Core Values of Honor, Courage, and Commitment, for example, could be adopted without alternation by the soldiers of a fascist regime! The Uniform Code of Military Justice prohibits the most egregious behavior, but it does not explicitly encourage a commitment to human rights and democracy. Other documents having to do with ethical conduct by military members and other federal employees are lengthy and complex, and they contain much information that most enlisted members and even officers would find irrelevant and read only rarely. Even the Constitutional oath is subject to misinterpretation, as evidenced by the extremist group calling itself “Oath Keepers,” some of whose members participated in the outrage on 6 January. A DoD Code of Ethics would make clear that to serve in the armed forces of a democracy is fundamentally different from serving a tyrant or authoritarian state. This distinction cannot be left to chance. It must be spelled out in simple, explicit language and reinforced by example and exhortation.

The greatest call for an ethics “surge” may come from American servicemembers’ own self-respect as members of the armed forces, past, present, and future. Many fine, idealistic young men and women join up only to find that the organization’s performance does not always live up to advertising. An ethics code would help the American military secure and retain the respect and the recruits it deserves. American officers must look at themselves and ask whether they like what they see. Knowing themselves and all they have achieved, they might conclude that they can do better.

Reed Bonadonna is a retired Marine Corps infantry officer and field historian. He was director of ethics at the U.S. Merchant Marine Academy and is a former fellow of the Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs. His most recent book is How To Think Like an Officer: Lessons in Learning and Leadership for Soldiers and Other Citizens.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the U.S. Army War College, the U.S. Army, or the Department of Defense.

Photo Description: Army Sgt. Forrest Layton applies face paint before a training event at Bemowo Piskie Training Area, Poland, Nov. 14, 2018, during NATO joint training exercise Anakonda.

Photo Credit: U.S Army Photo Sgt. Sarah Kirby