Ethical Command Climate Essay

The 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, a unit known as the Rakkasans, were conducting Operation Iron Triangle in 2006 in Iraq when soldiers killed eight unarmed Iraqi men. The US military severely reprimanded the Commander of the Rakkasans, COL Michael Steele, for the unethical command climate his leadership allowed to exist within the unit at that time. This unit will need a new commander that can set and maintain an effective, ethical command climate through his leadership. That new commander should resolve the issues that led to the reported war crime in order to establish a culture that perpetuates an ethical command climate.

At the Core of Culture: The Army Ethic. Transitive from the Constitution, Soldiers are also defending moral values. The U.S. believes the Soldiers to always make the right decision no matter the situation. It is the nation’s trust in the Army Ethic that provides the Army the validity of using lethal force. Also, it is the principles of necessity, discrimination, and proportionality that delineates the Army apart from a group of

The Army values can provide that baseline but senior leaders must act in accordance with those values to provide an example for their subordinates. If this is not seen as important to the leaders, it will not be important to their soldiers. Informal systems such as norms and rituals can be combined with formal systems like training and established policies to instill an organization with an ethical culture. However, it must be combined with a system of rewards and punishments to force adoption of it.

The following are the key ethical decision points shown in Platoon. In each of them soldiers make decisions with large ethical ramifications. For each example, where the

The inconsistent application of Army standards leads to unethical decisions on a daily basis. Despite an emphasis on Army values at all levels, military leaders open themselves up to make unethical decisions when they don’t adhere to set standards. Despite the Army having clear standards on height/weight, APFT, the tattoo policy, and reporting requirements, leaders often take it upon themselves to ignore the standard or create their own. Leaders have the responsibility to maintain and enforce standards which are driven by regulations. If military leaders

Colonel (Col) Michael Steele’s resolute beliefs regarding how to prepare his unit for combat and his bravado demeanor commanded respect from other bemused military officers. While serving as Commanding Officer (CO), 3rd Brigade, 101st Airborne Division, Col Steele aggressively cultivated a command climate focused on three core principles: personal protection, precision, and lethality. Although these three core principles narrowly aligned with the Army's "Soldier's Creed", Col Steele’s principles did not reinforce the Army’s individual and organizational core values. 3rd Brigade’s disassociated ethical subculture fostered a toxic environment which compromised both subordinate commanders' and individual soldiers' moral standards to various extents. Col Steele’s vague guidance concerning proper ethical behavior during the execution of high stress Counter-Insurgency (COIN) missions resulted in subordinates failing to conduct kinetic operations in accordance with established Army ethical standards. The military establishment shall remember May 09, 2006 as the day the revered "Rakkasans" failed to personify the unit's motto of "Ne Desit Virtus," meaning "Let Valor Not Fail". For on this day, four soldiers assigned to Charlie Company, known to the “Rakkasans” as the "Kill Company", murdered eight unarmed Iraqi citizens during Operation Iron Triangle. These four soldiers failed to understand the nature and consequences of their iniquities as they could no longer distinguish

The conversation of what is right and wrong in leadership is a complex problem within the realm of military professionalism and leadership. As long as there are differences in ethical and moral compasses between individuals, there will always be an argument on what the proper way to conduct leadership is. Within the ever-changing ethical environment in the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF), there have been several positive steps taken to create a better environment for all members, focusing more on mentorship and leadership through inclusion and progression. However, even with the efforts being put in place to implement change in all aspects of the Chain of Command, it is difficult to change one’s view on leadership, if their first introduction to

Author. Thomas N. Barnes Center for Enlisted Education. (2016d). EL05, Ethical Leadership. Maxwell-

While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.

Over centuries, the Army established and continues to validate itself as a Profession of Arms. As a department of the US Military, the Army earns this title by providing the unique service of defending the Constitution and the American people. In order to be a Profession of Arms then, the Soldiers that fill the Army’s ranks must be professionals. These professionals are morally and legally bound by the Army ethics to constantly develop their occupation specialties and apply them “ethically, effectively, and efficiently.” In being an expert of one’s occupation and using said expertise in morally just ways, the Soldier creates a reciprocal relationship where being an expert and a professional means living by the Army Ethic and vice versa. The Army as a profession is defined by five essential characteristics; trust, honorable service, military expertise, stewardship, and esprit de corps. These characteristics reflect American values and the Army Ethic. Each characteristic has its own importance and bearing on the Army Profession, but which one is the most significant? Honorable service is the professional responsibility of all Soldiers, it is the “noble calling to service and sacrifice”. As Soldiers, “we contribute honorable service as we accomplish our mission, perform our duty, and live our lives in a manner worthy of our professional status.” By defining what it means to serve honorably, we identify how it is an integral part the Army Ethic, the Profession of Arms,

Based on their sense of duty to follow the order, Captain Miller and his men used a deontological ethical framework to guide their decision-making process. The University of Texas Business school states that deontology ethics, “requires that people follow the rules and do their duty” (McCombs School of Business, n.d.). The duties of a soldier are to follow the orders of the officers and individuals appointed over them. In this case, Captain Miller and his men fell underneath the command of General Marshall.

A civilized society cannot function without rules, laws, and codes of proper conduct. This statement may seem out of place in the context of warfighting; however, this is one place where it is most necessary. The fighters, who often act at the behest of their home nation, must have a code of conduct which allows them to make the correct decision in a given situation in a combat zone. Rules of Engagement fill this gap for the national militaries of the civilized world and serve as a soldier’s code of conduct in the field.

I read an article titled, The Never-Ending War The Good Soldier, written by William Langewiesche. The story is about a soldier who is fought in the war in Iraq under the Alpha Company Wolf Pack platoon. The good soldier (Cunningham) under the military protocol, blindly follows his platoon leader through varies immoral methods of carrying out the US mission, which was to promote stability. Civilians died and war crimes happened, while Cunningham was forced to follow through as the platoon fought for the cause. When communicating, individuals/parties should find the best tools for communicating the issues, questions, concerns, etc. pertaining to the cause. Even though you feel strongly about your cause, act/react morally appropriate so as not to veer from the commitment or make others feel that your commitment is not to THE cause, but to a cause of your own. One also has the responsibility to act in a way that will uphold moral society, rather than diminish the morality of the society we live

The code of ethics is another standard I will abide by like the 10 commandments or the Army values. It is something I must follow to get to my dream job as an officer. The code of ethics means a lot to means is basically how I live my life now and its another stepping stone to becoming a peace officer.

Combat compliance is framed as an analytic puzzle related to the variability of behavior, or responses of combatants, both individuals and as a collective, to the realities and risks of warfare. The underlying assumption here is that there is an intrinsic risk of death in any scenario of combat (Magagna, 2016). The enemy is always rationally assumed to have an interest in your death. What follows is that obeying of commands presents itself as an implicit acceptance of such risks. The puzzle here is figuring out how and why vastly differing reactions occur. At some points soldiers show limited levels of compliance, sometimes even ending up in mutiny, while in other cases units show extremely high levels of compliance, exhibiting tenacity under conditions of overwhelming odds (Magagna, 2016). This essay attempts to explain the factors that give rise to the variability of combat compliance. What is important, as alluded to earlier, is to be able to provide a generalizable argument that is applicable across time and space. The essay will first lay out of varying levels of combat compliance to discuss the characteristics and consequences of variability. Secondly, it will explore and contrast the factors of automaticity as a function of training and institutional design and the factor of the combat contract as a rational cost benefit analysis of material and moral incentives, in an attempt to critically analyze their merits in accounting for the variability of combat compliance.