Uniqueness of Military Strategic Leadership
...strument of defending the values critical to the American way of life, curb their own exercise of some of these freedoms. Soldiers accept restrictions on the liberty to speak. Soldiers refrain from politics and cannot hold political office while on active duty. Soldiers accept restrictions on their freedom of movement and personal preferences to the good of the military unit and the country. The military fosters conformity, obedience and subordination of the individual to the unit. American society generally fosters individualism and the freedoms and rights of the individual. Living in a military culture comes at a great cost. For example, all active-duty soldiers for example, undergo annual drug testing, extramarital affairs result in charges of adultery under the Uniform Code of Military Justice; racial or sexual discrimination is taboo and there is zero tolerance for dishonesty. Lastly, all soldiers from the rank of General to a Private have a chain of command that enforces standards of conduct. Consequently, the Army is virtually drug-free and enjoys far better race relations than any other major social institution in America. Society expects and requires integrity of its military leaders. Integrity is a primary element of military professionalism and the hallmark of a professional soldier. Without it, the profession loses the trust of the society it serves and lack of public trust ultimately threatens the Nation’s ability to maintain the force levels necessary for peace and security. In other words, a lack or perceived lack of integrity can have a devastating effect on the military profession and its relationship with civilian society. Leadership from the top is the single most important factor in creating and maintaining a moral and ethical climate in any organization. To illustrate the point that society is faltering morally and ethically, lets compare President Bush’s moral and ethical behavior to that of former President Clinton’s immoral and unethical behavior during his sex scandal. Clinton’s misbehavior resulted in the military dismissing him as irrelevant. On the other hand, society for the most part expressed little moral outrage and in some cases attempted to justify and defend his behavior. Strategic leaders must be skilled in explaining the conduct of their forces within the framework of the just war criteria. The 21st century environment and the changing nature of warfare present new challenges to the established moral and legal traditions of the just war theory. Using the attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center as an example, Dr. Martin L. Cook feels that attacks of such a vast scale, made directly on US soil by non-state actors poses important new questions for military leaders and planners charged with conceiving an appropriate and effective response. Forged almost entirely in the context of interstate war, just war traditions must adapt to the new and unforeseen character of a “war against terrorism.” Strategic leaders have two significant viewpoints to provide them with a way of measuring where their moral thinking falls with respect to overall society. The first is the Kohlberg scale of moral development. The Kohlberg scale helps explain why some people have higher moral standards than others do. Through encounters with "moral dilemmas,” strategic leaders can test their beliefs against those of others and thereby learn which belief yields a more acceptable result. The second viewpoint is that of Dr. Anthony Cordesman. Dr. Cordesman emphasizes that strategic leaders must be aware of the ethical perception of their actions. They must attempt to strike a moral and ethical balance in the application and justification for using military force. To help strategic leaders strike a moral and ethical balance he stresses the following during the just war decision-making process: (1) Has the case been publicly made for war, have we convinced the people...