|
|
|
The topic of the third annual U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Foundation Ethics Symposium, conducted from Nov. 7-10 at Fort Leavenworth, was “Applying the Professional Military Ethic Across the Spectrum of Operations.”
Panelists and presenters consisted primarily of leaders from academic and military backgrounds and focused on the underlying role of ethics across the profession of military service. While the backgrounds and beliefs of presenters varied, a few common themes of the conference were evident. These themes included the desire to do what is right and the importance of ethics-based decisions.
The symposium began with the inauguration of Dr. John Mark Mattox as the first General Hugh Shelton Chair of Ethics at the Command and General Staff College. Mattox retired from the Army as a colonel. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University.
Throughout the week, conference attendees had the opportunity to attend plenary sessions on topics ranging from “Genocide and Rwanda” to “The Relevance of the Just War Tradition.” Each session consisted of a thought-provoking presentation followed by candid and meaningful discussion between attendees and presenters. Panel discussions were conducted on controversial topics, including “The Use and Limits of Military Forces” and the underlying characteristics of “Mass Atrocities.”
One of the most enlightening aspects of the conference proved to be the small group break-out sessions covering presentations on scholarly papers with titles including: “Resolving the Professional Identity Crisis: Understanding Professions, Professionals, and Professionalism,” “The Dilemma of Competing Loyalties in the Profession of Arms,” and “REAL Lessons Learned for Leaders after Years of War.”
From the initial panel discussion, it was obvious the conference was going to provide ample opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Panel members presented substantially differing views of the “just war” theory and the underlying rationale for when and why a nation should resort to force. The arguments were primarily centered on customary international law principles of just war in comparison to the more commonly accepted responsibility to protect.
Dr. Brian Orend, director of International Studies at the University of Waterloo, Canada, first discussed arguably the most commonly accepted purpose for use of force: self-defense. He then discussed a more expansive view of the traditional Jus Ad Bellum (Latin for the justice of going to war) principles including anticipatory self-defense and armed humanitarian intervention. He argued morality does not end at our national borders and action that is morally appropriate is within the national interest.
In response, Dr. Paul Robinson, assistant director of the Center for Security Studies, University of Ottawa, argued that the responsibility to protect is “nonsense” and that war, by its very nature, is inherently ill suited to meet policy objectives. Robinson also noted the fiscal and moral costs associated with waging war and presented statistics comparing military action against more humanitarian based aid. Overall, panel members made solid points for their respective positions and did their best to get the audience thinking about current U.S. policy and the ethical and moral principles contained therein.
Another highlight of the conference was a session presented by leaders from the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic on current initiatives, research, programs and products available to improve the force. Col. Sean Hannah, CAPE director, provided an update on the Army Profession Campaign, which began in January of this year. He noted there have been multiple initiatives implemented as a result of ongoing assessments from the last 10 years of sustained conflict. He outlined the tenets of the Army profession and detailed the three components of professional certification — character, competence and commitment. He said the Army profession includes both military and civilian professionals and that not everyone would be eligible for professional certification.
Maj. Pete Jennings, CAPE research director, outlined ongoing efforts to include moral and human dimensions into scientific research methods. Leveraging civilian expertise from numerous academic and professional organizations, the center has been able to focus on a more thorough understanding of the overall practice of leadership. Through analyzing leadership challenges, adaptability and responses to stressful situations, CAPE researchers are finding ways to enhance standards and discipline among leaders while focusing on commitment to Soldiers and building trust within units.
CAPE also develops instructional programs and products to reinforce the Army’s professional identity. These products are currently being incorporated into ROTC, basic training and Warrior Leaders Course curricula. Mobile training teams conduct Army professional ethics training throughout the Army. CAPE products include training simulations and values-based ethical scenarios.
The symposium presented an opportunity to explore the ethical challenges common to the Army profession. The experiences and diversity of those in attendance coupled with the subject matter expertise and in-depth knowledge of those presenting resulted in rich and meaningful discussions that offered something for everyone.
The importance of ethics in the military profession is evident in all we do. As military professionals we are standard bearers for others to emulate, and our decisions are often subject to scrutiny.
Accordingly, strong ethical principles must be embedded into every aspect of our personal and professional lives. Continued exposure to ethics training opportunities for mid-grade military leaders such as this conference, combined with implementation of CAPE resources provides an excellent foundation from which to build and ultimately will help shape our future fighting forces.
Editor’s note: Maj. Rob Abbott is an Intermediate Level Education student at the Command and General Staff College.
The topic of the third annual U.S. Army Command and General Staff College Foundation Ethics Symposium, conducted from Nov. 7-10 at Fort Leavenworth, was “Applying the Professional Military Ethic Across the Spectrum of Operations.”
Panelists and presenters consisted primarily of leaders from academic and military backgrounds and focused on the underlying role of ethics across the profession of military service. While the backgrounds and beliefs of presenters varied, a few common themes of the conference were evident. These themes included the desire to do what is right and the importance of ethics-based decisions.
The symposium began with the inauguration of Dr. John Mark Mattox as the first General Hugh Shelton Chair of Ethics at the Command and General Staff College. Mattox retired from the Army as a colonel. He is a senior research fellow at the Center for the Study of Weapons of Mass Destruction, National Defense University.
Throughout the week, conference attendees had the opportunity to attend plenary sessions on topics ranging from “Genocide and Rwanda” to “The Relevance of the Just War Tradition.” Each session consisted of a thought-provoking presentation followed by candid and meaningful discussion between attendees and presenters. Panel discussions were conducted on controversial topics, including “The Use and Limits of Military Forces” and the underlying characteristics of “Mass Atrocities.”
One of the most enlightening aspects of the conference proved to be the small group break-out sessions covering presentations on scholarly papers with titles including: “Resolving the Professional Identity Crisis: Understanding Professions, Professionals, and Professionalism,” “The Dilemma of Competing Loyalties in the Profession of Arms,” and “REAL Lessons Learned for Leaders after Years of War.”
From the initial panel discussion, it was obvious the conference was going to provide ample opportunity for meaningful dialogue. Panel members presented substantially differing views of the “just war” theory and the underlying rationale for when and why a nation should resort to force. The arguments were primarily centered on customary international law principles of just war in comparison to the more commonly accepted responsibility to protect.
Dr. Brian Orend, director of International Studies at the University of Waterloo, Canada, first discussed arguably the most commonly accepted purpose for use of force: self-defense. He then discussed a more expansive view of the traditional Jus Ad Bellum (Latin for the justice of going to war) principles including anticipatory self-defense and armed humanitarian intervention. He argued morality does not end at our national borders and action that is morally appropriate is within the national interest.
In response, Dr. Paul Robinson, assistant director of the Center for Security Studies, University of Ottawa, argued that the responsibility to protect is “nonsense” and that war, by its very nature, is inherently ill suited to meet policy objectives. Robinson also noted the fiscal and moral costs associated with waging war and presented statistics comparing military action against more humanitarian based aid. Overall, panel members made solid points for their respective positions and did their best to get the audience thinking about current U.S. policy and the ethical and moral principles contained therein.
Another highlight of the conference was a session presented by leaders from the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic on current initiatives, research, programs and products available to improve the force. Col. Sean Hannah, CAPE director, provided an update on the Army Profession Campaign, which began in January of this year. He noted there have been multiple initiatives implemented as a result of ongoing assessments from the last 10 years of sustained conflict. He outlined the tenets of the Army profession and detailed the three components of professional certification — character, competence and commitment. He said the Army profession includes both military and civilian professionals and that not everyone would be eligible for professional certification.
Maj. Pete Jennings, CAPE research director, outlined ongoing efforts to include moral and human dimensions into scientific research methods. Leveraging civilian expertise from numerous academic and professional organizations, the center has been able to focus on a more thorough understanding of the overall practice of leadership. Through analyzing leadership challenges, adaptability and responses to stressful situations, CAPE researchers are finding ways to enhance standards and discipline among leaders while focusing on commitment to Soldiers and building trust within units.
CAPE also develops instructional programs and products to reinforce the Army’s professional identity. These products are currently being incorporated into ROTC, basic training and Warrior Leaders Course curricula. Mobile training teams conduct Army professional ethics training throughout the Army. CAPE products include training simulations and values-based ethical scenarios.
The symposium presented an opportunity to explore the ethical challenges common to the Army profession. The experiences and diversity of those in attendance coupled with the subject matter expertise and in-depth knowledge of those presenting resulted in rich and meaningful discussions that offered something for everyone.
The importance of ethics in the military profession is evident in all we do. As military professionals we are standard bearers for others to emulate, and our decisions are often subject to scrutiny.
Accordingly, strong ethical principles must be embedded into every aspect of our personal and professional lives. Continued exposure to ethics training opportunities for mid-grade military leaders such as this conference, combined with implementation of CAPE resources provides an excellent foundation from which to build and ultimately will help shape our future fighting forces.
Editor’s note: Maj. Rob Abbott is an Intermediate Level Education student at the Command and General Staff College.
