Vice Admiral James Bond Stockdale's Integrity In Vietnam

Integrity is one of the Army’s core values and one of the cornerstones of the army. The cornerstones of the army are important because they are the very fundamentals that we all must live to uphold. We must always embody and live up to the core beliefs and fundamentals of the army. We must try every day to respect and uphold the army core values and beliefs. These core beliefs are what all the rest of the army beliefs and discipline is built upon in the founding of the army. If we live up to the core beliefs of the army, we are honoring all who have served before. We also honor all those who have yet to serve by leaving the service better than we came to it. We are also honoring all those who have paid the ultimate price for their country. If, we cannot live to uphold the very fundamentals and the very cornerstones of the army way of life then we are letting our peers, subordinates, and senior leaders down. Not only are we letting our peers, subordinates, and senior leaders down but we are letting down all those who have come before and all those yet to come into the service. Not only are we letting our army down we are also letting down all the people who we defend, protect, help and support around the world. By the lack of integrity, we cause our fellow soldiers, leaders, and their families’ trouble as well. We also lose the trust of our peers, and we ostracize our self into becoming the outcast of

Integrity is defined as "the quality of being honest and having strong moral principles; moral uprightness". Most people define integrity as doing what is right, legally and morally. To be willing to do what is right even no one is looking. Integrity is our "moral compass". The Army mentions Integrity as one of its core values because it requires that you do and say nothing that deceives others. As your integrity grows, so does the trust others place in you. The more choices you make based on integrity, the more this highly prized value will affect your relationships with family and friends, your soldiers and, finally, the fundamental acceptance of yourself. I am not proud of what I did for which I

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

On the other hand, Colonel Cathcart has fallen victim to his own ideals. Cathcart “could only measure his own progress only in relationship to others, and his idea of excellence was to do something at least as well as all the men his own age who were doing the same thing even better” (Heller 187). His own insecurity leads to illogical actions that slowly begins to take a toll on his mind. Eventually, this causes him to be the victim of a self-propagating cycle of never meeting his own standards that mimics the paradoxical loop of the “catch-22” the others are experiencing. The horror he exposed was not confined to the battlefield or the bombing mission but permeated the entire labyrinthine structure of establishment power. It found expression in the most completely inhumane exploitation of the individual for trivial, self-serving ends and the most extreme indifference to the official objectives that supposedly justified the use of power”

The United States Army, is not necessarily known for having a positive reputation in handling prisoners of war, the My Lai Massacre is one of the clearest instances of military improperly approaching situations. Notwithstanding the fact that Company C entered My Lai with the intent of suppressing insurgents, the tragedy that took place on March 16, 1988 was in fact an act of mass murder. This notion will be examined through three different lenses to depict that in all angles of this incident only one scenario can be concluded; that the men in Company C were culpable of a mass murder. First, by examining the leadership ability of Lieutenant Calley and the Bystander effect of his company. Second, this will be examined under is the basis that

The movie Platoon tells the story of a platoon of soldiers during their time serving in the Vietnam War. The soldiers find themselves in a variety of ethically challenging situations, and many make decisions with massive ethical ramifications. The situations vary, from searching a village for enemy activity to deciding whether to save a fellow soldier, and the soldiers are forced to choose between varieties of less than ideal options. The movie’s ethical spectrum ranges from individuals concerned only with accomplishing their mission at all costs to those who express concern for the lives of all people they interact with. The two ends of this spectrum are represented in the movie by Sergeant Barnes as the soldier who values only completing his mission contrasted with Sergeant Elias who attempts to preserve the life and humanity of the Vietnamese people he encounters when possible (Kopelson, 1986). I believe that the decisions exemplified by Elias represent a better way of conducting warfare, while those of Barnes represent a descent into understanding only the immediate objective at the expense of winning the overall war. The following key ethical decision points from the movie demonstrate the superiority of the decisions made by Elias

Stockdale begins his tale by foretelling a stress-free mission depicted as a “milk run” with little worries, apprehensions, or fears until the moment he is captured in which time seems to discontinue. “ For the first time I was on my own, without the veneer. I was to spend years searching through and refining my bag of memories, looking for useful tools, things of value”(10). At this precise moment Stockdale realizes his situation may not be justified, and yet he did not place undue blame onto America, Vietnam, or anything else. Stockdale fully recognizes his need to cognitively adapt in order to survive and protect his fellow companions and comrades. Epictetus’s Stoic philosophy pertaining to control vs. influence assisted Stockdale’s journey

“The name’s Bond. James Bond.” A short, simple phrase to introduce one of the most famous fictional spies ever created. James Bond’s stories are entertaining thrillers but it causes one to wonder, is that all it is? Entertainment? Ian Fleming’s Casino Royale is a Bond novel that portrays the reality of espionage, to some extent, while also maintaining the flare that makes it fiction. On the realistic side, Fleming gives you an inside look at the bureaucracy of espionage and the mystery behind the operatives themselves. But James Bond’s mission is an excellent example of the glamor added purely to make the novel a more engaging one rather than an accurate depiction of espionage.

“ In that brutally controlled environment a perpetual enemy can get his hooks into the slightest chink in a mans ethical armor and accelerate his downfall. Given the right opening, the right moral weakness, a certain susceptibility on the part of the prisoner, a clever extortionist can drive his victim into a downhill side that will ruin his image, self-respect, and life in a very short time”(12). The Vietnamese like all captors inherently knew in which to destroys one’s integrity and moral code resulted in the destruction of the individual themselves which results in loosing ones goodness. Stockdale highlighted the best defense was to keep ones conscience constantly clear and protected. Stockdale depicts one specific mans willingness to

“Bonds Gun only spoke once”, This quote that author Ian Fleming would use to describe how a character he created during a time of uncertainty in the world. Flemings books would be the antithesis for a character who would fight in the shadows for the preservation of peace and stability. He would throughout the world and yet have the emotional instability that would go on to haunt him in various forms of his iteration in all forms of media for the next 50 years. This character would be known as United Kingdom MI6 agent 007, James

Throughout Fleming’s life and bonds adventure in On Her Majesty’s Secret Service, they experienced risk taking in 2 different places: work and women. James bonds line of duty, in itself was risky. He was an international spy who tracked down villains and lived on the edge or in hiding a majority of his life. Ian Fleming’s line of work, while not as dangerous, was risky in different ways. He bounced around for a while trying to find where he belonged, and then he found the perfect fit in the Naval Intelligence Agency. He got to be a part of large operations and put together many different ideas. He traveled the world, shadowing his boss, Admiral John Godfrey. Getting into that line of work is risky in itself, but pursing all the missions that he got to go in was an incredible experience. “So much of what he saw and experienced in his role at the NID found its way into the James Bond novels”

This is a fiction tale that was written in the 1960’s and was published in 1965. This book follows the spy chronicles of lust-filled highly trained English spy, James Bond. The author of this book is Ian Fleming. As a young man, Fleming worked as stockbroker, but his career path changed when the world was plunged into battles during World War II. Fleming signed up to serve his country as a Naval Intelligence officer. Fleming never saw any action but was privy to countless military secrets that he was tasked to keep safe. It is safe to say that the events and secrets that Fleming experienced and learned about during his time as a officer in World War II helped provide the seeds of inspiration for the plot of this book and the others

This idea supports the idea that combatants do not make the decision to be aggressive based on war, rather it is based on fear. The fear of death motivates combatants to take on new moral codes that encourage violence. War is not the driving force of this as fear urges us to use security and power as a tool (Lebow). War is the product of honor, the moral code that is developed to be violent and atrocious stems from the motivation of fulfillment. Similarly to patriotic duty, Lebow’s thought claims that honor is the driving force of war and that war does not encourage a moral code of violence, rather is honor that does. An example of a contemporary war is World War 2. the honor driven Nazis had adopted the violent moral code as a means to fulfill his honor and appetite. “There are always people willing to commit unspeakable human atrocity in exchange for a little power and privilege” (Hedges, 2002:86). Lebow’s notion on honor as a fundamental drive provides the explanation that war is not the cause of rejecting existing moral codes for ones that encourage death, honor does. The incentive to nurture the “honor” drive is what causes the collapse of moral values and beliefs. In honor, survival is the primary imperative, which includes undertaking violence as a moral

James Bond is widely known for being a cunning secret agent who will do everything to save whatever is in danger, anything from the world to an attractive female, and doing even more just to get the girl. This may be so in the movie depictions, but in the novels, James Bond can be depicted as a bumbling alcoholic who stumbles onto the right answers. James Bond’s successes are circumstantial by his actions, losses, and interactions with a variety of characters from Ian Fleming’s seventh James Bond novel, Goldfinger.

General George Washington said war must be carried on by, “Men of Character actuated by Principles of Honor.”