On Reporting Unethical Behavior within an Army Unit
Oliver Stone’s 1986 movie, Platoon, tells the story of a U.S. Army infantry platoon conducting operations in Vietnam. Throughout the film, the soldiers conduct unethical acts such as murdering civilians, threatening children, and attempting rape. Other members of the platoon, who do not agree with this behavior, are faced with a difficult question: do they stand by and allow their peers to engage in this unethical behavior? This paper addresses this question from the perspective of a United States soldier. When witnessing unethical behavior, the Army Values dictate that a soldier has a moral obligation to report that behavior. In addition to having a moral obligation, reporting unethical behavior has a positive impact on a unit’s cohesion and its ability to conduct operations.
This paper will use a specific incident from Platoon to support the claim that it is morally right to report unethical behavior within an Army unit. In the film, a senior Non-Commissioned Officer, Staff Sergeant Barnes, partakes in unethical behavior during a village raid. Sergeant Barnes attempts to elicit information from one of the villagers by murdering the man’s wife and threatening to kill his child. Before Barnes can harm the child, one of the platoons other Non-Commissioned Officers, Sergeant Elias, intervenes (Kopelson & Stone).
Barnes’ behavior in this scene is unethical. According to just war theory, Barnes has violated two principles of
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.
In United States Military, particularly the Army, all soldiers both men and women, take an oath to protect and defend the United States Constitution. However, there is one soldier named Bowe Bergdahl who thought that it would be okay to just leave his post, without letting his squad know where he was going, and thus creating a controversy that has rocked the political environment in Washington D.C. After listening to the Serial Podcast by Sarah Koneig and hearing all the interviews from political leaders, former squad mates, and even reporters, it is fair to come to the conclusion that Bowe Bergdahl deserves to be charged with Desertion and Misbehaving before the enemy. In this essay, I am going to briefly explain why Bergdahl deserves to
In the words of Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale, USN, “integrity consists of knowing one’s situation through education and thus understanding the limit of your responsibility.” Stockdale, a former Vietnam P.O.W., writes the importance of integrity in “The World of Epictetus.” In September of 1965, Commander Stockdale ejected from his plane only to be captured by the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. In eight years of captivity, the Northern Vietnamese tortured and isolated Stockdale; and in that time, he observed the actions of his men. He witnessed honorable, high-ranking officers cave into their oppressors, while common soldiers refuted any luxuries offered. Stockdale did not solely witness actions, but integrity; how a man acts when
Charged with sex-related crimes involving 10 female Airmen, 4 counts of adultery, and several other charges such as indecent conduct, misuse of position, and maltreatment of enlisted Airmen, former Command Chief of Air Force Materiel Command (AFMC) CMSgt William Gurney failed to ethically lead his Airmen. By his own admission, he was “caught in a cycle of sin and failed as an Airman and a husband.” 1 In this essay, I will discuss the Chief’s specialty and some of the positions he held as a Printer Systems Operator, I will then highlight the unethical events that took place from a few different viewpoints to include the accused and his alleged victims. Finally, I will give you my opinion on how I would have acted if put in the same
Rebecca Roberts Dr. Grinnell 5-2-2017 Research Paper In Spec Ops: The Line, Walker faces an immense amount of taxing moral dilemmas with his soldiers. One of the moral dilemmas that my character has to make was whether to respond to the brutality of the 33rd. The Dubai people broke a truce with¬ this team of soldiers and we came across them lining civilians up for slaughter. The player had to decide whether we should respond to these acts. Another example is when Riggs, the soldier that ultimately led to the deaths of thousands by burning up the only available water, is trapped under a truck and we have to either shoot him or let him burn to death.
Deceased philosopher Bertrand Russell once said, “War does not determine who is right- only who is left”. Those left are the soldiers of the 1-502nd, specifically Bravo Company 1st plt, and the Janabi family and to a greater extent, the ever-changing global world we all live in today. The tragic events that conspired in a small Iraqi village became a microcosm of how leadership failures at every level shaped the actions of a few soldiers who committed atrocious acts. One can also see how a high operational tempo, along with prolonged violence and death, has on a person’s psyche. It is the ugly side of war that the average American citizen may not want to hear or talk about. For a soldier, it is inevitably what they train their
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
Throughout history, the United States Military has faced numerous scandals. From its role in the Vietnam War, to the Iran-Contra Affair, to the Iraq War, to the abuse and denial of due process rights to detainees currently held indefinitely at the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba; the Department of Defense has undeniably raised many questions about its ethics and treatment toward both civilians and fellow members of the Armed Forces alike. One recent scandal, which would now appear to be becoming the standard, is that of sexual assault within the military. However, due to a campaign of awareness, grassroots activism, and pressuring elected officials to do what is right, things are now beginning to change.
Ethics matter in any kind of business or organization, but they are especially significant when it comes to the US Army (Blackburn, 2001). The reason behind this involves the chain of command and the risk to life and limb that are such large parts of military life. When a soldier in the Army has no ethics, he or she can cause trust and respect problems with other members of his or her unit. The US military is a stressful organization for most people involved with it, and people's lives are on the line frequently. Issues like PTSD and other medical problems are commonplace for those who leave the military and must adjust to civilian life, so it is very important that those who are in the Army work with their colleagues and higher-ups to get the help and support they need during and after their service. There is more to ethics in the Army than the problems that military individuals can face, though.
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.
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.
Combating in modern warfare does not simply mean killing the enemy. There are ethical rules and standards of behavior that soldiers must strictly follow because these rules are essential for defeating the enemy, winning "hearts and minds" of potential allies, and maintain the morale of the troops. These tasks have become especially challenging in the face of the proliferation of guerilla warfare that has been adopted by weaker military forces in the twentieth- and twenty-first centuries. In fighting insurgencies, abiding by the ethical standards of the Army behavior may be even harder than in fighting conventional battles. The ethical rules may sometimes put the soldiers in dangerous positions. Disregarding the acceptable standards of behavior, however, may have even graver consequences, putting innocent non-combatants at risk and risking total demoralization of the Army unit participating in disorderly behavior. It is therefore essential that Army leaders maintain an ethical command climate during the war.
The author states “When the orders we receive from a civilian authority pass legal, ethical or moral boundaries, any soldier of any rank has the right and the duty to first question those orders to receive clarification, and if necessary disobey them if they cross the line.” The author says this because he has been in the army for decades and to him it is the highest form of honor. The author is successful in using tone to express his disdain towards a particular candidate, and to warn other candidates of making the same