Mandela: His 8 Lessons of Leadership

By RICHARD STENGEL Wednesday, Jul. 09, 2008

Nelson Mandela has always felt most at ease around children, and in some ways his
greatest deprivation was that he spent 27 years without hearing a baby cry or holding a
child's hand. Last month, when I visited Mandela in Johannesburg — a frailer, foggier
Mandela than the one I used to know — his first instinct was to spread his arms to my
two boys. Within seconds they were hugging the friendly old man who asked them what
sports they liked to play and what they'd had for breakfast. While we talked, he held my
son Gabriel, whose complicated middle name is Rolihlahla, Nelson Mandela's real first
name. He told Gabriel the story of that name, how in Xhosa it translates as "pulling
down the branch of a tree" but that its real meaning is "troublemaker."

As he celebrates his 90th birthday next week, Nelson Mandela has made enough trouble
for several lifetimes. He liberated a country from a system of violent prejudice and
helped unite white and black, oppressor and oppressed, in a way that had never been
done before. In the 1990s I worked with Mandela for almost two years on his
autobiography, Long Walk to Freedom. After all that time spent in his company, I felt a
terrible sense of withdrawal when the book was done; it was like the sun going out of
one's life. We have seen each other occasionally over the years, but I wanted to make
what might be a final visit and have my sons meet him one more time.

I also wanted to talk to him about leadership. Mandela is the closest thing the world has
to a secular saint, but he would be the first to admit that he is something far more
pedestrian: a politician. He overthrew apartheid and created a nonracial democratic
South Africa by knowing precisely when and how to transition between his roles as
warrior, martyr, diplomat and statesman. Uncomfortable with abstract philosophical
concepts, he would often say to me that an issue "was not a question of principle; it was
a question of tactics." He is a master tactician.

Mandela is no longer comfortable with inquiries or favors. He's fearful that he may not
be able to summon what people expect when they visit a living deity, and vain enough to
care that they not think him diminished. But the world has never needed Mandela's gifts
— as a tactician, as an activist and, yes, as a politician — more, as he showed again in
London on June 25, when he rose to condemn the savagery of Zimbabwe's Robert
Mugabe. As we enter the main stretch of a historic presidential campaign in America,
there is much that he can teach the two candidates. I've always thought of what you are
about to read as Madiba's Rules (Madiba, his clan name, is what everyone close to him
calls him), and they are cobbled together from our conversations old and new and from
observing him up close and from afar. They are mostly practical. Many of them stem
directly from his personal experience. All of them are calibrated to cause the best kind of
trouble: the trouble that forces us to ask how we can make the world a better place.

No. 1
Courage is not the absence of fear — it's inspiring others to move beyond it
In 1994, during the presidential-election campaign, Mandela got on a tiny propeller
plane to fly down to the killing fields of Natal and give a speech to his Zulu supporters. I
agreed to meet him at the airport, where we would continue our work after his speech.
When the plane was 20 minutes from landing, one of its engines failed. Some on the
plane began to panic. The only thing that calmed them was looking at Mandela, who
quietly read his newspaper as if he were a commuter on his morning train to the office.
The airport prepared for an emergency landing, and the pilot managed to land the plane
safely. When Mandela and I got in the backseat of his bulletproof BMW that would take
us to the rally, he turned to me and said, "Man, I was terrified up there!"

Mandela was often afraid during his time underground, during the Rivonia trial that led
to his imprisonment, during his time on Robben Island. "Of course I was afraid!" he
would tell me later. It would have been irrational, he suggested, not to be. "I can't
pretend that I'm brave and that I can beat the whole world." But as a leader, you cannot
let people know. "You must put up a front."

And that's precisely what he learned to do: pretend and, through the act of appearing
fearless, inspire others. It was a pantomime Mandela perfected on Robben Island, where
there was much to fear. Prisoners who were with him said watching Mandela walk
across the courtyard, upright and proud, was enough to keep them going for days. He
knew that he was a model for others, and that gave him the strength to triumph over his
own fear.

No. 2
Lead from the front — but don't leave your base behind
Mandela is cagey. in 1985 he was operated on for an enlarged prostate. When he was
returned to prison, he was separated from his colleagues and friends for the first time in
21 years. They protested. But as his longtime friend Ahmed Kathrada recalls, he said to
them, "Wait a minute, chaps. Some good may come of this."

The good that came of it was that Mandela on his own launched negotiations with the
apartheid government. This was anathema to the African National Congress (ANC).
After decades of saying "prisoners cannot negotiate" and after advocating an armed
struggle that would bring the government to its knees, he decided that the time was
right to begin to talk to his oppressors.

When he initiated his negotiations with the government in 1985, there were many who
thought he had lost it. "We thought he was selling out," says Cyril Ramaphosa, then the
powerful and fiery leader of the National Union of Mineworkers. "I went to see him to
tell him, What are you doing? It was an unbelievable initiative. He took a massive risk."

Mandela launched a campaign to persuade the ANC that his was the correct course. His
reputation was on the line. He went to each of his comrades in prison, Kathrada
remembers, and explained what he was doing. Slowly and deliberately, he brought them
along. "You take your support base along with you," says Ramaphosa, who was
secretary-general of the ANC and is now a business mogul. "Once you arrive at the
beachhead, then you allow the people to move on. He's not a bubble-gum leader — chew
it now and throw it away."

For Mandela, refusing to negotiate was about tactics, not principles. Throughout his life,
he has always made that distinction. His unwavering principle — the overthrow of
apartheid and the achievement of one man, one vote — was immutable, but almost
anything that helped him get to that goal he regarded as a tactic. He is the most
pragmatic of idealists.

"He's a historical man," says Ramaphosa. "He was thinking way ahead of us. He has
posterity in mind: How will they view what we've done?" Prison gave him the ability to
take the long view. It had to; there was no other view possible. He was thinking in terms
of not days and weeks but decades. He knew history was on his side, that the result was
inevitable; it was just a question of how soon and how it would be achieved. "Things will
be better in the long run," he sometimes said. He always played for the long run.

Read more:
http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1821467,00.html#ixzz0YSJxmkER
No. 3
Lead from the back — and let others believe they are in front
Mandela loved to reminisce about his boyhood and his lazy afternoons herding cattle.
"You know," he would say, "you can only lead them from behind." He would then raise
his eyebrows to make sure I got the analogy.

As a boy, Mandela was greatly influenced by Jongintaba, the tribal king who raised him.
When Jongintaba had meetings of his court, the men gathered in a circle, and only after
all had spoken did the king begin to speak. The chief's job, Mandela said, was not to tell
people what to do but to form a consensus. "Don't enter the debate too early," he used to
say.
During the time I worked with Mandela, he often called meetings of his kitchen cabinet
at his home in Houghton, a lovely old suburb of Johannesburg. He would gather half a
dozen men, Ramaphosa, Thabo Mbeki (who is now the South African President) and
others around the dining-room table or sometimes in a circle in his driveway. Some of
his colleagues would shout at him — to move faster, to be more radical — and Mandela
would simply listen. When he finally did speak at those meetings, he slowly and
methodically summarized everyone's points of view and then unfurled his own thoughts,
subtly steering the decision in the direction he wanted without imposing it. The trick of
leadership is allowing yourself to be led too. "It is wise," he said, "to persuade people to
do things and make them think it was their own idea."

No. 4
Know your enemy — and learn about his favorite sport
As far back as the 1960s, Mandela began studying Afrikaans, the language of the white
South Africans who created apartheid. His comrades in the ANC teased him about it, but
he wanted to understand the Afrikaner's worldview; he knew that one day he would be
fighting them or negotiating with them, and either way, his destiny was tied to theirs.

This was strategic in two senses: by speaking his opponents' language, he might
understand their strengths and weaknesses and formulate tactics accordingly. But he
would also be ingratiating himself with his enemy. Everyone from ordinary jailers to
P.W. Botha was impressed by Mandela's willingness to speak Afrikaans and his
knowledge of Afrikaner history. He even brushed up on his knowledge of rugby, the
Afrikaners' beloved sport, so he would be able to compare notes on teams and players.

Mandela understood that blacks and Afrikaners had something fundamental in

common: Afrikaners believed themselves to be Africans as deeply as blacks did. He
knew, too, that Afrikaners had been the victims of prejudice themselves: the British
government and the white English settlers looked down on them. Afrikaners suffered
from a cultural inferiority complex almost as much as blacks did.
Mandela was a lawyer, and in prison he helped the warders with their legal problems.
They were far less educated and worldly than he, and it was extraordinary to them that a
black man was willing and able to help them. These were "the most ruthless and brutal
of the apartheid regime's characters," says Allister Sparks, the great South African
historian, and he "realized that even the worst and crudest could be negotiated with."

No. 5
Keep your friends close — and your rivals even closer
Many of the guests Mandela invited to the house he built in Qunu were people whom, he
intimated to me, he did not wholly trust. He had them to dinner; he called to consult
with them; he flattered them and gave them gifts. Mandela is a man of invincible charm
— and he has often used that charm to even greater effect on his rivals than on his allies.

On Robben Island, Mandela would always include in his brain trust men he neither
liked nor relied on. One person he became close to was Chris Hani, the fiery chief of staff
of the ANC's military wing. There were some who thought Hani was conspiring against
Mandela, but Mandela cozied up to him. "It wasn't just Hani," says Ramaphosa. "It was
also the big industrialists, the mining families, the opposition. He would pick up the
phone and call them on their birthdays. He would go to family funerals. He saw it as an
opportunity." When Mandela emerged from prison, he famously included his jailers
among his friends and put leaders who had kept him in prison in his first Cabinet. Yet I
well knew that he despised some of these men.

There were times he washed his hands of people — and times when, like so many people
of great charm, he allowed himself to be charmed. Mandela initially developed a quick
rapport with South African President F.W. de Klerk, which is why he later felt so
betrayed when De Klerk attacked him in public.

Mandela believed that embracing his rivals was a way of controlling them: they were
more dangerous on their own than within his circle of influence. He cherished loyalty,
but he was never obsessed by it. After all, he used to say, "people act in their own
interest." It was simply a fact of human nature, not a flaw or a defect. The flip side of
being an optimist — and he is one — is trusting people too much. But Mandela
recognized that the way to deal with those he didn't trust was to neutralize them with
charm.
No. 6
Appearances matter — and remember to smile
When Mandela was a poor law student in Johannesburg wearing his one threadbare
suit, he was taken to see Walter Sisulu. Sisulu was a real estate agent and a young
leader of the ANC. Mandela saw a sophisticated and successful black man whom he
could emulate. Sisulu saw the future.

Sisulu once told me that his great quest in the 1950s was to turn the ANC into a mass
movement; and then one day, he recalled with a smile, "a mass leader walked into my
office." Mandela was tall and handsome, an amateur boxer who carried himself with the
regal air of a chief's son. And he had a smile that was like the sun coming out on a
cloudy day.
We sometimes forget the historical correlation between leadership and physicality.
George Washington was the tallest and probably the strongest man in every room he
entered. Size and strength have more to do with DNA than with leadership manuals, but
Mandela understood how his appearance could advance his cause. As leader of the
ANC's underground military wing, he insisted that he be photographed in the proper
fatigues and with a beard, and throughout his career he has been concerned about
dressing appropriately for his position. George Bizos, his lawyer, remembers that he
first met Mandela at an Indian tailor's shop in the 1950s and that Mandela was the first
black South African he had ever seen being fitted for a suit. Now Mandela's uniform is a
series of exuberant-print shirts that declare him the joyous grandfather of modern Africa.
When Mandela was running for the presidency in 1994, he knew that symbols mattered
as much as substance. He was never a great public speaker, and people often tuned
out what he was saying after the first few minutes. But it was the iconography that
people understood. When he was on a platform, he would always do the toyi-toyi, the
township dance that was an emblem of the struggle. But more important was that
dazzling, beatific, all-inclusive smile. For white South Africans, the smile symbolized
Mandela's lack of bitterness and suggested that he was sympathetic to them. To black
voters, it said, I am the happy warrior, and we will triumph. The ubiquitous ANC election
poster was simply his smiling face. "The smile," says Ramaphosa, "was the message."
After he emerged from prison, people would say, over and over, It is amazing that he is
not bitter. There are a thousand things Nelson Mandela was bitter about, but he knew
that more than anything else, he had to project the exact opposite emotion. He always
said, "Forget the past" — but I knew he never did.

No. 7
Nothing is black or white
When we began our series of interviews, I would often ask Mandela questions like this
one: When you decided to suspend the armed struggle, was it because you realized
you did not have the strength to overthrow the government or because you knew you
could win over international opinion by choosing nonviolence? He would then give me a
curious glance and say, "Why not both?"
I did start asking smarter questions, but the message was clear: Life is never either/or.
Decisions are complex, and there are always competing factors. To look for simple
explanations is the bias of the human brain, but it doesn't correspond to reality. Nothing
is ever as straightforward as it appears.
Mandela is comfortable with contradiction. As a politician, he was a pragmatist who saw
the world as infinitely nuanced. Much of this, I believe, came from living as a black man
under an apartheid system that offered a daily regimen of excruciating and debilitating
moral choices: Do I defer to the white boss to get the job I want and avoid a
punishment? Do I carry my pass?
As a statesman, Mandela was uncommonly loyal to Muammar Gaddafi and Fidel
Castro. They had helped the ANC when the U.S. still branded Mandela as a terrorist.
When I asked him about Gaddafi and Castro, he suggested that Americans tend to see
things in black and white, and he would upbraid me for my lack of nuance. Every
problem has many causes. While he was indisputably and clearly against apartheid, the
causes of apartheid were complex. They were historical, sociological and psychological.
Mandela's calculus was always, What is the end that I seek, and what is the most
practical way to get there?
No. 8
Quitting is leading too
In 1993, Mandela asked me if I knew of any countries where the minimum voting age
was under 18. I did some research and presented him with a rather undistinguished list:
Indonesia, Cuba, Nicaragua, North Korea and Iran. He nodded and uttered his highest
praise: "Very good, very good." Two weeks later, Mandela went on South African
television and proposed that the voting age be lowered to 14. "He tried to sell us the
idea," recalls Ramaphosa, "but he was the only [supporter]. And he had to face the
reality that it would not win the day. He accepted it with great humility. He doesn't sulk.
That was also a lesson in leadership."
Knowing how to abandon a failed idea, task or relationship is often the most difficult kind
of decision a leader has to make. In many ways, Mandela's greatest legacy as
President of South Africa is the way he chose to leave it. When he was elected in 1994,
Mandela probably could have pressed to be President for life — and there were many
who felt that in return for his years in prison, that was the least South Africa could do.
In the history of Africa, there have been only a handful of democratically elected leaders
who willingly stood down from office. Mandela was determined to set a precedent for all
who followed him — not only in South Africa but across the rest of the continent. He
would be the anti-Mugabe, the man who gave birth to his country and refused to hold it
hostage. "His job was to set the course," says Ramaphosa, "not to steer the ship." He
knows that leaders lead as much by what they choose not to do as what they do.
Ultimately, the key to understanding Mandela is those 27 years in prison. The man who
walked onto Robben Island in 1964 was emotional, headstrong, easily stung. The man
who emerged was balanced and disciplined. He is not and never has been
introspective. I often asked him how the man who emerged from prison differed from the
willful young man who had entered it. He hated this question. Finally, in exasperation
one day, he said, "I came out mature." There is nothing so rare — or so valuable — as
a mature man. Happy birthday, Madiba.

May 1997 (revised August 1997)

Vol. 25, no. 4

ETHICS AND THE ARMED FORCES

He has integrity if his interest in the good of the Service is at all times greater than
his personal pride, and when he holds himself to the same line of duty when
unobserved as he would follow if all of his superiors were present.
Brigadier General S.L.A. Marshall, The Armed Forces Officer, 1950
The concepts of honor and integrity are reflected in the statement of core values of
the armed services and provide the underpinnings of the military way of life. The
occasional perception of misconduct among military personnel challenges the
notion that the military holds itself to high ethical standards. In an effort to respond
to media criticism and with an eye toward implementing a continuing process of
self-examination, military writers, theorists, and professionals discuss ways in
which the military can ensure that personnel adhere to high standards of
accountability. Those standards are exemplified in behavior in everyday life as
well as under the stress of combat. They are reflected in the military mind-set --the
ways in which personnel not only relate to one another, but, also, in the manner in
which they contribute to the decision making process, exercise leadership roles,
and interpret significant and timely world events. Concerns range from an
examination of honor codes at the service academies to consideration of more
cosmic matters such as nuclear deterrence, the use of biological and chemical
warfare, the development of just war doctrine, and the ethics of intervention. The
Gulf War and recent peacekeeping initiatives did much to stimulate debate and
discussion on a host of issues relating to ethical dilemmas and the ethical climate
of the armed forces.
All materials cited below are available in the Eccles Library.

Values and Ethics

At the core of the BE-KNOW-DO frame work are the Army values. These core
values are the guiding principles Soldiers and civilians follow in all they do.
The Army values are: loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity,
and personal courage, and they form the acronym LDRSHIP.

When soldiers and DA civilians take the oath of office, they enter an
institution guided by Army values. These are more than a system of rules.
They tell you what you need to be, every day, in every action you take. Army
values form the very identify of the Army. They are nonnegotiable, and they
apply to everyone and in every situation throughout the Army. Army values
remind us and tell the rest of the world - the civilian government we serve
and the nation we protect - who we are and what we stand for. They are the
bedrock for trust in our government and in the actions we take. The Army
values are defined as:

• Loyalty: Bear true faith and allegiance to the US Constitution, the

Army, your unit or organization, and other soldiers and co-workers.
• Duty: Fulfill your obligation.
• Respect: Treat people as they should be treated.
• Selfless Service: Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and
subordinates before your own.
• Honor: Live up to all the Army values.
• Integrity: Do what's right, legally and morally.
• Personal Courage: Face fear, danger, or adversity (physical or
moral).
It is your physical, mental, and emotional attributes that, together with the
values, form your character. Character describes a person's inner strength. It
helps you know what is right, and links that knowledge to action. Making the
right moral and ethical decisions, and living by the Army values, gives you
the courage to do what is right regardless of the circumstances or the
consequences. Chapter 4 Leader Character of the FM 6-22 discusses
character development.

It is important for leaders to hold discussions with their employees on the

Army values and their organizational values. In his Commander's Intent, GEN
McKiernan emphasizes, "Everything we do must be values-based. The seven
Army Values are our credentials that represent the ideals of our Nation and
the expectations of the American people for the Armed Forces." Download
the Values to the Core pamphlet and Values to the Core slides to use when
holding Values discussions with your employees.

Dod Us Forces Armed Forces Officer Handbook - Presentation Transcript

Military Ethics and sponsored by Senator and Mrs. John McCain, one line of discussion
addressed the possibility of initiating an effort uniting all the service academies to define
what it means to be a commissioned officer in the twenty- first century. Within days, the
Army Forces Command Commander, General Larry Ellis, suggested to the
Commandant of Cadets at West Point that it was time for the Military Academy to take a
hand in revising Marshall’s old book, which, said Ellis, he still kept on his desk and
referred to frequently. With that coincidence of events, the effort to write a new edition of
The Armed Forces Officer was taken in hand. Three academy superintendents agreed
to a joint effort and the Joint Staff J7 agreed to provide sponsorship for what was
intended to be a true joint service venture. The Marine Corps University and Coast
Guard Academy subsequently came aboard. This book is written while our nation is at
war. It is composed with the belief that the obligations of officership in the armed forces
remain timeless and that nothing seen in the war on terrorism, or the campaigns in
Afghanistan and Iraq, have indicated otherwise. Indeed, the highly publicized instances
of soldier misconduct such as the disgraceful incidents of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib
prison and elsewhere have tended to underscore the importance of active, competent
and highly moral-ethical commissioned leadership, precisely by its absence. The
decision was made early in the drafting process to write a new book for the new century
while retaining the original title and motivation. The intent is to draft a handbook aimed
at new officers and those who aspire to become officers. There is an added ambition
that the volume will be sufficiently useful so that it will be retained throughout a career
and, like Marshall’s original, referred to periodically by senior officers who want to seek
renewed inspiration or professional centering. It is the authors’ purpose to write the
book in the spirit of George C. Marshall’s goal: to define the common ethical core of all
officers while acknowledging that the military services retain cultural differences that are
not only useful to their separate functions but necessary to their common success. Like
the nation, the American military forces gain strength from their diversity. E pluribus
unum, “From Many, One,” could be the motto of the Department of Defense as well as
the United States. All armed forces officers begin their careers taking a common oath
and receiving from their constitutional commander in chief a common commission. This
oath and the commission, which constitute an individual moral commitment and
common executive instruction, are the basis of the common ethic of commissioned
leadership that binds the American military into the most effective and loyal fighting
force in service to a democracy anywhere. Together they provide the common ethical
grounding in which George C. Marshall believed. According to the Air Force Academy
Superintendent, service as an officer is a privilege—“a privilege,

AU/ACSC/076/1998-04
AIR COMMAND AND STAFF COLLEGE
AIR UNIVERSITY
MORAL AND ETHICAL RELATIVISM AND THE US ARMED
FORCES A COURSE FOR EFFECTIVENESS?
by
Stephen G. Di Domenico, Major, USAF
A Research Report Submitted to the Faculty
In Partial Fulfillment of the Graduation Requirements
Advisor: Title Lantz R. Balthazar III
Maxwell Air Force Base, Alabama
April 1998
REPORT DOCUMENTATION PAGE Form Approved OMB No.
0704-0188
Public reporting burder for this collection of information is estibated to average 1 hour per
response, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching existing data sources,
gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing
and reviewing this collection of information. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or
any other aspect of this collection of information, including suggestions for reducing this burder
to Department of Defense, Washington
Headquarters Services, Directorate for Information Operations and Reports (0704-0188), 1215
Jefferson Davis Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302. Respondents should be aware
that notwithstanding any other provision of
law, no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to comply with a collection of
information if it does not display a currently valid OMB control number. PLEASE DO NOT
RETURN YOUR FORM TO THE ABOVE ADDRESS.
1. REPORT DATE (DD-MM-YYYY)
01-04-1998
2. REPORT TYPE
Thesis
3. DATES COVERED (FROM - TO)
xx-xx-1998 to xx-xx-1998
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Moral and Ethical Relativism and the US Armed Forces A Course for Effectiveness?
Unclassified
5a. CONTRACT NUMBER
5b. GRANT NUMBER
5c. PROGRAM ELEMENT NUMBER
6. AUTHOR(S)
Di Domenico, Stephen G. ;
5d. PROJECT NUMBER
5e. TASK NUMBER
5f. WORK UNIT NUMBER
7. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Air Command and Staff College
Maxwell AFB, AL36112
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT
NUMBER
9. SPONSORING/MONITORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
,
10. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S ACRONYM(S)
11. SPONSOR/MONITOR'S REPORT
NUMBER(S)
12. DISTRIBUTION/AVAILABILITY STATEMENT
APUBLIC RELEASE
,
13. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
14. ABSTRACT
There are principles that are immutable and transcendent, and if followed will produce
effectiveness. These principles are unchanging because
they are derived from an immutable source. Our country and military was founded upon these
principles. In our post-modern culture, however,
these principles and values have come under increasing attack. The State has entrusted the
profession of arms with the power of the sword; a
unique responsibility. Any abdication on traditional institutional ethics because of changing
societal mores can only mean that the military
created to defend society can no longer do so effectively because it has become itself corrupt.
The author researched statistics pertaining to our
society and the military's moral condition. Literature searches were conducted on professional
and personal ethics, military ethics and
relativism. Finally, the author drew extensively from experts in the emtyology of absolutes and
the history of our republic. Chapter one
chronicles our society's and military's moral decline. Chapter two investigates how the present
ethical and moral slide occurred. Chapter three
examines how social reformers have sought to change society through mandatory military policy
changes. Chapter four explores our society's
foundational underpinnings. Chapter five concludes with a call to personal integrity.
15. SUBJECT TERMS
16. SECURITY CLASSIFICATION OF: 17. LIMITATION
OF ABSTRACT
Public Release
18.
NUMBER
OF PAGES
66
19. NAME OF RESPONSIBLE PERSON
Fenster, Lynn
lfenster@dtic.mil
a. REPORT
Unclassified
b. ABSTRACT
Unclassified
c. THIS PAGE
Unclassified
19b. TELEPHONE NUMBER
International Area Code
Area Code Telephone Number
703767-9007
DSN
427-9007
Standard Form 298 (Rev. 8-98)
Prescribed by ANSI Std Z39.18
ii
Disclaimer
The views expressed in this academic research paper are those of the author and do
not reflect the official policy or position of the US government or the Department of
Defense. In accordance with Air Force Instruction 51-303, it is not copyrighted, but is the
property of the United States government.
iii
Contents
Page
DISCLAIMER................................................................................................................ ii
PREFACE....................................................................................................................... v
ABSTRACT .................................................................................................................. vi
MORALLY AND ETHICALLY ADRIFT—WHAT HAS HAPPENED?....................... 1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
Information Suggesting a Moral and Ethical Crisis.................................................... 2
Crime .................................................................................................................. 3
Broken Families .................................................................................................. 3
Education ............................................................................................................ 4
Military Conduct and Discipline.......................................................................... 4
TRUTH, THE FIRST CASUALTY OF WAR—WHY HAS THIS HAPPENED?........... 7
What are Institutional Ethics and why is the Military Unique?................................... 7
An Ethic Gone Awry................................................................................................. 8
The Attack on Absolutes ........................................................................................... 9
The Philosophers............................................................................................... 10
The Educators ................................................................................................... 12
THE CONDITIONERS, THE MILITARY AS A VEHICLE FOR SOCIAL
CHANGE................................................................................................................ 15
Removal of Biblical Values from the Public Square ................................................ 16
Homosexuality in the Armed Forces ....................................................................... 17
History of Homosexuality and the Uniform Code of Military Justice................. 18
Reason for the Policy Change............................................................................ 19
Women in Combat .................................................................................................. 20
Proponents of Women in Combat Cite Only Opportunities for Women ............. 22
A Counter Offensive ............................................................................................... 23
FOUNDATIONAL UNDERPINNINGS—WHERE WERE WE MOORED? ............... 26
Continental Congress Religious Demographics ....................................................... 27
The Founders Education.......................................................................................... 29
Writings of the Founding Fathers ............................................................................ 29
Moral Principles Advocated by the Founders .......................................................... 31
iv
ANCHORAGE—A CALL TO INTEGRITY................................................................ 34
APPENDIX A: HOMOSEXUALS IN THE ARMED FORCES.................................... 39
Erosion of Unit Morale ........................................................................................... 39
High Risk of Health Related Problems .................................................................... 40
High Cost of Health Care ........................................................................................ 42
APPENDIX B: WOMEN IN COMBAT........................................................................ 44
Physical Strength and Endurance of Men and Women............................................. 44
Pregnancy Causes Readiness Problems ................................................................... 45
APPENDIX C: FIVE COURSES OF ACTION............................................................. 48
Reject Social Reformers.......................................................................................... 48
Reaffirm Absolute Values ....................................................................................... 49
Retain High Standards............................................................................................. 51
Recruit Moral Character.......................................................................................... 52
Reassert the Mission as Raisin d'être ....................................................................... 53
GLOSSARY ................................................................................................................. 56
BIBLIOGRAPHY......................................................................................................... 57
v
Preface
The pervasive moral and ethical decline in our society and two recent military policy
changes compelled me to consider this research. In it, I address a link between moral and
ethical relativism and our present moral morass. This is relevant because societal moral
decline portends a corresponding diminishing effectiveness in the U.S. profession of
arms. It's from society that we draw our constituents.
This is a more normative than descriptive paper regarding military ethics.
Descriptive means characterizing something with no intent to assign value, good or bad.
Norms connotes a sense of moral imperative. In this paper I will use words like should
and ought. These are in essence moral words.
My conclusions therefore describe values that the profession of arms ought to
pursue. In so doing, I will present strong evidence and reasons why we should do certain
things and not do others. In this regard, I have sought to present my research in the most
objective manner that my biases would allow. How successful I have been is left to the
reader.
I wish to thank my bride of eleven years for enduring the many hours that this
research demanded. I also wish to thank Dr. James Toner of the Air War College for
kindly reading my transcript and graciously offering advice. Finally, special thanks to
Major Lantz Balthazar for his patience reading a stream of seemingly endless drafts.
vi
AU/ACSC/076/1998-04
Abstract
There are principles that are immutable and transcendent, and if followed will
produce effectiveness. These principles are unchanging because they are derived from an
immutable source. Our country and military was founded upon these principles. In our
post-modern culture, however, these principles and values have come under increasing
attack.
The State has entrusted the profession of arms with the power of the sword; a unique
responsibility. Any abdication on traditional institutional ethics because of changing
societal mores can only mean that the military created to defend society can no longer do
so effectively because it has become itself corrupt.
The author researched statistics pertaining to our society and the military's moral
condition. Literature searches were conducted on professional and personal ethics,
military ethics and relativism. Finally, the author drew extensively from experts in the
emtyology of absolutes and the history of our republic.
Chapter one chronicles our society's and military's moral decline. Chapter two
investigates how the present ethical and moral slide occurred. Chapter three examines
how social reformers have sought to change society through mandatory military policy
changes. Chapter four explores our society's foundational underpinnings. Chapter five
concludes with a call to personal integrity.
1
Chapter 1
Morally and Ethically Adrift—What has Happened?
Do we have a moral military? We probably have a moral society. Do we
have a debauched military? We probably have a debauched society.
—Dr. James H. Toner
Introduction
The consequences of our society's moral decline are so pervasive the debate centers
not around whether there is a crisis, but rather the cause. Since the military is a
microcosm of society, from which it derives 100 percent of its constituents, societal
moral degeneration portends the same in the military profession. This is serious because
the U.S. military's purpose is to support and defend the Constitution and thus American
society. The stakes are high and failure in its mission, unlike any other profession, could
mean the loss of the Republic. For this reason, the military must be held to a higher
standard than the society it protects—a standard where unchanging ethics and personal
character are paramount.
Increasingly, however, political and military leaders have embraced moral and
ethical relativism, a product of post-modernism. This philosophy is best characterized in
what it asserts and what it denies. It asserts there is no standard of right and wrong, no
one has the right to make moral judgments, truth is unknowable because of cultural and
societal diversity, and no one should judge others behavior concerning right and wrong.1
2
It denies the existence of an almighty creator to whom we are accountable, and the
influence and veracity of Judeo-Christian thought. This is neither the sentiment of our
founding fathers nor the tradition of our profession. Using this, social reformers have
sought to use the military as a vehicle for societal change. The danger is that they have
done so without regard to military effectiveness.
This paper will chronicle our societal moral and ethical decline, offer reasons for this
decline, identify reformer policy changes, take a historical look at our forebears
sentiments, and finally recommend courses of action to regain and retain lost ground.
Information Suggesting a Moral and Ethical Crisis
Charles W. Colson, Nixon administration Chief of Staff and former Marine officer,
said, “The breakdown of character is the number-one crisis in America.”2 William J.
Bennett, former Secretary of Education and author of Book of Moral Virtues, said,
Over the past three decades we have experienced substantial social
regression. Today the forces of social decomposition are challenging- and
in some instances, overtaking- the forces of social composition … Unless
these exploding social pathologies are reversed, they will lead to the
decline and perhaps even to the fall of the American republic.3
This predicament is also apparent to the next generation. Thirty-two percent of
outstanding high school students, in a recent survey, identified a “decline of moral and
social values” as the number one problem facing their generation. An almost identical
percentage identified it as the greatest crisis facing our nation today.4
Many abroad have called our situation perilous. Aleksandr Solzenitsyn said in a
recent speech, “The West… has been undergoing an erosion and obscuring of high moral
and ethical ideas.”5 Goh Chok Tong, the Prime Minister of Singapore, identified broken
3
families, teenage mothers, illegitimate children, juvenile delinquency, vandalism, and
violent crime as America's greatest ills.6
William J. Bennett, in his book, The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators, facts and
figures on the state of American society, describes what one reviewer called “chilling
statistics” and “a kick to the solar plexus.” Following are a select few of these societal
woes with regard to crime, families, and education. These particular indexes are chosen
because they best reflect our society's moral condition. More importantly, they reflect the
condition of the next generation from which the military will derive all its constituents.
Statistics regarding military conduct and discipline will follow.
Crime
Crime has skyrocketed. Since 1960, total crimes have increased by more than 300
percent while population increased only 41 percent. Violent crimes have increased by
550 percent in the same period.7 Since 1965, juvenile violent crime arrest rate has
tripled. Juveniles are the fastest growing crime segment of our population.8
Broken Families
It is well documented that children from single-parent families are two to three times
more likely to have emotional and behavioral problems. They are also more likely to
drop out of high school, become pregnant as teenagers, abuse drugs, and have trouble
with the law.9 Approximately half of the marriages in the US will end in divorce, the
highest rate in the world.10
The traditional two-parent family is now the exception. Since 1960, the illegitimate
birth rate has increased 400 percent. In 1991, almost 30 percent of births were out of
wedlock. Some sectors of society are as high as 68 percent.11 During the same period,
4
the percentage of families headed by one parent has tripled. Approximately 90 percent of
these single parent homes are without a father.12 According to projections, only 6 percent
of black children and 30 percent of white children born in 1980, will live with both
parents through age 18.13
Education
This situation has caused problems in the public school system. In 1940, public
school teachers identified talking out of turn, chewing gum, making noise, running in the
halls, cutting in line and littering as the top disciplinary problems. In 1990, teachers
identified them as drug and alcohol abuse, pregnancy, suicide, rape, robbery and
assault.14 Twenty percent of high school students carry a firearm, knife, club or other
form of weapon on a regular basis.15
About the only statistic to decline during the period from 1960-1990, was SAT
scores.16 Prior to 1960, SAT scores did not see more than two consecutive years of
decline, since that time every year has declined except years 1981-1984.
Military Conduct and Discipline
If the military and society are reflections of each other, as asserted by Dr. Toner (see
chapter epigraph), then the moral degeneration in our society would foretell the same in
the military. Military judicial statistics appears to bear this out.
Categorically, almost all offenses tracked by the USAF17 Judge Advocate General18
office increased between 1976 and 1997. Under court marshal punishments, larceny
offenses increased 44 percent, assault almost 60 percent, drug incidents 15 percent, and
incidents involving violence 77 percent. Total court marshal cases in the same period
5
increased 26 percent. In the last seven years alone, Absent Without Leave (AWOL)
offenses increased by a startling 100 percent.
These statistics seem to indicate a fundamental change in the moral character of
recruits entering the service. This has also been observed of the same generation entering
college. A professor of philosophy at Clark University stated:
Students come to college today as moral stutterers. They haven't been
taught much respect for what I call “plain moral facts,” the need for
honesty, integrity, responsibility. It doesn't take a blue-ribbon commission
to see this. Students don't reason morally. They don't know what it
means.19
In 1990, at the US Air Force Academy, the Superintendent Lieutenant General
Bradley Hosmer, circulated a memo stating in essence that the incoming raw product
from society had changed significantly. Their ethical maturity was such that we could no
longer rely on just teaching them the honor code but must teach them the meaning of
lying, stealing and cheating. As a result, he initiated the Center for Character
development. Major General (Ret) Jerry E. White, a former Professor of Astronautics at
the US Air Force Academy, echoed this concern in an Air Power Journal article,
…[W]e do have a problem. Something has changed in our society. We
can no longer assume that ethics and integrity are givens for people who
solemnly take their oath of office as military personnel.20
The case for societal and military moral degeneration is self-evident, but who or
what is most responsible for this decline?
Notes
1 Character Development Manual, United States Air Force Academy, Center for
Character Development, Colorado Springs, CO, July 1994, 10
2 Colson, Charles W. “A Question of Ethics”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996, 4
3 Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures
on the State of American Society. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 8
4 Hunter, Heather. Character Education Institute. (San Antonio, TX),
http://www,/CharacterEducation.org
6
Notes
5 Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures
on the State of American Society. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 10
6 Goh Chok Tong, Strategic Environment Course Book, ACSC, Social Values, 105
7 Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures
on the State of American Society. (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 18,22
8 Ibid., 29,30
9 Ibid., 52
10 Ibid., 59
11 Ibid., 46
12 Ibid., 51
13 Ibid., 51
14 Ibid., 83
15 Ibid., 31
16 Ibid., 82
17 The other services do not track this information or it was not available
18Military Justice Statistics (Fact Sheet), HQ USAF (AMJAMS)
19 Cotton, Ray. The Morality of the West: From Bad to Worse. n.p.; on-line,
internet, 16 December, 1997, available from: http://www.probe.org/morality.htm
20 White, Jerry E. “Personal Ethics versus Professional Ethics”, Air Power Journal,
Summer 1996, 30
7
Chapter 2
Truth, the First Casualty of War—Why has this happened?
The crisis of American medicine is not tobacco, AIDS, silicone, the Gulf
War Syndrome, breast or any other form of cancer, physician assisted
suicide, euthanasia … It is the same crisis that faces our culture in every
other area: How do we decide ethics? That is, how do we decide right
from wrong? Is there a method, which will stand the test of time, or do
ethics change with changing cultures?1
—Dr. Edward Payne
Have the rules changed? And who makes the rules, God or men? The
Christian and the theist turn toward the Creator of the Universe. The
humanist or atheist turns towards himself. This distinction between theism
and humanism is the fundamental division in moral theology.2
—Ray Cotton
What are Institutional Ethics and why is the Military Unique?
Ethics have been defined as “a body of moral principles or values governing or
distinctive of a group”3, principles and/or standards that guide professionals to do what is
right, or what ought to be done. For the profession of arms, included among these
principles are a sense of duty and honor, loyalty to peers, and authority, a spirit of
patriotism, self-sacrifice, integrity and an awareness of tradition and camaraderie with
those who share the same values.
8
The profession of arms is distinctly different from all others. We are called to take
lives and, if necessary, offer our own in our nation's defense. Sir John Hackett put it so
well at a speech to the cadets at the Air Force Academy,
…[Y]ou guard our country and way of life, and you are prepared to die in
our defense. But more— in guarding our country and our way of life, you
are also prepared, either directly or indirectly, to kill in our defense.
Yours is a contract conceivably involving death— either yours or our
country's enemies.4
Our contract, as Sir Hackett states, of “unlimited liability”, is the sin qua non-ethic of
the profession of arms. For this reason, the profession must be held to a higher standard
than the society it protects. Society relies upon them to sustain their way of life. General
Douglas MacArthur echoed this sentiment.
The soldier, be he friend or foe, is charged with the protection of the weak
and unarmed. It is the very essence and reason of his being. When he
violates this sacred trust, he not only profanes his entire cult but threatens
the fabric of international society.5
We have been given the power of the sword. We alone have been endowed by
the state to kill and maim in its defense. But this responsibility can be, and often has
been used, toward incredibly sinister and evil ends. As C.S. Lewis so aptly stated:
I am very doubtful whether history shows us one example of a man who,
having stepped outside traditional morality and attained power, has used
that power benevolently. 6
An Ethic Gone Awry
The medical profession is one example of an institution that has forgotten its calling.
For hundreds of years it adhered to the Hippocratic oath. The oath represented an
enduring standard by which all members swore, “first do no harm.”
In the 19th century the American Medical Association (AMA) called physician
abortionists,
9
[M]en who cling to a noble profession only to dishonor it—false
brethren—educated assassins—modern Herods—the executioners. These
men should be marked as Cain. They should be made the outcasts of
society.7
One cannot help but notice the clear Biblical words, “false brethren”, “Modern
Herods”, and “Marked as Cain”. This is undoubtedly due to the strong Biblical influence
of the AMA's ethos. But they have since moved. Late in the 20th century the AMA
referred to abortionists as “[C]onscientious physicians who should be permitted to
perform abortions.” Before the AMA called abortion “the slaughter of countless
children—unwarrantable destruction of human life”, now they call it “[T]he induced
termination of pregnancy—a medical procedure.” 8
Clearly, ethics have changed in the AMA. Today, many no longer invoke
Hippocrates either by name, oath, or practice. In fact, since 1972, this profession, which
purports to heal, has aborted 35 million babies.9 Today, one in four pregnancies end in
abortion.10
The moral anchor was weighed, the profession set adrift. Stowing away aboard are
other social ills such as physician assisted suicide, a far cry from “First do no harm.”
Like the medical profession, any institution, which moves away from a Biblical
[absolute] foundation (in this case public service), toward relativism (monetary
advancement), is in danger of jeopardizing their effectiveness and reason for existence.
This movement from absolute principles often takes time yet inextricably moves forward.
Relativism provides the motive force. The same ends can be true for any other profession
that leaves it's moorings. But why and how does this happen?
10
The Attack on Absolutes
In 1915, a young physicist named Albert Einstein made a seemingly impossible
proposition. He put forth a revolutionary theory called relativity that would recast
Newtonian physics. In his strange universe, Einstein envisioned no absolute motion of
celestial bodies because there was no absolute reference frame. It all depended upon
where the observer was located and his own relative motion. Einstein's was not a
universe of straight lines and a master clock, but curvilinear trajectories and relative time.
As a true scientist, Einstein refused to accept his proposal until three assertions was
tested. This testifies to his deep intellectual honesty, and relentless scientific rigor. In
1923, all three tests had been satisfied. Einstein was a global hero.
With the exciting scientific discovery in hand, a more revolutionary philosophical
view also began to take hold with increasing popularity. “There were no longer any
absolutes of time and space, good and evil, knowledge and above all value.”11
Modernism, which embraced science as absolute truth, became passe. Post-modernism,
which said there is no truth was now in vogue. Einstein, who believed fervently in
absolute truth and absolute standards for right and wrong perhaps more than any other,
was greatly disturbed by this gross misapplication and scientific quackery.12 There was
no science behind this notion, no tests, no empirical proof.
The notion of relativism may have found popularity riding as a stowaway on
Einstein's theory, but the seeds of relativism were sown years before.
The Philosophers
Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates all believed in a true moral code, a normative ethical
system.13 Absolute standards are universal and immutable. They are true for everyone
11
and do not change with time. They do not change because Judeo-Christian thought, from
where our society derived most of its law and conduct, embraces a God who is
immutable, the God of the Bible.
The Bible's language is inherently antithetical, that is to say, black and white. Jay
Adams in his book, A Call for Discernment explains,
People who study the Bible in depth develop antithetical mindsets: they
think in terms of contrasts or opposites. From Genesis to Revelation,
God's thoughts and ways are set against all.14
Modern philosophers, however, espoused a belief diametrically opposed to the
traditional philosophers and the Bible. Charles Darwin's, Origin's of the Species, put
forth the notion that God was not necessary in the creation. Frederich Nietzche sought to
highlight the ethical implications of Darwinism.15 In Nietzche's universe, man, not God
was the measure of all things. God was dead, and if God was dead, then nature is all
there is, and what is, is right.
John-Paul Sartre, was one of the fathers of existentialism. Existentialist humanism
was the natural progression of Nietzche's premise. If God was dead, then we have no
ultimate purpose or plan to our lives. We can therefore, pick and choose our own values.
Nothing is right, nothing is wrong. There is no transcendent truth when God is dead.
Stated in the modern vernacular, “If it feels good do it.” Jay Adams adeptly summarizes
Nietzche's and Sartre's propositions,
Modern mentality…is a continuum mentality: Truth and values are not
absolute but relative. According to continuum thinking…every idea is a
shade of gray. There are no right and wrong or true or false, but only
shades of right or wrong or true or false spread along a continuum. The
poles of this continuum are extended so far out towards the wings that for
all practical purposes they are unattainable and therefore worthless.
Nothing then is wholly right or wrong. All is relative; most of it is
subjective.16
12
Prior to Sartre, the belief in the existence of a higher authority than man, set limits
and gave guidance. It restrained inappropriate behavior and encouraged virtue. An
example of this is the Ten Commandments. Even Sartre admitted that,
[S]ince we ignore the commandments of God, all value prescribed as
eternal, nothing remains but what is strictly voluntary.17
Aldous Huxley, a leading existentialist, honestly admitted,
For myself, no doubt for most of my contemporaries, the philosophy of
meaninglessness was essentially an instrument of liberation. The
liberation we desired was … from a certain system of morality. We
objected to the morality because it interfered with our sexual freedom.18
Clearly such a system of thought is contrary to “unlimited liability” and does not
engender an attitude of selflessness or self-sacrifice but self-preservation; not an enduring
quality for military effectiveness.
The Educators
This whole system of thought was passionately embraced and forwarded by
America's higher schools of thought. For over a hundred years, Harvard, was a
conservative Christian seminary. Not surprisingly, Harvard's entrance requirements
declared,
Let every student be plainly instructed and earnestly pressed to consider
well the main end of his life and studies is to know God and Jesus which is
eternal life … and therefore to lay Christ in the bottom as the only
foundation of all sound knowledge and learning.19
Others conservative schools like Yale and Princeton had similar confessions.
Harvard and others are now leading proponents of relativism. A recent Harvard
graduate student lamented in his graduation oratory:
They tell us that is heresy to suggest the superiority of some value, fantasy
to believe in moral argument, slavery to submit to a judgement sounder
than your own. The freedom of our day is the freedom to devote ourselves
13
to any values we please, on the mere condition that we do not believe
them to be true.20
Another Harvard undergraduate student that same year said there was one central
idea, one sentiment which they all acquired in their four years at Harvard; and that is, in
one word —confusion.21
This year in Air Command and Staff College (ACSC), a lecturer skillfully
summarized the critical thinking process. But after an hour discussing the finer points of
critical thinking, the lecturer said nothing regarding the goal of critical thinking.
Believing this to be an important but innocent oversight, the author questioned the
speaker afterwards. She, however, was unable to explain the purpose but only the
process. When suggested that perhaps it was a systematic process to discern truth from
error, she admitted she didn't know if she believed in objective or absolute truth and
discussing it could be quite controversial. It is becoming increasingly popular in our
culture and in the military to see things in shades of gray. Absolute truth is an unpopular
idea. Consequently, ours is a society coming dangerously close to becoming unable to
discern good from evil and make moral judgements. In the midst of this morass have
arisen social reformers who while eschewing absolutes have instituted their own.
Notes
1 “The Price of Immorality” World, November 1, 1997, 5
2 Cotton, Ray. The Morality of the West: From Bad to Worse. n.p.; on-line, internet,
16 December, 1997, available from: http://www.probe.org/morality.htm
3 Toner, James, H. “Gallant Atavism, The Military Ethic in an Age of Nihilism”. Air
Power Journal, Summer 1996, 13
4 Quoted in Toner, James, H. “Gallant Atavism, The Military Ethic in an Age of
Nihilism”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996, 14
5 William Manchester, American Caesar, Douglas MacAruthur, 1880-1964, Banton
Doubleday Dell Publishing, New York, NY, 1878, 488
6 Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947,
78
14
Notes
7 Quoted by Dr. J.C. Willke, M.D., “AMA and Abortion,” Radio address on WLBF,
Montgomery, AL, 4 December, 1997
8 Ibid.
9, “The Sanctity of human life”, Focus on the Family Magazine, January, 1988, n.p.
10 Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures
on the State of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994, 68
11 Johnson, Paul. Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties.
Harper Collins, 1991, 4
12 Ibid., 4
13 Lt Col Jeffrey A. Zink, Major Patrick R. Tower, A Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Ethics
Education and Training in The United States Air Force, Department of Philosophy and
Fine Arts, United States Air Force Academy (Unofficial work in progress)
14 Jay E. Adams, A Call for Discernment, Distinguishing truth from Error in Today's
Church, Timeless Texts, Woodruff, SC, 1987, 29
15 Cotton, Ray. The Morality of the West: From Bad to Worse. n.p.; on-line, internet,
16 December, 1997, available from http://www.probe.org/morality.htm
16 Ibid., 29
17 Cotton, Ray. Ethics: Pick or Chose? n.p.; on-line, internet, 16 December, 1997,
available from http://www.probe.org/ethics.htm
18 Cotton, Ray. Ethics: Pick or Chose? n.p.; on-line, internet, 16 December, 1997,
available from http://www.probe.org/ethics.htm
19 Barton, David, Education and the Founding Fathers, Wallbuilder Press, 1993, 3
20 Cotton, Ray. Ethics: Pick or Chose? n.p.; on-line, internet, 16 December, 1997,
available from http://www.probe.org/ethics.htm
21 Ibid., n.p.
15
Chapter 3
The Conditioners, The Military as a Vehicle for Social Change
We have now come full circle. The relativism, which purportedly
undergirds the new tolerance, gives way to exactly what it was trying to be
rid of, namely, absolutes. That is, the reformers make their own ideals the
new guidelines for society. We are all expected to abide by them. These
are the new absolutes.1
—Rick Wade
Modern social reformers believe absolutes are anathema unless they are redefined by
themselves. President Clinton, addressing the Human Rights Campaign dinner for gay,
lesbian, bisexual and transgendered people, said absolutes and thus morality are evolving,
“We're redefining in practical terms the immutable ideas that have guided us [emphasis
added].”2
In his classic, Abolition of Man, written in 1947, C.S. Lewis decries the role of what
he terms “conditioners”. These innovators (we perhaps call them social reformers today)
attack traditional values (what he terms the Tao) to effect change on society. This
reconstruction flows from arbitrary values; what they see as best for society. In their
attack on traditional values, they reject absolutes and establish their own based upon
personal preference. This eradication of traditional values, Lewis says,
… put [them] in a position where we can find no ground for any value
judgements at all.” Of the conditioners he states, “The rebellion of new
ideologies against the Tao is a rebellion of the branches against the tree: if
the rebels could succeed they would find that they had destroyed
themselves.3
16
He continues,
The conditioners, then, are to choose what kind of artificial Tao they will,
for their own good reasons, produce in the Human race … they may look
upon themselves as servants and guardians of humanity and conceive that
they have a 'duty' to do it 'good'.4
It is the “duty” and “good” and the reformers desire to change society through the
military that will be addressed in this chapter. Their approach can be seen in several
agendas, removing God from the public square, advancement of homosexuality as an
compatible lifestyle in the military, and the advancement of women in combat billets.
Removal of Biblical Values from the Public Square
George Washington warned in his presidential farewell address,
Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be
maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence
of refined education on minds … reason and experience both forbid us to
expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle
[Biblical Values].5
We, however, live in an age where Biblical principles are attacked as being harmful and
its removal from public life encouraged. In the landmark Supreme Court cases of
Abington v. Schempp, and Murray v. Curlett (June 17, 1963), the court not only banned
school prayer but banned all Bible reading.6 The activist Court wrote,
If portions of the New Testament were read without explanation, they
could be and … had been psychologically harmful to the child.7
An earlier Supreme Court ruling, however, in 1892 declared, America was a
Christian nation based upon Biblical principles and gave no less than 87 historical
precedents for its ruling. The 1963 ruling gave no precedents, just an opinion. In the
Stone v. Graham case on the Ten Commandments posted in public schools, the Court
again redefined the First Amendment without precedent,
17
If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any effect at
all, it will be to induce the schoolchildren to read, meditate upon, perhaps
to venerate and obey, the Commandments.8
So there you have it, in one case the court said that Biblical principles were harmful and
in another they said that reading it might cause them to obey it. Clearly today's activist
Court believes exposure to Biblical principles significantly and negatively effects
behavior. But how did the removal of the same eventually effect society?
Rising crime rates, broken families, and educational deterioration, saw their
beginnings in the early 1960's, the same year God was banned. Every societal index cited
in chapter one, began a precipitous break upwards starting in 1963 except SAT scores
which declined. These statistics strongly suggest God's removal, and thus absolutes from
the public square by the reformers, drove the moral degeneration in our society. Now
that Biblical principles were out of the way, other agendas impacting effectiveness could
be pursued.
Homosexuality in the Armed Forces
Within the first months of his presidency President Clinton instituted a new policy
regarding homosexuals serving in the armed forces. This new policy essentially allowed
“celibate” homosexuals to serve. With the policy change came new language. The words
“homosexuality is incompatible with military service” were removed from the regulations
even though Congress had carried this principle forward into law.9 Criteria for a
practicing homosexual were also redefined. According to then Secretary of Defense
William Perry, attending gay pride parades, frequenting gay bars, and possessing gay
materials were not “credible” evidence to initiate an investigation.10
18
Why was a long-standing policy changed? Was there ample evidence to suggest that
our past policy was flawed? Was this new policy decision pursued by the armed forces
leadership to increase effectiveness? To fully understand what happened here, a
historical look at the military policy on homosexuals is warranted.
History of Homosexuality and the Uniform Code of Military Justice
The US military's homosexual policy goes back to the British Articles of War in
1775. Sodomy was an offense for removal and was enforced as early as 1778.11 It was
considered both morally reprehensible and detrimental to discipline. At a General Court
Martial a Lt. Enslin was tried for attempted sodomy with another soldier and perjury and
was found guilty of breaches against the 5th and 18th Articles of War. Washington
approved of the sentence and said, “[W]ith Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous
Crimes orders Lieut. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the
Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return.”12
Prior to WWII, homosexual misconduct was prosecuted under the categories of
“conduct unbecoming an officer” or for enlisted members, “conduct to the prejudice of
good order and military discipline.”
After 1900, individuals were punished for committing homosexual acts under the
general category of sodomy.13 A 1917 WWI War Department circular, signed by the
Surgeon General, categorized homosexuality as “psychopathic” and therefore a reason
for rejection from military service.14 Even individuals thought to be homosexual were
excluded under 1921 enlistment standards.15 The War department's policy in 1941
asserted that homosexual “sodomites” would be court-martialed instead of the previous
policy of discharge.16 This stance was again affirmed in May, 1949,
19
[H]omosexual personnel, irrespective of sex, should not be permitted to
serve in any branch of the Armed Forces in any capacity, and prompt
separation of known homosexuals from the Armed Forces is mandatory.17
This policy was later included in the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) in
1951 under “act of sodomy”, Article 125 and “assault”, Article 134.18
Noteworthy is that even Class III homosexuals (those who were not known to
commit homosexual acts while in military service) were also given honorable or
dishonorable discharges based upon the character of their service.19 As late as 1970, the
Joint Service Administrative Discharge Study Group, recommended the military retain its
200 year old ban of homosexual service in the military by including the phrase,
“homosexuality is incompatible with military service.”20
Reason for the Policy Change
With 200 years of agreement among military and judicial experts on this issue, a
disproportionate majority of opponents inside and outside the military, and overwhelming
evidence showing homosexuals and the military are incompatible and detrimental to
effectiveness (see Appendix A), why the sudden policy change?
The preponderance of evidence shows the decision to lift the ban was not made on
the basis of an electoral mandate or military needs21, but a deliberate decision to effect
change within the military for the furtherance of a strategic societal agenda. The change
was born out of a radical agenda to strike down any discrimination of homosexuals
thereby validating their lifestyle within society. This was accomplished with no regard
for its negative impact on morale and effectiveness of the US military.
20
The Conditioners identified the military's doctrine as unacceptable and attacked both
law and policy without regard to good science, research, or effectiveness. The same is
true for a second agenda.
Women in Combat
When the author speaks of women in combat, he is not talking about women serving
in the military, or women in combat support positions but specifically women in combat
billets. As General Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, said,
Let me state at the outset that I am not an advocate of women serving in
the infantry or as tank or LAV crewmen [combat billets], etc.—What I am
here to tell you is that it is time we realize the tremendous capability that
our women in the service represent.22
Women in the military are a tremendous enabler but placing women in traditionally male
combat billets, in close quarters and remote locations is not conducive to good order and
discipline or effectiveness. Such a policy is an unabashed effort aimed at achieving a
feminists agenda. Unfortunately it has also achieved a perhaps unintended but dangerous
effect— undermining military readiness. The new policy is a significant departure from
traditional time-honored and battle tested doctrine.
In 1976 only two percent of those serving in the military were women.23 At this
same time women were first admitted into military academies. The true purpose of this
action, however, was betrayed when it was hailed as not an increase in effectiveness but
the first step to achieving equality for women. Three years earlier the Department of
Defense (DOD) went to an all-volunteer force recruiting only those who met stringent
mental, physical and moral standards. Presumably, for physical reasons, women were
21
restricted from any combat positions.24 Eighteen years later, Defense Secretary William
Perry said,
Our over-arching goal is to maintain a high-quality, ready and effective
force. By increasing the numbers of units and positions to which women
can be assigned [combat billets], the military services gain greater
flexibility in the development and use of human resources [emphasis
added].”25
Secretary Perry set a course for the feminization of the military without offering any
proof of combat effectiveness. Six months later the defense department promised to raise
the percentage of female service members up to 25 percent of the total force26 (today our
force stands at 13.5 percent).27 In 1991, the law prohibiting women from flying combat
aircraft was repealed. Following this, in 1993, Congress repealed all remaining
restrictions in law prohibiting women from combatant ships. Today there are no laws
barring women from any assignments in the military. By policy alone, ground combat
positions, special operations assignments, submarine duty, and a handful of other
assignments remain closed to women.28 As a result, 99 percent of Air Force positions, 94
percent of the Navy, 67 percent of the Army, and 62 percent of the Marines are open to
women.29
The office of the secretary of defense appears to be keeping its promise but to what
effect? Are these actions really as the SECDEF says, “to maintain a high-quality, ready
and effective force?” or to fulfill a radical feminist agenda without regard for military
effectiveness? The author believes the latter because little real research was conducted
prior to the removal of the previous law, but political posturing and special interest
participation was rampant. 30
22
Proponents of Women in Combat Cite Only Opportunities for Women
If women in combat increase effectiveness then where are the statistics supporting
the policy? One would think to make a significant policy change on such a heady issue
would require much study and subsequent proof of virtue. Such is not the case but
evidence of the contrary is abundant.
Commanders today are vexed with improper gender relations, consensual and nonconsensual
sex, sexual harassment during training and even rape.
The proponents of women in combat misunderstand or choose to ignore basic human
drives. A former commander of a Air Expeditionary Force recently said, “When you
place men and women together, hormones flow, when you place them together TDY
(Temporary Duty, i.e. Deployed), hormones flow faster.”31 Pregnancies aboard the USS
Eisenhower, the first test case for women aboard a combat vessel, went from 5 to 39 in
just a few months. Ultimately, thirteen percent of the women aboard the Eisenhower
became pregnant. These statistics should warn us of the inherent risks associated with
placing men and women in close quarters, on a ship or afield.
A recent task force on gender integrated training after six months of study, admitted
there are problems but purposely avoided looking at consensual sex.32 They then blindly
asserted33 that once initial training was accomplished men and women could successfully
integrate without impacting discipline or moral. One writer commented, “this conclusion
was about as predictable that combustible materials in a hot place are likely to ignite.”34
Indeed it was, in an earlier DOD news briefing discussing the panel's formation,
Secretary Cohen stated, “We are not going to turn back the clock, we don't intend to.”35
When asked later about his comment he stated,
23
… [T]here are people, obviously, on the Hill and off the Hill who feel that
any attempt to change the current process [separate gender training] would
be turning back the clock … We are not going to restrict the opportunities
for women ….36
Much evidence suggests gender integrated training undermines effectiveness. These
include lower physical strength and endurance, and readiness due to pregnancy. See
Appendix B for these statistics.
The question must again be asked, Is it opportunities for women or mission
effectiveness that is most important?
A Counter Offensive
If the social reformers have been successful using the military to change society
toward their ends can we not do the same for noble purposes? Dr. James H. Toner, a
professor of leadership and military ethics at The Air War College, advocates the need
for high moral character. The military ethic can and must serve as a source of moral
refreshment to a society that often ridicules these values. They must do so in a nihilistic
environment, one that rejects all absolutes and established beliefs.37 He advocates
“Gallant Atavism.” Gallant suggests something noble, valiant, brave, and heroic.
Atavism is a biological term meaning the reappearance of characteristics in a plant or
animal of some remote ancestor that have been absent in intervening generations. Can
we reintroduce characteristics of our former, ethic such as integrity, that have been absent
to increase effectiveness? To do so would require knowledge of our ancestors beliefs and
sentiments.
Notes
1 Wade, Rick. The New Absolutes: As Review by Rick Wade. n.p.; on-line, internet,
16 December, 1997, available from: http://www.probe.org/new-abso.htm
24
Notes
2 Thomas, Cal, “Clinton Loses Moral Standing”, Montgomery Advertiser, Nov 17,
1997
3 Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947,
56-58
4 Ibid., 56
5 Barton, David. Keys to Good Government, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1994,
20
6 Barton, David. America's Godly Heritage, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1993, 17
7 Ibid., 17
8 Ibid., 18
9 Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense News Release, “Secretary Aspin Releases
New Regulations on Homosexual Conduct in the Armed Forces,” December 22, 1993,
ed., Robert L. Maginnis, “The APA sustains Homosexual Agenda”, Insight, n.p.;
on-line, internet, 25 October, 1997, available from
http://www.frc.org/frc/insight/1s95a7hs.html
10 Department of Defense Directive 1332.30, “Separation of Regular Commissioned
Officers” and Department of Defense Directive 1332.14, “Enlisted Administrative
Separations, February 28, 1994, Ed, ibid.
11 see General Orders, 14 March 1778, “The Writings of George Washington…1745-
1799”, Fitzpatrick, John C, Ed, Ibid.
12 Heimbach R. Daniel, “The Bible in the Moral War over the Rejection of
Homosexuality by the Military Services: A View from Inside the Pentagon”, Premise
Volume II, Number 7, August 27, 1995, 10, on-line, internet, 18 February, 1998,
available from: http://capo.org/premise/95/august/p950710.html
13 Maginnis, Robert L, “The APA sustains Homosexual Agenda”, Insight, n.p.;
on-line, internet, 25 October, 1997, available from:
http://www.frc.org/frc/insight/1s95a7hs.html
14 WD OTSG Circa. 22, 1 August 1917, “Examinations in Nervous and Mental
Disease,” printed in “The Medical Department of the United States Army in the World
War, Vol. X, “Neuropsychiatry in the United States (Washington: GPO, 1929),66-69, ed,
Ibid.
15 Army Regulation 40-105, 20 June, 1921, ed, Ibid.
16 War Department Directive, “Sodomites,” 15 July, 1941, ed, Ibid.
17 Quoted in Ibid.
18 Ibid., n.p.
19 Colin J. Williams, “Homosexuals and the Military”, New York: Harper & Row,
1971, 29, ed, Ibid.
20 William P. Snyder and Kenneth L. Nyberg, Policy Paper, “Gays and the Military:
An Emerging Policy Issue,” Journal of Political and Military Sociology, Vol. 8, No. 1,
Spring 1980, 74, ed, Ibid.
21 For a pragmatic discussion on why should the military retain the old policy, see
Appendix A.
25
Notes
22General Charles C. Krulak, Commandant of the Marine Corps, Speech to the
Women's Officer Professional Organization, 15 Sept 1995, on-line, internet, available
from: http://www.usmc.mil/cmcspeaches.nsf
23 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense News Briefing, “Gender Integrated
Training”, June 3, 1997
24 Ibid., n.p.
25 Office of Assistant Secretary of Defense News Release, 29 July, 1994, “Secretary
of Defense Approves Plans to Open New Jobs for Women in the Military.”, ed, Ibid.
26 Department of the Navy, Secretary of the Navy, SECNAVINST 1000, 6 February,
1995, ed, Ibid.
27 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense News Briefing, “Gender Integrated
Training”, June 3, 1997
28 Ibid., n.p.
29 Ibid., n.p.
30 See Appendix B for a more detailed analysis of impacts to effectiveness
31 Speech at Air Command and Staff College, 10 March, 1998
32 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense Background Briefing, 3 June, 1997
33 This same panel was criticized by the GAO for its "haphazard" research
34 Ibid., n.p.
35 Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense News Briefing, 27 June, 1997
36 Ibid., n.p.
37 Toner, James, H. “Gallant Atavism, The Military Ethic in an Age of Nihilism”. Air
Power Journal, Summer 1996, 13
26
Chapter 4
Foundational underpinnings—Where were we moored?
If I were called upon to identify the principal trait of the entire 20th
century, I would be unable to find anything more precise and pithy than
this statement: Men have forgotten God.
—Aleksandr Solzenitsyn
We have grasped the mystery of the atom and rejected the Sermon on the
Mount. The world has achieved brilliance without wisdom, power without
conscience. Ours is a world of nuclear giants and ethical infants.
—General of the Army Omar Bradley
We are the world's most affluent, influential and powerful country today. For the
past two centuries, we’ve been a source of great blessing to many countries around the
world. We’ve promoted peace and democracy, reproved rogue regimes, and through our
potent instruments of power, provided humanitarian and economic assistance to those
less fortunate. We have welcomed countless millions into our borders seeking freedom
from oppression or poverty. Ours is a history rich in success and benevolence. This
history has caused some to study our society to determine the source of this greatness.
Alexis de Tocqueville was one such individual. After studying the US, which was then
an emerging power, he said,
I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her
harbors…; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and
vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of
learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless
Constitution. Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her
27
pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius
and power. America is great because America is good, and if America
ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great.1
Why has America succeeded where so many other nations have failed? According to
de Tocqueville, it was the foundation upon which the republic was laid.
Unfortunately, much confusion and disagreement surrounds this question and of
those who laid the foundation. Who were the founding fathers? What was their beliefs
and religious sentiment?
Some have portrayed the founders as atheists, agnostics and deists. John Adams, the
first vice president under Washington and the nation's second president wholly
contradicts this notion,
The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were
…the general principles of Christianity…I will avow that I then believed,
and now believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal
and immutable as the existence of attributes of God.2
The preponderance of evidence proves incontrovertibly every one of our founding
fathers shared a Christian worldview. The republic's foundation was based upon Biblical
principles. The overwhelming evidences from church memberships, education, writings,
and personal accounts all but waylay any argument to the contrary.
Continental Congress Religious Demographics
Who qualifies as a founding father? The word “founding” denotes those whom
originated or established, and provided the foundation for our form of government, in
particular, our constitution. Founding fathers are therefore those who intellectually
contributed to and were present at the constitutional convention. This definition narrows
the list to 55 men.
28
If we want to determine the religious beliefs of these forebears we need only look at
their individual religious convictions. Church membership provides the best indication of
these convictions. Membership, in their time required more than filling a pew each
Sunday. It entailed a sworn public confession of Biblical faith, an adherence and
acknowledgment of the doctrines of that particular denomination.3
Demographically, of the 55 men, twenty-eight were Episcopalians, eight were
Presbyterians, seven were Congregationalists, two were Lutheran, two were Dutch
Reformed, two were Methodist, two were Roman Catholics, one is unknown, and three
were possibly deists (Williamson, Wilson, and Franklin).4 Fifty-one out of fifty-five
were known members of orthodox Christian denominations. Forty-five of these were
Calvinists, the most doctrinally orthodox Christians around.5 Alexis de Tocqueville said
“Puritans [Calvinists] … founded the American republics.”6 George Bancroft, probably
the leading American historian in the 19th century, called John Calvin, the “Father of
America”. Bancroft, who himself was not Calvinist, went on to say, “He who will not
honor the memory and respect the influence of Calvin knows little of the origin of
American Liberty.”7
It is clear that of the 55 delegates, almost all of them were deeply committed
Christians. Even Benjamin Franklin's deism is questionable because it was he who called
the Continental Congress to prayer when they seemed so hopelessly stalled. In his
prayer, he used no less than four Biblical references.8 If he was a strict deist, he was not
ignorant of the Bible, unwilling to neither petition the God of the Bible nor unable to
employ its wisdom though-out his eloquent oratory.
29
The Founders Education
Most of the founders attended Harvard, Yale or Princeton. Entrance requirements
for these colleges were both academically and spiritually rigorous. For example, the
primary purpose for attending Harvard was to know God and the Bible. Harvard,
attended by three founders9 and notables John Adams, John Hancock, Samuel Adams,
required,
Everyone shall so exercise himself in reading the Scriptures twice a day
that he shall be ready to give such an account of his proficiency therein.10
The same was true at Yale where seven constitutional signers11, including Samuel
Johnson and William Livingston and notable Noah Webster graduated. It was also true at
Princeton, which produced the largest number of early fathers.
The beliefs in the tenants of Christianity and moral education was so pervasive
that out of the first 126 colleges formed in America, 123 were formed on Christian
principles.12 In 1900, it was extremely rare to find a university president who was not an
ordained clergyman. Christianity was clearly at the very core of education and it was
under this system that the founders were educated.
Writings of the Founding Fathers
One of the most effective ways to determine individuals deepest and personally held
convictions (apart from viewing their behavior) is to review their writings. What did they
advocate? What sources did they most often draw upon when supporting their views?
These questions were asked by political science professors at the University of
Houston.13 They reasoned if they could compile all the known writings of the founders
and determine the sources that they drew upon most often, then they would determine
30
their political and religious sentiments. The researchers assembled 15,000 writings from
the founding era.14 After ten years of analysis, they isolated 3,154 direct quotes made by
the founders and their source. Three men were quoted most often, Baron Charles de
Montesquieu (8.3%), Sir William Blackstone (7.9%), and John Locke (2.9%).15 More
than any individual source, however, the researchers found that the founders quoted from
the Bible four times more than Montesquieu and Blackstone and twelve times more than
Locke.16
This heritage was clearly understood by Congress. In 1853 the House and Senate
Judiciary Committees investigated for over a year a petition to separate Christianity from
the principles of Government. The House report said (the Senate report was very
similar),
Had the people during the revolution, had a suspicion of any attempt to
war against Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its
cradle. At the time of the of the Constitution and the amendments, the
universal sentiment was that Christianity should be encouraged, but not
any one sect [denomination]…In this age, there is no substitute for
Christianity…That was the religion of the founders and the republic, and
they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants.17
The U.S. Supreme Court also understood this Biblical foundation laid by the
founders. In an 1892 case the Court ruled according to the founders intent,
No purpose of action against religion can be imputed to any legislation,
state, or national, because this is a religious people … This is a Christian
nation.18
Important in its ruling the Court provided eighty-seven different historical precedents to
support its conclusions.19 The founders were unquestionably Christian in their worldview,
that cannot be denied, but what did they advocate as the basis for morality?
31
Moral Principles Advocated by the Founders
George Washington, a soldier, a general, and our President and Commander in Chief
said in his farewell address,
Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity,
religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man
claim the tribute of patriotism, which should labor to subvert these great
pillars.20
Let's be careful to understand exactly what Washington was saying. He believed that
in order for our country to see political and economic (prosperity) success, religion
(Christianity and Biblical principles) and morality (derived from Biblical principles) were
indispensable. He called them pillars of support. Pillars are load bearing members that if
removed or subverted, will result in the structure it supports to collapse. Washington
believed that one could not claim to be an American who would work to subvert these
pillars.
The 1892 Supreme Court case mentioned earlier suggested how morality could best
be inculcated,
Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament…be read and
taught as a divine revelation in the [school]—its general precepts
expounded…and its glorious principles of morality inculcated?…Where
can the purest principles of morality be learned so clearly or so perfectly
as from the New Testament?21
Why did the founders believe Biblical principles were the most effective means to
morality and governance? Biblical principles assert moral problems are matters of the
heart. Only by reaching the heart first could one stop crime before it started. Thomas
Jefferson probably said it most clearly,
The precepts of philosophy … laid hold of actions only … [But Jesus]
pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man, erected his tribunal in the
region of the thoughts, and purified the waters at the fountain head.22
32
John Adams explained,
We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with
human passions unbridled by morality and religion … Our constitution
was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to
the government of any other.23
Clearly the founders believed that our constitution was erected for a people who
possessed a moral consensus, who were trained in Biblical principles. It would be
ineffective to any other people.
Our society, however, is a post-Christian culture. We, and thus the military, have
seen the pinnacle and are now on the downward slope. We are running on the fumes of a
former Judeo-Christian ethic. We are #1 in the world in violent crime, #1 in divorce, #1
in illegal drug use, and as the richest nation in the history of the world, #1 in the western
world in illiteracy.24 Although the majority would still identify themselves as Christian,
seventy-five percent do not believe in objective truth or moral absolutes25, a notion
antithetical to a Christian world view. John Adams words have become painfully true.
Why should we then appeal to Biblical principles? Why should we adhere to
absolutes? Why advocate high moral standards against which everyone is measured?
The argument, “our founders did therefore so should we” rings hollow. We are in no way
obligated to following our founders example. We are not obliged that is unless we seek
preservation, order and effectiveness. It was Biblical principles and thus moral absolutes
that made us distinct from all other societies. This was the “greatness” identified by de
Tocqueville, this was the source of our country's, and our military's effectiveness. But
this effectiveness was not possible without a personal commitment by our founders and
citizens to personally integrate Biblical truths into their beliefs and behavior.
33
Notes
1 Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, edited by J.P. Mayer and Max
Lerner, a new translation by George Lawrence (New York: Harper and Row, 1966), 205
2 Barton, David, America's Godly Heritage, Wallbuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1993, 5
3 Koukl, Gregory, America's Unchristian Beginnings?, Stand to Reason
Commentary, n.p.; on-line, internet, 16 December, 1997, available from:
http://str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/america.htm
4 Ibid., n.p.
5 Ibid., n.p.
6 Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy In America, Volume II, Alfred A. Knopf, New
York, 1946, 83
7 Eidsmoe, John, Christianity and the Constitution, The Faith of our Founding
Fathers, Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995
8 Ibid., n.p.
9 Bradford, M.E., Founding Fathers, University Press of Kansas, 2nd Edition, 1994
10 Barton, David, Education and the Founding Fathers, WallBuilder Press, Aledo,
Texas, 1993, 3
11 Bradford, M.E., Founding Fathers, University Press of Kansas, 2nd Edition, 1994
12 Ibid., 7
13 Barton, David, America's Godly Heritage, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1993, 9
14 Ibid., 9
15 Ibid., 9
16 Ibid., 9
17 Ibid., 14
18 Ibid., 10
19 Ibid., 10
20 Garity, Patrick, J., A Sacred Union of Citizens, George Washington’s Farewell
Address and the American Character, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, NY, 1996,
183
21 Barton, David, America's Godly Heritage, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1993,11
22 Ibid., 23
23 Ibid., 24
24 Ibid., 24
25 Sproul, RC Jr., Table Talk Magazine, January 1998, n.p.
34
Chapter 5
Anchorage—A Call to Integrity
O Lord, who may abide in thy tent? Who may dwell on thy holy hill? He
who walks with integrity and works righteousness and speaks truth in his
heart. He does not slander with his tongue nor does evil to his neighbor,
nor take up reproval against his friend. In whose eyes a reprobate is
despised but who honors those who fears the Lord. He swears to his own
hurt and does not change. He does not put out his money in interest nor
does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will
never be shaken.1
—Psalm 15:1-5
The singular distinguishing, defining value of our military profession [is]
a priceless quality called integrity. Integrity—here is the touchstone upon
which everything depends.
—General Lee Butler
This paper asserts the rift in the moral fabric of our society and the subsequent
decline in military effectiveness were brought about by moral and ethical relativism,
social reformers capitalizing upon this destructive philosophy, and a departure from our
traditional moorings. But what can be done? The author suggests five courses of action
required to recover (See Appendix C). The majority of people reading this paper,
however, are unlikely to possess the ability to enact the sweeping changes these require.
We are faced with the question, “what can I do?” A high ranking Naval Admiral recently
said, “If you are worried about someone else's ethics [and not your own], you better be
close to crucifixion.”2 The Admiral's point was simply this, those vexed by our current
35
ethical environment may be faced with an uncomfortable question, “what am I going to
do about me so that the ethical climate of my particular service can get better”? A good
ethical climate begins the individual.
Former Air Force Chief of Staff General Ronald R. Fogleman called integrity the sin
qua non of a leader.3 It is no coincidence that integrity is the first core value coming
prior to “service before self” and “excellence in all we do”. The later core values are not
possible without the former.
The English word integrity comes from the Latin word “integritas.” It denotes a
sense of wholeness or integration, completeness, soundness, undivided.4 In our
vernacular, we might say of one with integrity, “They have it all “together.” Integrity is
the trait that includes other essential character traits: courage, honesty, responsibility,
accountability, justice, openness, and selflessness. General Fogleman said integrity is
what holds these traits together.5
On the personal level integrity means taking every aspect of your thinking and
behavior Coram Deo (before the face of God) comparing it to an absolute standard and
asking questions like, “did I just present information to my superior, (or my spouse) in
the most scrupulous manner possible or have I shaded the truth (for my advantage)?”
“Am I literally or figuratively stealing time or money from my country?” “Have I
accomplished my tasks to the best of my ability with the time allotted?” “Am I
considering other people and my country more important than myself?” These are
questions of intent, dedication, commitment and selflessness and they all stem from
personal integrity.
36
To be sure, however, we will fail. G.K. Chesterton once said that the doctrine of
original sin was the only philosophy empirically validated by all the years of recorded
human history.6 Paul made this clear in the third chapter of Romans, “All have sinned
and fall short of the glory of God.”7 We will all fail to meet the absolute standard for
integrity, this is part of our nature, our humanity. It is not so much a question of failure,
however, as what we do with the failure that defines a person of integrity. Do we admit
our failings to both our subordinates and or do we seek to hide them. If we hide them, we
have no commitment to integrity. Integrity includes the courage to take responsibility for
your actions and those of your subordinates. This is the difference between one who has
integrity and one who does not.
Air Force General George Lee Butler, from his vantage point of over three decades
in service, identified four reasons he has seen individuals fail in personal integrity. 1.
Power—forgetting who you are. “Great men seek power to do, not to be.” 2. Fear of
failure—to avoid embarrassment, we fail to take responsibility for our mistakes or we lie
to cover up. 3. Lack of competence, people who are inadequate for their tasks and
duties. 4. Poor moral climates where people fail to keep a personal code alive.8
A character outcome of the Center for Character Development at the US Air Force
Academy is officers with forthright integrity. They define it as those whom,
Voluntarily decide the right thing to do and do it in both their professional
and private lives. They do not chose the right thing because of a
calculation of what is most advantageous to themselves but because of a
consistent and spontaneous inclination to do the right thing…In other
words, persons of integrity walk their talk.9
Persons of integrity do not stray from acting in accordance with strong moral
principle even when it is expedient or personally advantageous to do so. The author
knows an individual who upon entering the Academy swore that he had not taken illegal
37
drugs nor would ever do so while in the military. As a sophomore at the Academy,
however, he took drugs. Undetected, he finished his last two years and went on to
undergraduate pilot training (UPT). Upon graduation from UPT, he was required to fill
out a government form for a top secret security clearance. A question on the form
confronted him with this question, “have you ever taken illegal drugs?” Instantly he
knew he was at an impasse. If he responded “no” he would be lying. If he responded
“yes” then he was admitting culpability. He took counsel and was told that admitting
would probably end his career before it started. He chose, however, to completely
disclose his violation on the form knowing full well the probable outcome. He was later
discharged from the service with a less than honorable discharge and required to pay a
large sum for his education at the Academy. This is what Psalm 15 (see epigraph) means
when it says a man of integrity “swears to his own hurt.”
Many reading this account may be thinking this man was a fool. No, not a fool, but
one with whom the military desperately needs to fill its leadership positions. This is the
test of integrity, what you do when no one else is looking, and what you do afterward if
you have failed.
Our military today earnestly needs men and women of integrity, who have it all
together. Who are willing to sacrificially serve in our nation's defense to fulfill their duty
without regard to self, parochial, or larger agendas. Who seek to support and defend the
constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic and who will
fight tirelessly so against any attempt to undermine its effectiveness.
Only through personal integrity can we hope to infect those around us as Gallant
Activists. Only through a personal commitment to character can we impart something of
38
virtue to others and our institution; for you cannot impart what you do not possess. Only
by embracing an unchanging standard can we hope to stem the tide of relativism and all
the destructive policies to our effectiveness that inevitably follow. Only by reaching back
to our forebears sentiments can we lean forward to the future postured to face the next
challenge to our life and liberty.
Our times require military members with the integrity to buck the current dearth of
public virtue, while the current spirit of public service flat-lines.10 As Walter Lippmann
wrote, “That, is why young men die in battle for their country's sake and why old men
plant trees they will never sit under.”11
Notes
1 New American Standard Bible, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN,
Psalm 15:1-5
2 Speech to Air Command and Staff College, Maxwell AFB, AL, 4 March 1998
3 CSAF at Generals Officers Call, Nov 1996 on United States Air Force Core
Values, lesson plan
4 Webster's II, New Riverside University Dictionary, The Riverside Publishing
Company, Boston, MA, 1984
5 Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Core Values Lesson Plan, 1 January 1997
6 Colson, Charles, “A Question of Ethics”, Air Power Journal, Summer 1996, 6
7 New American Standard Bible, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN,
Romans 3:23
8 General George Lee Butler, Personal Reflections on Integrity from an Old Grad,
Speech to Air Force Academy cadet wing
9 Dr. Edgar Puryear, 19 Stars, A Study in Military Character and Leadership,
Presidio Press, Novato, CA, 1994
10 Toner, James H. “Gallant Atavism, The Military Ethic in an Age of Nihilism”.
Air Power Journal, Summer, 1996, 12
11 Ibid., 12
39
Appendix A
Homosexuals in the Armed Forces
The author offers three reasons why homosexuals should not serve in the armed
forces, the erosion of unit morale, the high risk of health related problems impacting
readiness, and the high cost that will be ultimately borne by the military for long term
care.
Erosion of Unit Morale
Homosexuality in the ranks will negatively impact troop morale and thereby
readiness. This is categorically the position of those who ought to know, the war fighters.
A survey of active duty officers, conducted for the American Security Council
Foundation, found that 99 percent believed that homosexuals would undermine the
cohesiveness and readiness of combat units.1
The Defense Readiness Council surveyed 2,800 retired flag and general officers and
found almost 90 percent believed homosexuals in the ranks would undermine morale.2
Just prior to President Clinton enacting the new “Don't ask, don't tell” military policy
regarding homosexuals, an overwhelming majority of members in the armed forces
opposed any change. Forty percent said that they disapproved on moral grounds of
lifting the ban. Another forty six percent said lifting the ban would enter into their
40
reenlistment decisions. Finally 11 percent felt so strongly that said they would not
reenlist if it was removed.3
The general public were also opposed to lifting the ban. At the time of the decision,
57 percent of Americans were opposed.4 Finally, a February 1993 CNN/Gallup Poll
showed that an overwhelming 74 percent of men who had not attended college opposed
lifting the ban. This was particularly important because this group is the prime
population from which the military draws its recruits. But what does all this have to do
with morale?
Morale can be defined as a strong sense of enthusiasm and dedication to a commonly
shared goal that unifies a group. Can heterosexual soldiers be forced to live and work in
close quarters with avowed homosexuals and be expected to do so with “a strong sense of
enthusiasm.” What is the goal? To increase tolerance in the military or make it a
cohesive group of well trained soldiers, sailors, and airmen willing to take lives and give
lives in their country's defense? But if unit cohesion were not a good enough reason,
there is more.
High Risk of Health Related Problems
There is a significant and heavily documented health risk to members of the
homosexual community, which is incompatible with military service. The author was not
allowed to enter into active duty until a benign cyst was removed at personal expense.
This policy was enforced because someone determined that individuals with this
particular diagnosis were at risk for further complications that may impact their future
ability to serve. This was a small risk the military was unwilling to assume.
Furthermore, it was an unlikely healthcare cost they were unwilling to bear.
41
Under the new policy, the highest-risk group for Human Immune Deficiency Virus
(HIV), hepatitis B and some of the most serious sexually transmitted diseases today are
no longer even screened in the recruiting process. From a purely utilitarian standpoint,
the US military has assumed an enormous risk. According to the Centers for Disease
Control (CDC), homosexuals, because of their lifestyle, are extremely vulnerable to
contracting HIV and Sexually Transmitted Diseases (STD's.). This well documented
lifestyle includes, recreational drug use, homosexual sex, malnutrition, prior incidents of
STD's, and most significantly, sexual promiscuity.5
The Advocate, a leading homosexual magazine, reported that 72 percent of
homosexual respondents engage in oral intercourse, 46 percent anal intercourse, 48
percent in three-way sex, and 24 percent in group sex (4 or more). Most of the survey
respondents admitted to having more than 30 sex partners over their lifetime, and 35
percent report more than 100 partners.6
The Army's Surgeon General, Lieutenant General Alcide Lanoue spoke of the health
risks associated with homosexuals:
The military setting provides unique requirements for safety in executing
the Army blood transfusion program and for preventing the transmission
of blood-borne pathogens in the field setting. Homosexual males would
comprise a pool of ineligible blood donors and as a group are at high risk
of infection by HIV and hepatitis B, both significant blood-borne
pathogens which can infect other soldiers through exposure to blood in
peace and war.7
This group is at risk from any number of perils, AIDS not withstanding.
Readiness, from an availability standpoint, will suffer. A soldier who is infected
with HIV will be permanently non-deployable. Some of these STD's will also render a
soldier non-deployable such as gonorrhea, syphilis, and hepatitis B.
42
Readiness from a medical standpoint will also suffer. By1993, the military had dealt
with 8,832 HIV-positive service members. The majority of these have been separated
from the service. The remaining 1,580 at that time were still on active duty and their
status precluded them from deploying.8
High Cost of Health Care
Health care liability to the military is enormous. This comes in an era of decreased
budgets and declining medical benefits. A homosexual recruit, who contacted HIV while
in the service, would be afforded full medical benefits for the remainder of his life.
According to Dr. Edmund Tramont, Associate Director for retroviral research at
Walter Reed Army Medical Center, this would be approximately $386,000 in year 2000
dollars and rise to $639,000 per person by the year 2008. Additionally, he estimated that
the 10-year health care costs for HIV infected military members would be between 1.7
and 5 billion dollars.9
It's clearly in military's and the US tax payers best interest to screen homosexuals out
in the recruiting process and discharge those currently serving in the military. It is also
clear that the previous policy was an enlightened one.
Notes
1 American Security Council Foundation, “Confidential Survey of 1,040 Active Duty
U.S. Flag and General Officers,”, 7-21 June, 1993, ed, Ibid.
2 Defense Readiness Council, “Survey of Retired Flag Officers, 15 June, 1993, ed,
Ibid.
3 Los Angeles Times Poll Study #307 – United States Military Survey, Los Angeles
Times, February, 1993, ed, Ibid.
4 Fabrizio, McLaughlin and Associates Poll, March 1993, ed, Ibid.
5 H.W. Jaffe and C. Keewhan, et al., “National Case-Control of Kaposi's Sarcoma
and Pneumocystis Carinii Pneumonia in Homosexual Men; Part 1 Epidemiological
Results, “Annals of Internal Medicine, Vol. 99 (2), 1983, 145-157; H.H. Hansfield,
“Sexually Transmitted Disease in Homosexual Men,” American Journal of Public Health,
43
Notes
Vol. 9, 1981, 989-990; Karla Jay and Allen Young, The Gay Report, Summit, New York,
1979; Janet E. Gans, et al., “American Adolescents: How Healthy Are They?,” American
Medical Association, 1990, 31,; P. Careron, K. Proctor, and W. Coburn, “Sexual
Orientation and Sexually Transmitted Disease,” Nebraska Medical Journal, Vol. 70, No.
8, August 1985, 292-299, ed, Ibid.
6 Janet Lever, “Sexual Revelations: The 1994 Advocate Survey of Sexuality and
Relationships: The Men,” The Advocate, 23 August, 1994, 21-22, ed, Ibid.
7 Department of the Army memorandum, “Potential Medical Implications of
Homosexuality in the Military,” Office of the Surgeon General, 29 April, 1993, ed, Ibid.
8 Office of the U.S. Army Surgeon General, 9 April, 1993, “HIV Positive Analysis
Report,”, ed, Ibid.
9 Edmund C. Tramont, “AIDS and Its Impact on Medical Readiness,” Land Warfare
Paper No. 6, The Institute of Land Warfare, Association of the United States Army,
November1990, 4, ed. Ibid.
44
Appendix B
Women in Combat
Physical Strength and Endurance of Men and Women
A recent study conducted by the US Navy (Navy Personnel Research and
Development Center, San Diego, CA)1 sought to determine the effectiveness of training
in the physical performance of five basic damage control tasks. These tasks were
carrying litters on level surfaces, carrying litters up and down ladders, moving and
starting emergency pumps, turning engine bolts, and directing fire hose streams.
Participating in the study were 350 men and 195 women. What they found is
instructive. Almost all of the male subjects were able to complete all of the tasks even
before training, while women could only perform one of the tasks to the established
standard. Perhaps even more notable was after substantial training the women exhibited
no appreciable improvement. The study showed a clear delineation in lifting strength and
aerobic capacity between men and women.
Anyone who has served on surface or submarine vessels understands the importance
of damage control. This function is essential for all personnel. Even civilian contractors
who serve aboard these vessels are expected to participate in damage control. Simply
said, lack of physical strength and aerobic capacity will limit the effectiveness of damage
45
control operations which leads to decreased survivability and will ultimately compromise
mission effectiveness.
Civilian fire departments have discovered the injury rates of women to be
disproportionate to men when expected to perform like their male counterparts. Women
suffered up to three times the back injury rate than men. They found women suffer more
injuries because in order to lift the same load as men who are at 50% lifting capacity,
they must lift close to their maximum.2
A Presidential Commission on the Assignment of Women corroborated what the
civilian fire departments were finding. Women were at 2.13 times greater risk for lower
extremity injuries and 4.71 times greater risk for stress fractures. Additionally, the same
study showed that women's aerobic capacity was substantially lower than men.3
Pregnancy Causes Readiness Problems
Women, are more capable than men in many respects. Unfortunately, the ability to
procreate detracts from combat readiness rather than as Defense Secretary William Perry
said, adding greater “flexibility in the development of human resources.”
At any given time, up to 18 percent of women in the Navy are pregnant which
corresponds to 8,423 women.4 During Desert Storm, 1,145 women on ships were
reassigned due to pregnancies. This was an average of 95 women per month.5 Many of
these women held gender specific billets. Consequently, when these women left ship,
their billets remained unfilled and the remaining crew was required to take up their
duties.
The author deployed aboard a Navy Destroyer for a week. While on board, the ship's
executive officer explained that upon return, the destroyer would be in dock for an
46
extended period. During this time the ships berthing units would be retrofitted to
accommodate women costing millions of dollars and months out of commission. Upon
entering duty again, the destroyer would carry mandatory gender specific billets to be
filled only by women. When asked if this impacted his effectiveness he corroborated
much of following.
According to the Navy policy, a women sailor may serve aboard a ship until she is
20 weeks pregnant. During this time, she can never be more than six hours away from
OB/GYN care.6 This policy is understandable because before it was enacted, five babies
were born on ships of which one died. But as understandable as it is, it clearly limits
readiness of both the sailor and the ship.
On average, a pregnancy takes a sailor from a ship for six months.7 This includes six
weeks of convalescent leave and then a four month hiatus from redeployment. This
period can be extended by the attending physician. According the Navy records, 43
percent of the women who get pregnant, never return to the ships, 35 percent leave the
Navy and the remaining 8 percent stay on shore.8
Amazingly, Navy policy prohibits a commander from taking action against a woman
who becomes pregnant during a deployment even though sex aboard ship is prohibited.9
This can and has become quite an effective escape route for a woman who no longer
desires sea duty. Even more damaging is the impact to readiness. An empty gender billet
may not be filled for a long period.
Notes
1 Davis, Paul O, “Physical Demands of Ships, Tasks Are a Factual Matter”, Navy
Times, 2 July, 1990, 25, ed, Maginnis, Robert L, USAF Ret., “Feminism Sinks Navy
Readiness”, Insight, n.p.; on-line, internet, 25 October, 1997, available from:
http://www.frc.org/frc/insight/1s95wc.html
2 Ibid.
47
Notes
3 Section II —Alternative Views. “Report to the President.” Presidential
Commission on the Assignment of Women in the Armed Services, 15 November, 1992,
63, ed, Maginnis, Robert L, USAF Ret., “Feminism Sinks Navy Readiness”, Insight, n.p.;
online,internet,25October,1997,availablefromhttp://www.frc.org/frc/insight/1s95wc.html
4 CMR Report, Center for Military Readiness Policy Analysis, No. 8, March, 1995,
“Navy Policy on Pregnancy”, ed, Ibid.
5 Ibid.
6 Ibid.
7 Ibid.
8 Ibid.
9 Ibid.
48
Appendix C
Five Courses of Action
The author suggest five courses of action to reclaim former ground, maximize
mission potency and posture ourselves for future effectiveness.
1. Reject social reformers
2. Reaffirm Absolute values
3. Retain high standards
4. Recruit moral character
5. Reassert the mission as the raison d'être
Reject Social Reformers
Chief of staff Harold K. Johnson (1964-1968) lamented in his memoirs that he
wished he had gone to President Johnson, along with the other service heads, handed in
his four stars, and said in effect, “Either give us the tools to fight in Vietnam or call the
war off…”1
Leaders must resist any policy or decision that would detrimentally affect the
effectiveness of the mission exhaust every avenue legally and ethically available. If this
fails, perhaps the only honorable thing to do, as a good soldier, is to resign. There have
been precious few that possessed personal integrity willing to sacrifice a career, honor,
and prestige for what is right. Former USAF Chief of Staff, General Ronald Fogleman is
perhaps such a man. Faced early in his tour with the tragic fratricidal shoot-down of two
US HH-60 helicopters in Iraq, he was disturbed that after the investigation no one was
49
found at fault. General Fogleman invited the panel to reconsider its findings with the
admonition that 21 people dead and no culpable persons is unlikely. When the panel
again failed to find any culpability he commissioned his own investigation and found
both AWACS and F-15 aircrews had been derelict in duty. He instituted a new
accountability program to ensure that performance reports reflected an individuals poor
or wrongful behavior. He said,
We are the USAF and the US taxpayer has the right to hold us to a higher
standard, and will be held personally accountable for our actions.
If anyone was willing to assign culpability for failure to perform it was General
Fogleman. When the Secretary of Defense, William Cohen decided to cite General
Schwailer, commander of the 4404th Wing, for failure to enact proper security procedures
over the Khobar towers bombing, General Fogleman decided it was time to step down.
He believed that General Schwailer had discharged his duty better than anyone could
have in the circumstances and had actively advocated Gen. Schwailer's exoneration in the
matter. Consider his farewell address,
Military service is the only life I have ever known. My stock in trade after
34 years of service is my military judgement and advice. After serving as
chief of staff for almost three years, my values and sense of loyalty to our
soldiers, sailors, Marines, and especially our airmen, led me to the
conclusion that I may be out of step with the times and the thinking of
some of the establishment.
Reaffirm Absolute Values
Lt General Bradley Hosmer, Superintendent at the Air Force Academy, established
the Center for Character Development at the US Air Force Academy and specifically
stipulated “Values clarification and moral relativism will not be taught at the USAF
Academy.”2 Echoing this sentiment, Air Force Chief of Staff Ronald Fogleman said
50
regarding the Air Force core value curriculum, “This is not a values clarification exercise
…There are correct answers, and those answers are found in the Air Force Core Values.”3
These core values, Integrity first, service before self, and excellence in all we do are
worthy values because they are clearly Biblical mandates. That is, they are derived from
traditional Judeo-Christian thought. Existentialism teaches there is no God so everything
is permissible. This engenders the “me-first” mentality so often seen in our society
today. Biblical ethics, on the other hand, teaches there is a God and each one of us were
created in His image—It mandates we conduct ourselves accordingly. With this
understanding, we are compelled to consider others more important than ourselves
(Phillipians 2:3-4). This is why you cannot inculcate moral principles unless you
embrace absolute values. Each individual must understand they are accountable moral
agents.
C.S. Lewis says the head rules the belly [the passions] through the chest. The chest
he equates with sentiment—traditional value.
These are the indispensable liaison officers between cerebral man and
visceral man. It may be said that it is by this middle element that man is
man: for by his mere intellect he is mere spirit and by his appetite
[stomach] mere animal.4
Lewis says that those who attack traditional, absolute values unwittingly produce
men without chests.
In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the
function. We make men without chests and expect of them virtue and
enterprise. We laugh at honor and are shocked to find traitors in our
midst. We castrate and bid the geldings be fruitful.5
We inculcate good values then by first recognizing a sovereign creator and
corresponding immutable principles and sentiment. We use words that recognize value
51
and virtue. We first affirm there is good and there is evil and then we call good, good,
and evil, evil.
Woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light
and light for darkness, who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter.6
Retain High Standards
Major General Jerry E. White, in his article, Personal Ethics versus Professional
Ethics, asserted that ethical behavior can be assured only by means of law, fear or
personal convictions.7 Laws and regulations are required to set guidelines of expected or
prohibited behavior. These are required if individuals are not driven by strong moral
convictions. Consider the words of Noah Webster,
There are two powers only, which are sufficient to control men and secure
the rights of individuals in a peaceable administration. These are the
combined force of religion and law, and the force of fear of the bayonet.8
Speed limit signs do little to affect a driver's behavior. Consequently, laws are a last line
of defense for those who lack moral judgement. Previous chapters have shown this to be
a growing number of individuals.
The fear of punishment operates on the prohibitive conscience. It is effective only to
the extent that the punishment outweighs the benefits of the bad behavior and the
likelihood of getting caught. It is more effective than law alone. A 100-dollar speeding
ticket helps to reduce recidivism.
The UCMJ is a good example of this. It was enacted by congress in 1950 to ensure
good order and discipline and to govern the conduct of soldiers. It established a system
of courts to try those who transgress its articles.9 Under its articles, soldiers can be court
marshaled for such seemingly innocuous offenses as disrespect to officers (Article 89),
52
feigning illness (Article 115), using provoking or reproachful words or gestures (Article
117), exhibiting conduct unbecoming (Article 133), or bringing discredit to the armed
forces (Article 134). It's not perfect but it represents a worthy standard and thus is
attacked by relativists who bristle under any laws that appear moralistic. They call it an
anachronism, puritanical and out of step with society.10 This high standard is not only
warranted but capitulation would be to lessen the foundation for the encouragement of
military discipline. We cannot afford to capitulate on high standards; failure is too costly.
Recruit Moral Character
Good laws are necessary, but good soldiers are a necessity. William Penn, who
created the state government of Pennsylvania believed,
I know some say, ‘Let us have good laws, and no matter for the men that
execute them.’ But let them consider that though good laws do well, good
men do better; for good laws may [lack] good men … but good men will
never [lack] good laws, nor [allow bad] ones.11
With the increasing incidence of moral degenerate behavior within society and the
military, we more than any institution ought to be recruiting individuals with good
personal character as a primary consideration. Recently the US Army has begun running
criminal background investigations on all their prospective recruits. The policy is
designed to identify a growing number of enlistees who conceal arrests and legal troubles
during interviews.12 It seems prior to the new policy, the Army was discovering recruits
with prior criminal records after they arrived at induction stations or training bases.
Cases where enlistees lied before entering the service jumped from 142 to 239 between
1995 and 1997.13 Additionally, the Army voided 1,028 recruiting contracts that had not
53
revealed past offenses before entering the Army.14 Lack of a criminal record, however,
does not guarantee an officer or enlisted member possesses good moral character.
A good recruiting process should therefore entail more than ensuring a prospect has a
degree, background check, and a physical. Our all voluntary force, in this time of
downsizing, ought to be composed of individuals possessing high moral standards and
who have demonstrated behavior commensurate with those standards.
An inwardly moral person, one driven by personal convictions, represents the best
basis for moral and ethical behavior. Every commander would love to have people
driven by a keen sense of right and wrong, making the right decisions based upon love of
virtue rather than fear of punishment. These individuals, according to St. Augustine, are
the best of citizens and best of soldiers.15
Reassert the Mission as Raisin d'être
Admiral Jay Lynn Johnson, Chief of Naval Operations, stressed Operational Primacy
as one of four stars of the US Navy16, The author believes it should be the load stone.
Colonel Charles R. Myers, USAF, while discussing the Air Force core values, stated it
well,
As a moral standard, excellence ordinarily means accomplishing the
mission well. It means a determined focus on results. On getting the job
done right the first time and on time. The military function is so important
and so exacting that getting the job done demands more in the military
than it does elsewhere. Mission failure in the military endangers national
survival, and performing the military role requires capabilities and entails
risks not found in other callings…The airman's promise to defend the
nation imposes an ethical obligation to use every effort to accomplish the
mission.17
nothing should affect combat capability. The author is a frustrated Seattle Seahawks fan.
He has waited patiently for 22 years to see them in the Superbowl. He doesn't know how
54
many whites, or blacks or Hispanics or Asians are on the team. He doesn't care. All he
wants to see is a championship team. To be sure the owners are after the same goal
because they are in business to make a profit. The best profit is realized when you win.
There are no women on the Seattle Seahawks. This is not because the owners have
discriminated against women or believe them to be inferior in value. They have selected
the best individuals possible in every position and role regardless of race or gender.
Women do not have the physical strength, speed, and stamina to make that team.
According to General Douglas MacArthur, “In War, there is no substitute for
victory.” The only agenda on a professional football team is victory. The same should
hold true in the military. Why do we now take a different view? Why would we ever
place less capable individuals in demanding combat billets? Why would we ever lower
our standards? Why would we reject absolutes and ethics, advocated by our forebears,
that have proven so effective and their removal so costly? In football you can lose
ballgames. In the military profession, you can lose lives, the war, or even your country.
Notes
1 Colson, Charles W. A Question of Ethics. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996, 10
2 Center for Character Development, United States Air Force Academy Character
Development Manual, July 1994, pg. 10
3 Chief of Staff Core Values Lesson Plan, 1 January, 1997, section 4, pg. 4
4 Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947,
34
5 Ibid., 35
6 New International Version of the Holy Bible, Zondervon Bible Publishers, Grand
Rapids, MI, 1978, Isaiah 5:20
7 White, Jerry E. “Personal Ethics versus Professional Ethics”. Air Power Journal,
Summer 1996, 31, on-line, internet, available from:
http://www.cdsar.af.mil/apj/white.html
8 Barton, David, Education and the Founding Fathers, WallBuilder Press, Aledo,
TX, 1993, 14
9 Toner, James H. The American Military Ethic: A Meditation. New York, Praeger
Publishers, 1992, 207
10 Ibid., 208
55
Notes
11 Barton, David, Keys to Good Government, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1994. 2
12 Montgomery Advertiser, “Army running criminal checks on all recruits”,21 Jan,
1998
13 Ibid., n.p.
14 Ibid., n.p.
15 Aurelius Augustine, City of God, The Modern Library, New York, New York,
1993
16 Admiral Jay Lynn Johnson, Address to the Air Command and Staff College, 20
Jan 98
17 Myers, Charles R. “The Core Values: Framing and Resolving Ethical Issues for
the Air Force”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1997, 48
56
Glossary
ACLU American Civil Liberties Union
ACSC Air Command and Staff
AIDS Acquired Immune Deficiency Disease
AMA American Medical Association
APA American Psychiatric Association
AU Air University
AWACS Airborne Warning and Control System
AWC Air War College
CDC Centers for Disease Control
COG Center of Gravity
CNN Cable News Network
DOD Department of Defense
HIV Human Immune Deficiency Virus (Virus that causes AIDS)
OB/GYN Obstetrics and Gynecology
SAT Scholastic Aptitude Test
SECDEF Secretary of Defense
STD Sexually Transmitted Disease
UCMJ Uniform Code of Military Justice
U.S. United States of America
USAF United States Air Force
USAFA United States Air Force Academy
57
Bibliography
“Adult About Adultery: Don't count on the Rules, but don’t discard Them, Either”.
World Magazine, June 28/July 5, 1997.
“Clinton Loses Moral Standing”, Montgomery Advertiser, Nov 17, 1997.
“Scarlet Letters”. Air Force Times, August 1997.
“Searching for Wisdom in Military”, Montgomery Advertiser, 20 Dec 1997.
“The Command of Truth”. Table Talk magazine, October 1997.
“The Sanctity of human life”, Focus on the Family Magazine, January, 1988.
Air University. Air University Style Guide for Writers and Editors, 1996, n.p. On-line,
Internet, 4 November 1996. Available from http://www.au.af.mil/au/rco/style/.
Augustine, Aurelius. City of God. New York, The Modern Library, 1993.
Barton, David, America's Godly Heritage, Wallbuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1993.
Barton, David, Education and the Founding Fathers, Wallbuilder Press, 1993.
Barton, David, Keys to Good Government, WallBuilder Press, Aledo, TX, 1994.
Bennett, William J. The Index of Leading Cultural Indicators: Facts and Figures on the
State of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
Bork, Robert. Slouching Toward Gommorah: Modern Liberalism and American Decline.
New York, ReganBooks, 1996.
Bradford, M.E., Founding Fathers, University Press of Kansas, 2nd Edition, 1994.
Butler, General George Lee, “Personal Reflections on Integrity from an Old Grad,
Speech to Air Force Academy cadet wing”.
Character Development Manual. United States Air Force Academy, Center for
Character Development, Colorado Springs, CO, July 1994.
Chief of Staff of the Air Force, Core Values Lesson Plan, 1 January 1997.
Closson, Don. How Do You Spell Truth? On-line, internet, available from
http://www.probe.org/spelltru.htm
College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education, AU Press Style Guide for
Writers and Editors. Maxwell, AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, December 1994.
College of Aerospace Doctrine, Research, and Education. AU Press Author Guide.
Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, March 1995.
Colson, Charles W. Kingdoms in Conflict. Grand Rapids, Zondervon Publishing, 1987.
Colson, Charles W. “A Question of Ethics”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996.
Cotton, Ray. Ethics: Pick or Chose? On-line, internet, available from
http://www.probe.org/ethics.htm
Cotton, Ray. The Morality of the West: From Bad to Worse. On-line, internet, available
from: http://www.probe.org/morality.htm
CSAF at Generals Officers Call, Nov 1996 on United States Air Force Core Values,
lesson plan.
58
Eidsmoe, John, Christianity and the Constitution, The Faith of our Founding Fathers,
Baker Book House Company, Grand Rapids, MI, 1995.
Garity, Patrick, J., A Sacred Union of Citizens, George Washington’s Farewell Address
and the American Character, Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, NY, 1996.
Hall, Brian F. and Wagie, David A. “The US Air Force Academy's Cutting-Edge
Character Development Program.” Air Power Journal, Summer 1996.
Heimbach R. Daniel, “The Bible in the Moral War over the Rejection of Homosexuality
by the Military Services: A View from Inside the Pentagon”, Premise Volume II,
Number 7, August 27, 1995, 10, on-line, internet, 18 February, 1998, available from
http://capo.org/premise/95/august/p950710.html
Hunter, Heather. Character Education Institute. San Antonio, TX. on-line, internet,
available from http://www,/CharacterEducation.org
Johnson, Paul. Modern Times: The World from the Twenties to the Nineties. Harper
Collins, 1991.
Kilpatrick, William. Why Johnny Can't Tell Right from Wrong: Moral Illiteracy and the
Case for Character Education. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1992.
Koukl, Gregory, America's Unchristian Beginnings?, Stand to Reason Commentary, n.p.;
on-line, internet, 16 December, 1997, available from
http://str.org/free/commentaries/social_issues/america.htm
Krulak, General Charles C., Commandant of the Marine Corps, Speech to the Women's
Officer Professional Organization, 15 Sept 1995,
http://www.usmc.mil/cmcspeaches.nsf
Lewis, C.S. The Abolition of Man. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1947.
Maginnis, Robert L. The APA Sustains Homosexual Agenda. Insight Magazine, Family
Research Council, http://www.frc.org/frc/insight/1s95a.7hs.html
Military Justice Statistics (Fact Sheet), HQ USAF (AMJAMS), 1976-1997.
Myers, Charles R. “The Core Values: Framing and Resolving Ethical Issues for the Air
Force”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1997.
New American Standard Bible, Broadman and Holman Publishers, Nashville, TN, 1983
News Background Briefing, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 3 June, 1997.
News Briefing, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, “Gender Integrated
Training”, June 3, 1997.
News Briefing, Office of the Assistant Secretary of Defense, 27 June, 1997.
Puryear Dr. Edgar, 19 Stars, A Study in Military Character and Leadership, Presidio
Press, Navoto, CA, 1994
Solomon, Jerry. World Views. On-line, internet, available from
http://www.probe.org/w-views.htm
Sproul, R.C. Lifeviews: Understanding the Ideas that Shape Society Today. Old
Tappan, New Jersey, Feming H. Revell Company, 1986.
State of American Society. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994.
The Chicago Manual of Style. 14th ed. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.
“The Price of Immorality” World Magazine, November 1, 1997.
Tocqueville, Alexis de, Democracy in America, edited by J.P. Mayer and Max Lerner, a
new translation by George Lawrence (New York: Harper and Row, 1966
Toner, James H. “Gallant Atavism”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996.
59
Toner, James H. The American Military Ethic: A Meditation. New York, Praeger
Publishers, 1992.
Toner, James H. The Sword and the Cross: Reflections on Command and Conscience.
New York, Praeger Publishers, 1992.
Toner, James H. True Faith and Allegiance: The Burden of Military Ethics. Lexington,
The University Press, 1995.
Tong, Goh Chok, Social Values, Strategic Environment Course Book, ACSC.
Wade, Rick. The New Absolutes: As Review by Rick Wade. On-line, internet, available
from: http://www.probe.org/new-abso.htm
Wakin, Malham M. “Professional Integrity”. Air Power Journal, Summer 1996.
White, General Jerry E. “Personal Ethics versus Professional Ethics”. Air Power
Journal, Summer 1996.
William Manchester, American Caesar, Douglass MacAruthur, 1880-1964, Banton
Doubleday Dell Publishing, New York, NY, 1978.
Writers & Editors. Maxwell AFB, Ala.: Air University Press, December 1994.
Zimmerman, Carle C. Family and Civilization. New York: Harpers, 1947.
Zink, Lt Col Jeffrey A., Major Patrick R. Tower, “A Hitch-Hiker's Guide to Ethics
Education and Training in The United States Air Force”, Department of Philosophy and
Fine Arts, United States Air Force Academy), research
DISTRIBUTION A:
Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
Air Command and Staff College
Maxwell AFB, Al 36112

A question of faith

Religious bias and coercion undermine military leadership and trust

BY BARRY S. FAGIN AND LT. COL. JAMES E. PARCO
Competent leadership is fundamental to military effectiveness. Although there are
countless definitions of leadership, the simple truth is that leadership is merely
influencing others to act in concert toward achieving a goal that they might not have
achieved on their own. The art of leadership speaks to a leader’s ability to appropriately
influence subordinate behavior in a given situation. To do so, leaders can invoke
several forms power: legitimate, reward, coercive, expert and referent.
Although there is a time and place for rewards, punishment and a rank-based system
for giving orders, the most effective units are traditionally those with leaders who rely
less on sticks and carrots and more on the transformational aspects of leadership.
When leaders rely on expert and referent power to influence subordinate behavior,
research indicates, their units exhibit greater levels of morale and cohesion, which leads
to increased levels of mutual trust.
Leaders who possess knowledge viewed to be relevant and valued by others have
license to exercise power over others who yield to their expertise. One of the more
recent and impassioned calls for increased expertise within the ranks of senior
leadership was put forth by Lt. Col. Paul Yingling on these pages [“A Failure in
Generalship,” May]. Regardless of whether one agrees with his claims, it is hard to
contest his basic premise that expertise matters greatly in a prescriptive approach to
positively influencing follower behavior to achieve a common goal.
But even more so than expert power, it is likely that referent power has the greatest
potential for developing the necessary dependent relationship between a leader and his
followers. Referent power is the cornucopia of values, expectations, training, education
and life experience that is attractive to followers. To the extent that a follower places
value on a particular leader because of who the leader is, the leader has referent power
over the follower. To influence followers, leaders have only their knowledge and intuition
on which to rely to guide them — both largely determined by their education and life
experiences. When encountering a situation in which the leader has neither training nor
experience, he tends to rely on his value system — those ideals from which his beliefs
and actions flow. In many cases, these values are manifest in the type of individual
whom the armed services attracts and are consistent with the core values of the various
military institutions.
We refer to the internalization of these values as character. Most would agree that
character is paramount to the military leader. Men and women of high character have
an advantage because followers typically respect those with high levels of character
more so than those without. In terms of referent power, those with strong character
often have more referent power over followers compared with those perceived to have
lesser character, especially in organizations where culture revolves around articulated
core values. It is important to note that it is not so much the actual measurable
difference in comparing the character of different leaders but rather the follower’s
perception of what sound character is within context of the organizational culture.
If having the right values yields high referent power to an individual, then we could
conclude that if he is properly trained and competent (sufficient expert power) for the
position of responsibility to which he is assigned (level of legitimate power), he has the
potential to positively influence subordinate behavior. To the extent that he can build
trust within his unit, he is poised to be an effective leader. But it also is important to note
that referent power isn’t a possession to be obtained by a leader, but rather a
dependency created by the follower. This is a monumental aspect for effective leaders
to comprehend because of the great responsibility they have to satisfy the dependency
in an appropriate fashion. The successful leader will note what behaviors are
appropriate and inappropriate in terms of their organizational — and constitutional —
responsibilities as leaders.
So why do otherwise effective leaders fail? In the most ambiguous of situations, it is an
individual’s character that informs her of how to behave in the course of influencing
others. Particularly in situations that have ethical dimensions, possessing the “right
values” and “right character” is of extreme importance so leaders may rely on “good
judgment” at critical moments. In times of great crisis, it is unlikely that leaders will have
had specific training on what course of action to take — particularly in the presence of
ambiguity or when facing ethical dilemmas. It is at such times that leaders rely on their
character and values to make the decisions they believe to be best. But from what are
an individual’s ethical values derived? Again, education and experience; and for many,
this is where religious training might enter the fray. Sometimes the best-intentioned
people invoke behaviors based on tenets of their religion, even if unknowingly, because
they fundamentally believe them to be the best course of action.
A classic example emerged during the late 1990s and early 2000s, when the Air Force
Academy was working through a multitude of sexual harassment issues. Some argued
that the genesis of the problems was a “failure of leadership,” and others claimed it was
because the academy had lost sight of its values. Not long afterward, the “Bring Me
Men” ramp was changed to the “Core Values” ramp and new leaders were inserted to
bring the institution through the dark period by reinstating its values. From a power
perspective, the institution placed importance on the need for its leaders to have
relevant expertise and strong character to correct the issues at hand. More than
anything, the institution needed a leader — an exemplar — with tremendous referent
power to turn the tide and rebuild the trust within the organization. By bringing in
commanders and staff who were regarded as exceptionally moral, the organizational
climate that was claimed to be responsible for the sexual harassment scandals was
“fixed,” but it was then replaced with another organizational climate that turned out to be
conducive to religious intolerance.
ONE PROBLEM SOLVED, A NEW ONE CREATED
Well-meaning people doing what they believed was best “fixed” sexual harassment at
the cost of creating an entirely new problem. This was no more a “failure of leadership”
than a brick is guilty of sinking. The real failure was likely not having sufficient
organizational structures in place to preserve the wide-reaching expertise needed to
collectively navigate the institution through its more challenging periods. As
organizational expertise waned in light of excessive personnel turnover, the stress on
the institution became too much to withstand. Not only did it become evident that
policies, procedures and training were lacking, but more disturbingly, few individuals in
the organization who could have directed and helped manage the change remained at
the institution to recognize the deficiencies and make pre-emptive course corrections.
Absent the sufficient relevant expertise, many leaders relied on their character to gain
the trust and respect of their followers, while also doing what they could to strengthen
the character of their followers. Whether intentional or not, a climate conducive to
religious proselytization emerged.
Such examples are neither unique nor confined to the Air Force Academy or even the
Air Force at large. Over the past several years, the popular press has reported on more
than one general officer who has articulated his value system in a way that has created
controversy. Appearing in uniform and speaking before a religious group in 2003, Army
Lt. Gen. William Boykin claimed that Islamic extremists hated the U.S. because “we’re a
Christian nation, because our foundation and our roots are Judeo-Christians ... and the
enemy is a guy named Satan.” Upon investigation, it was revealed that these weren’t
flippant comments made out of context.
Ten years earlier, the record showed that Boykin told an audience about a particular
Army battle against a Muslim warlord in Somalia: “I knew my God was bigger than his. I
knew that my God was a real God and his was an idol.” Last summer, the Defense
Department Inspector General’s Office released a report finding that seven officers,
including four generals, engaged in misconduct by allowing an evangelical Christian
group to come into their Pentagon offices and film them in uniform using their official
titles to bear witness to Jesus Christ. Clearly, the issue at hand is what the criteria
should be for superiors who wish to expand their referent power to satisfy the
dependencies created in their followers, particularly when one’s personal religious
beliefs come into play.
In the writings of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison manifested in the Virginia
Statute for Religious Freedom in 1786, which formed the basis of the First Amendment
of the Constitution, two things are clear. First, they anticipated the tension between the
Free Exercise Clause and the Establishment Clause. The passionate and intense
debate with regard to government’s role in religion (and vice versa) that was evidently
common in their day is relatively unchanged more than two centuries later. And second,
they apparently understood the need to frame the church-state debate in the simplest
terms: There should “be a high wall” between the two.
Both men recognized that our individual civil rights should have no dependence on our
religious opinions any more than our opinions in chemistry or calculus. In Jefferson’s
words, “believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and
his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the
legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate
with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that
their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church
and State.”
Similarly, James Madison believed that “an alliance or coalition” between government
and religion “cannot be too carefully guarded against.” “Every new and successful
example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of
importance,” he wrote. “Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the
less they are mixed together.”
The history books and legal archives are replete with supporting facts and court
decisions, but the message is the same as Jefferson and Madison intended. The two
shouldn’t mix, but when they do, beware.
Thus, the criteria for what a leader can and cannot do in terms of advocating religious
beliefs in the capacity of his official position seems fairly clear. This is why every officer
of the U.S. armed forces takes a single oath of allegiance to one thing: not to the
president or to the nation generally, but to the U.S. Constitution. The liberty and
freedoms for which our forefathers fought so valiantly depend on its survival and
enforcement. However, as illustrated by the popular press stories alleging “religious
misconduct” by senior leaders, it is clear that some individual leaders genuinely face a
dilemma between upholding their constitutional oath and adhering to the mandates of
their religious faith tradition.
This dilemma can probably be best understood by considering the unique challenges
that evangelical faith traditions face in a military environment. On the one hand,
members of the military live with the fact that they could be asked to surrender their
lives at any moment. Those who see combat face life-and-death issues on a regular
basis and are forced to grapple with the fundamental questions of existence in a way
those they protect likely will never face.
This means that for many, if not most, in the military, religion is part and parcel of their
original decision to serve, their loyalty to country and family, and their source of strength
in times of great stress. Although patriotism and loyalty to the Constitution are the only
common requirements for military service, it’s unrealistic to expect the spiritual beliefs of
soldiers to vanish once they put on a uniform. Indeed, the explicit enforcement of such a
requirement prior to enlistment would likely cause the armed forces to shrink to
unacceptable levels. But a genuine danger exists for military organizations when their
leaders cross the line of acceptable religious expression, particularly when on duty or
while in uniform.
The fact that we observe instances of religious misconduct is telling, but not entirely
surprising. For leaders who yearn to be increasingly effective, we should expect them to
use all the tools available to them to gain the trust and respect of those under them. And
it seems apparent from the noted examples that these leaders used the appeal of
religious convictions to generate referent power among those around them. For those
followers who share the religious convictions of the leader, the act of promoting one’s
religiosity may very well increase the referent power of the leader dramatically, and in
light of the religious demographics of the armed forces, such an act would likely appeal
to the majority. But quite the opposite effect occurs with those in the minority when they
are denied the trust and respect of their leader so that their perception, well-founded or
not, is that they are regarded as second-class citizens, service members and human
beings.
AN OFFICER’S OATH
Leaders’ statements in the form of mere platitudes about respect, dignity and teamwork
in the face of such facts are insufficient to reinstate referent power. Instead, a direct and
forceful affirmation of military service is required: All men and women in uniform operate
under the same presumption of high ethical standards, loyalty, patriotism and integrity,
regardless of professed religious belief or lack thereof. To help eliminate the evident
lack of trust created by the events over the past few years of pervasive religiosity, we
would like to see all officers in positions of command publicly attest to the truth of the
statement below. We call it the “Oath of Equal Character” (previously published in The
Humanist, September). We believe that a public affirmation of this oath would go a long
way toward removing any doubts followers may have about how they might be viewed.
And for every leader who utters it forthrightly and honestly, it would go a long way
toward building on the foundation by which they wield referent power over all those in
their command.
The Oath of Equal Character
(Note: We have written the oath from a Christian’s perspective but would expect
“Muslim,” “Jew,” “atheist,” “Buddhist,” “Hindu,” “Wiccan,” “nontheist” or any other chosen
identification to be used as applicable.)
“I am a <Christian>. I will not use my position to influence individuals or the chain of
command to adopt <Christianity>, because I believe that soldiers who are not
<Christians> are just as trustworthy, honorable and good as those who are. Their
standards are as high as mine. Their integrity is beyond reproach. They will not lie,
cheat or steal, and they will not fail when called upon to serve. I trust them completely
and without reservation. They can trust me in exactly the same way.”
It does no good to say, as some clearly will, that the above states the obvious. Our
interaction with military members from non-evangelical, nonmajority faith traditions tells
us that they believe their character is impugned on a regular basis because of their
differing belief systems. If something like the statement above had been articulated
clearly and forcefully from the senior leaders under fire, the religious climate of many
subunits of the armed forces would be very different — and better — today.
Consider, for example, how the following situations might have been different had the
Oath of Equal Character been involved:
å In 2004, fliers promoting Mel Gibson’s “The Passion of the Christ” were placed on
tables at the Air Force Academy’s dining facility during the mandatory lunch formation.
å PowerPoint slides were shown at mandatory briefings routinely promoting
organizationally endorsed Bible studies or “Thoughts for the Day” from the Christian
New Testament, even in the presence of allied international officers who do not share
these beliefs.
å What if, instead of asserting the “right to evangelize the unchurched” — as the Air
Force chaplaincy did in a July 12, 2005, New York Times article — the Air Force
chaplaincy had publicly endorsed the Oath of Equal Character?
It is imperative for leaders to prescriptively consider their own actions and estimate their
effect on those that they intend to influence in a proper manner. Leaders who attempt to
increase their influence over subordinates by promoting their religiosity risk destroying
trust within the rank and file over whom they preside and, more disturbingly, risk
abdicating their Oath of Allegiance. Even if being a good leader is independent of being
a good follower, it is of paramount importance for leaders to continually get inside the
hearts and minds of their subordinates, shed their biases and perspectives, and instead
genuinely attempt to see the world through the eyes of those who yearn to be
dependent upon them for the wisdom, guidance and support to do what is required to
remain the most effective fighting force in defense of our nation’s freedom. As leaders
foster dependencies among their followers, it also is paramount that such power not be
abused.
Our armed forces have grappled with racial and gender discrimination over the decades
and continue to strive to provide every military member the equal opportunity to
succeed. But in the face of different belief systems, we must recognize the need to
maintain the plurality of belief systems within our organizations and refrain from taking
any actions that might adversely influence followers to believe differently than they may
otherwise and independently choose.
The only permissible discrimination in the armed forces is in the ability to do a job.
There can be no other. Beliefs remain a right and a privilege, and freedom of
conscience is among the oldest and most precious freedoms enshrined in the history of
America’s founding. But as members of the armed forces, we have all taken an Oath of
Allegiance to the Constitution of the United States. Those who believe that those who
don’t share their religious beliefs are less likely to have good character should leave the
military and seek another career. Exercising referent power over followers by using
one’s faith tradition in the capacity of a governmental official is subversive to our
constitutional values