Mission Impossible Research Paper

An ethical command climate in war starts with the commander. Commanders have the responsibility to create positive environments that promotes the Army ethic. Even though training in standards of conduct

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.

The United States Army is undergoing a period of transition as it seeks to build and maintain a flexible force. As a result, the organization is studying potential changes to its structure and composition of its brigade combat teams. As part of the ongoing analysis to explore alternatives between three-battalion and two-battalion brigade compositions, the organization is considering the possibility of examining the entire force in design and structure. The need for such changes has been fueled by the growing need for improvement of security forces as they tackle threats to national security. In addition to this, there have been various calls for initiatives that are geared towards changing the United States Army officer culture through management rather than understanding process. Through a process of understanding instead of management, the U.S. Army officer culture will shift from mere risk aversion to uncertainty intolerance.

The draw down the Army is currently experiencing introduced changes to the Army’s retention program and the service of some Soldiers is no longer a given. A tri-signed memorandum from senior Army leadership changed the way retention will operate in the future. As a result, Army leadership implemented the Order of Merit List (OML) causing commanders at all levels to face tough decisions that will challenge their ethical demeanor. Subjecting our Soldiers to this type of treatment is unjust. The use of the OML determines the best-qualified Soldiers throughout formations. Though the OML may identify the top performers, it does not take into account the Soldiers future potential. Looking at the situation through the ethical decision-making

Mistakes are common in everyday circumstances, but when the mistakes happen in the military, it could cost a person’s life. In the movie A Few Good Men, two marines, Lance Corporal Harold Dawson and Private Louden Downey, are on trial for the murder of Private William Santiago because they had followed orders from their commanding officer to give Santiago a Code Red. The trial was not about if they were guilty or not, but about obedience in the military. Kaffee had to prove that Dawson and Downey were just following orders from a commanding officer and they were not guilty because they were performing their duties as marines in the military. At the end, Dawson and Downey’s superior officer, Colonel Jessup, was charged for the crime, but Dawson and Downey were dishonorably discharged from the marines. Even though they were following orders from their commanding officer, they realized that they had a responsibility of protecting and standing up for those who could not. In the article, “My Lai Massacre: A Military Crime of Obedience,” Kelman and Hamilton explain and talk about the My Lai massacre in Vietnam and how authorization, routinization, and dehumanization were used to commit the massacre. The “Stanford Prison Experiment” was used to reveal the effects of being in power and the struggle between the “prisoners” and “prison officers.” The process of obedience, authorization, routinization, and dehumanization, is used to create the perfect scenario for Dawson and Downey for

The members of the armed forces are well know, and well respected for their discipline. Part of that discipline comes from the ability to follow the orders of your subordinates, even if they don’t feel like it or don’t agree with them. How disciplined can a soldier be if they don’t follow orders. The soldier in question can’t be very disciplined if they fail to follow instructions right? It goes against everything a soldier stands for. This makes them a danger to their team members, especially in a time of war. I do not think

be gone. This can restrain the moral of the unit and command in general. Let’s take a look at

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.

When soldiers or leaders make unethical compromises, whether it is inflated evaluation scores, overlooking maturity created by time in service/time in grade, or undercutting the institutional training requirements, you create a raw and in some cases dangerously inexperienced leader. As I have personally witnessed, a promotion of this nature makes the soldier happy because of the increased pay. As NCO’s we mentor our subordinates and revel in their success, but what is the trade-off when these shortcuts and compromises come to flourish? Usually, it comes as risks to the safety of our force. Soldiers in this position are usually ones that have not yet had opportunities to lead a small section or be in charge of details to aid in the maturation process. I like the phrase;

A leader unwilling to sacrifice individual goals for the good of the unit cannot convince other unit members to do so. The mission suffers with potentially devastating effects. While personal goals often coincide with Army goals, there is no room for personal agendas at the expense of the institution or the American people. It is a standard in the hierarchy of military customs and courtesies that the leader must display to his subordinates that he is willing to put in extra effort, sacrifice personal time, and show initiative and motivation in order to achieve the same from his Soldiers.

However, the fact remains that circumstances and experiences can change even the deep-rooted, core beliefs of a person. The reality of service, especially in violent confrontations, is enough to make anyone think twice about the morality of war and violence. When personal beliefs begin to conflict with the Oath and the obligation of a service member, it is necessary for them to apply the Constitutional Paradigm.

There are numerous occasions at West Point where I have seen individuals dole out unequal shares of duties or rewards based on their personal feelings towards the recipients. Fairness and impartiality are fundamental traits in good officers.

Soldiers are required to accept responsibility for their actions and resulting consequences. This includes avoiding even the appearance of offensiveness. Accountability promotes careful, well-thought-out decision making and limits thoughtless action. Fairness, open-mindedness and neutrality are important aspects of fairness. Soldiers must be committed to justice in the performance of their official duties. Decisions must not be illogical, impulsive, or biased. Individuals must be treated equally and with tolerance.

In today’s world, all the time you are surrounded mostly by people who are there to make it difficult for you to reach your goal. Added to this are the scanty resources at your disposal. When you assert your goals, you incur costs for other people in a metaphorical sense. Incurring costs for others means that you wrong these people. A politician has to send his army to the war to defend the safety and security of the country. Thus to protect the greater interest of the people at large he has to sacrifice the smaller interest of the families of the army. This dilemma gives birth to that eternal question: “Can Leaders Avoid Getting Their Hands Dirty?”. These two researchers are of the opinion that consistent ethical or even dispositionally ethical adherence to principles does not conclusively resolve dilemmas, even if there are unambiguous laws in place.

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).