Naval
Academy Ethics and
the
Constitutional Paradigm
Midshipman
Matthew Linsley
17JAN07
It is an annual summer spectacle at
the United States Naval Academy
in Annapolis, MD.
Approximately 1200 young men and women, most less than a month out of high
school, hug their parents one last time, clutch their six pairs of socks and
underwear and walk through the cold, unforgiving doors of Alumni Hall. Almost immediately, the new plebes are handed
their personal copy of Reef Points, a
small book that will become their guide through the jungle that is plebe
summer, and instructed to memorize the mission statement of the United States Naval Academy. Within mere minutes, a confrontational
upper-class midshipman will undoubtedly order them to recite that mission
verbatim. Even at this early stage,
having not even taken their oath of office yet, that plebe will tentatively
respond, “Sir, the mission of the United States Naval Academy is to develop midshipmen
morally, mentally, and physically….”
Of
these three areas of development the Academy seeks to foment, two of them are
relatively unambiguous. It is a simple
matter to develop one’s self mentally or physically. It is quite often a simple matter of doing
push-ups or opening a chemistry textbook.
And in these two areas, few would contest the quality of the Academy’s
training regimen as Annapolis
regularly produces exceptional athletes and scholars. It is in the moral development of midshipman,
the least quantifiable or measurable of the three qualities, that the Naval Academy
ahs frequently fallen short. After a
seemingly endless series of ethics scandals in the early 1990’s both at the
Academy and in the fleet critics openly suggested that the Academy was
immersing midshipmen in an “ethically corrupting system.”[1] Out of these crises and subsequent criticism,
grew the extensive ethics department the Naval Academy
currently houses. Today, midshipmen
primarily receive ethics training through a required course entitled “Ethics
and Moral Reasoning for the Naval Leader.”
Taught by a unique combination of military and civilian lecturers, the
course challenges midshipmen to engage primary sources written by the likes of
Immanuel Kant, Aristotle, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls. Where the course varies considerably from
established civilian ethics courses is in the unique applications of military
ethics, some even developed at the Naval
Academy, that help
midshipmen deal with the challenges of prioritization. The course culminates by asking midshipmen to
apply the various ethical frameworks examined during the semester to a current
ethical military dilemma and conclude by making a moral judgment on the
issue. Midshipmen tend to discover that
almost any action can be justified by one, though frequently several, of the
frameworks taught in the course. The
following is an excerpt from this author’s own essay as he construed classical
ethical frameworks to support both sides of the argument over embedding
reported with U.S. troops
during the 2003 U.S.-led invasion of Iraq:
Specifically,
embedding entailed integrating civilian reporters into U.S. ground
units throughout every stage of the invasion.
Beyond an obvious caveat to “omit place names or troop numbers,” the
media was given virtually unrestricted access and journalistic liberty in their
coverage. While the desire for
transparency in military operations is obvious, given that many U.S. military
leaders felt, “Truth is our best defense,” the embedding of reporters opened up
an ethical dilemma to which no easy solution was found.[2] The risks associated with such an ambitious
program are readily apparent. For Iraqi
military leaders looking for intelligence on U.S. troop conditions or tactics, a
television tuned to CNN or Fox News was an invaluable tool. Moreover, this increased vulnerability of
American troops could pose a serious threat to morale. Embedding is a trade-off by its very
nature. Without a doubt, the Pentagon compromised
the secrecy of the invasion. But they
did so under the assumption that would receive something far greater in
return. By making their tactics and
conduct so transparent, the military hoped to allay any distrust still
lingering from the legacy of Vietnam. As an additional bonus, news crews were on
hand to capture compelling moments on film for the world to see that served as
powerful foils to Iraqi propaganda and false accusations. In essence, the debate over embedding is
merely a new manifestation of a controversy that has raged in the United States
since its conception. On its most
fundamental level, the struggle between security and liberty is a challenge of
prioritization. For by their very
nature, liberty and security are like oil and water, two substances that are
inherently at odds with each other. The
tenuous and highly volatile history between these two outwardly contradictory
desires has oft resembled that of a pendulum as dominance has repeatedly
oscillated from one extreme to the other. Americans must decide where to draw
the line between the freedoms promised by the first amendment and the need for
military secrecy. In the 2003 invasion
of Iraq,
Pentagon officials favored liberty over security, and they were morally right
in their actions.
Utilitarianism,
in the simplistic form advocated by Jeremy Bentham, determines the rightness or
wrongness of an act simply by the goodness or badness it promotes. Essentially, the end justifies the means. So, if the U.S.
military has the capability of winning the war in Iraq while minimizing casualties by
executing operations in a shroud of secrecy, then that is the morally correct
action. Additionally, it would be ideal
if the public could be led to believe that it was being given full and unbiased
coverage of the war. While this may seem
like an immoral application of realpolitik, it ultimately leaves all parties
involved happy. In the eyes of Bentham,
this is the ultimate goal of utilitarianism.
His hedonic calculus merely considers seven variables related to a
painful or pleasurable experience.
Maximizing the security of the troops while lying (successfully) to the
American public would maximize the happiness of all involved. Still, the possible negative consequences
must be weighed. If the public comes to
realize that it is being manipulated, the backlash and loss of support could be
incalculably devastating. This reveals a
fundamental difficulty with utilitarianism, that it is virtually impossible to
see all the possible consequences of actions.
Arguably, this was the cause of the United
States defeat in Vietnam. It remains unclear whether the military would
be any better at spinning information to the public today than it was roughly
thirty years ago. Still, it seems clear
that in the age of twenty-four hour news coverage the media is infinitely more
thorough and invasive in its reporting than it was thirty years ago. Ironically, some have argued that the
military, in a very utilitarian manner, was able to effectively manipulate the
media in the invasion of Iraq
as the practice of embedding compromised the objectivity of American
journalists, forcing them to view the war through the eyes of the U.S.
military. This effectively reduced the
media to little more than “cheerleaders on the team bus.”[3]
In
contrast, a far more nuanced form of utilitarianism championed by John Stuart
Mill would clearly favor embedding.
While it remains possible that some troops could be compromised by the
decreased secrecy, Mill maintains that nobleness of character generally
benefits the entire world. In this case,
it is clear that transparency of military actions is a far nobler practice than
keeping the American public in the dark.
While utilitarianism is admittedly difficult for humans to employ as it
requires absolute objectivity, a true utilitarian would consider all the
possible consequences. For example, if
the military situation in Iraq came to resemble the quagmire in Vietnam decades
earlier, many American soldiers would die unnecessarily if the media was unable
to report and reveal the futility of the situation to the American public. In essence, the media is a crucial and
necessary check on the tremendous power of the military. John Stuart Mill would recognize this and
undoubtedly condone embedding.
Natural
Law Theory, as espoused by the revered St. Aquinas, could be used to denounce
embedding. The most basic test for
morality under Natural Law Theory is whether or not an action encourages or
discourages the natural inclinations of humans.
One of the most basic of these inclinations is the preservation of
life. Since embedding could likely lead
to an increased number of deaths, it is plainly in direct opposition to this
natural inclination. Because decreased
transparency is a result of not embedding troops, the doctrine of double effect
must be utilized. Since the act of
protecting troops is in itself good, the bad effect of decreased transparency
can’t be avoided, the bad effect is an unfortunate side effect rather than a
mere means, and the two effects are more or less proportional, a policy of not
embedding troops would pass the doctrine of double effect and be deemed morally
acceptable.
Adversely,
Natural Law Theory could also be employed to approve the embedding
practice. The desire for transparency of
military actions is in accordance with the natural inclination of humans
towards knowledge. As stated previously,
the doctrine of double effect must be applied in this situation. Still, a debate could easily arise over the
fourth condition that the good effect and bad effect be proportional. One could argue, and rightfully so, that the
suppression of freedom of speech and the first amendment is not proportional
and is, in fact, far more important than the desire for military secrecy and
increased troop safety.
Another
moral theory to be applied was delineated by the famed philosopher Immanuel
Kant in the Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Kantian ethics, and indeed all deontological
philosophies, demand an unwavering dedication to truth telling. Therefore, Kant would have unequivocally
supported a policy of embedding reporters.
His famed categorical imperative also supports this as no rational beings
could will lying to the public to be a universal law. Kant’s obsession with the truth is especially
relevant as lying to the public would undoubtedly rob it of its autonomy. Since Kantian ethics is solely concerned with
intentions rather than consequences, embedded reporters would be faultless if
they unintentionally facilitated the deaths of American troops.
Kant’s
emphasis on intentions could also reach an interesting conclusion on U.S. actions in Vietnam. While it is debatable, one could argue,
especially in the beginning, that the United
States had admirable intentions in Vietnam. Likewise, the military officers who were
distorting the truth for the media probably also had the good intentions of
encouraging a war they saw as just. The
problem with this moral reasoning is that they viewed their duty as being to
the mission rather than the truth.
Faced
with the challenge of teaching midshipmen to make ethical decisions with these
easily-construed frameworks, the Naval
Academy teaches what it
refers to as the “Constitutional Paradigm.”
While technically encapsulating no new knowledge or thought, the
Constitutional Paradigm provides military leaders with a simple tool to help
them not lose sight of the larger concepts and ideals they have sworn to
uphold. The paradigm was developed by Col. Paul E. Roush, USMC (ret), a 1957
graduate of the Naval Academy, while teaching ethics in Annapolis and has since become a staple of
midshipmen education. Though used below
to categorically support the embedding program, its functionality can extend to
all levels of military operations, whether that entails ground combat in Iraq or global
strategic planning. What follows below
is a second excerpt from this author’s essay in which he uses the
constitutional paradigm to reach a definitive conclusion on embedding:
The most striking
argument in favor of embedding reporters comes from the constitutional
paradigm. The paradigm is particularly
useful in this situation because rather than simply identifying actions as
right or wrong, it provides a clear prioritization of the conflicting loyalties. The need for operational secrecy, while
undoubtedly a worthwhile concern, would fall under the category of
“mission.” Meanwhile, the need for
transparency falls under the category of “Constitution.” The U.S. Constitution, the supreme law of the
land, and ultimate guiding doctrine of the United States guarantees that
“Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the
press.” This is unequivocal. No one in the United States, not even the
President or the military, can violate this fundamental right. And in the constitutional paradigm,
“Constitution” is one step above “mission.”
The constitutional paradigm would clearly endorse the practice of
embedding.
Despite
these differing conclusions, I still unequivocally maintain that embedding
reporters in the invasion of Iraq
was morally correct. The debate that
ensued as a result was both inevitable and healthy. But in a democracy, leaders must be held
accountable for their actions. For this
reason, a free and uncensored press is absolutely necessary to the vitality of
a democracy. Without that press, a
democracy can become tyrannical just as easily as a dictatorship can. The founding fathers recognized this at the
original drafting of the Constitution and the principles behind it have
remained unchanged in the years since.
What
makes this debate infinitely nuanced and complex is that it is a debate between
two admirable virtues: liberty and security.
Therefore, any absolutist framework can be easily construed to support
either side. Even utilitarianism, the
only consequentialist framework examined, ultimately failed to be
conclusive. The result of these
inconclusive applications of frameworks seems to be a sort of boggy moral
relativism where there can be no definitive moral judgment. But rather, an irrefutable conclusion can
only be ascertained through an ordering of priorities; a defined preference
between liberty and security. Luckily
for this nation’s military leaders, they found just such an ordering of
priorities in the constitutional paradigm.
With that reasoning, they were able to correctly identify that the
Constitution and the liberties it assures all Americans cannot be ethically
abridged because of the mere need for secrecy in executing a mission. The military deserves to be commended for its
remarkable growth and increased maturity in the years since the debacle in
Vietnam.
Even
as the United States was in its infancy Ben Franklin observed, “They that can
give up essential liberty to
obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."[4] The debate over embedding is merely the
latest materialization of this struggle that Ben Franklin identified so many
years ago. Embedding does compromise
operational security to some extent, but it does so for something far greater
and far more necessary: liberty. As
Pentagon spokeswoman Victoria Clarke came to realize, “You can either embrace
transparency or you’re going to get run over by it.”[5]
While
Col. Roush’s Constitutional Paradigm is by no means the ultimate solution to
the problem of military ethics, it does, as illustrated above, represent an
invaluable tool for service members struggling to make ethical decisions under
constraints of stress and time. The
Paradigm has become a central feature of the Academy’s ethics instruction as it
is, at least for most midshipmen, a more practical and realistic decision
making model than Kantian of Aristotelian thought. Other service academies, as well as the
entire U.S. military, would be wise to consider integrating the Constitutional
Paradigm into their own ethics programs.
NOTES