The Army Ethic and Moral Injury
The Army Ethic and Moral Injury
SGM Noah J. Rogness
United State Sergeants Major Academy
SMC-DL Class 46
SGM Robbie G. Sierra
31 December 202
The Army Ethic and Moral Injury
The Army Ethic is a multifaceted tool used to unite Soldiers from all backgrounds and walks of life under one umbrella. Throughout the past twenty years of combat in Afghanistan and Iraq, the Army Ethic remains a priority of the military profession. The research of this paper will use qualitative means to examine the Army Ethic and the potential for emotional injury due to a violation of a person's ethos or moral belief system, or moral injury.
Research Problem
The Army Ethic is an essential twine woven within the fabric of the United States Army. From learning the Army Values, Warrior Ethos, and the Soldier’s Creed the first days of basic training, Soldiers begin to build an ethical and moral foundation for their career. As a Soldier’s career progresses, the Army Ethic remains. However, how a Soldier applies or experiences the Army Ethic evolves with each leadership position and combat mission.
Throughout time, the Army has experienced challenges in educating and fostering the Army Ethic. The Department of the Army (2014) addresses the omission and failure to articulate the Army Ethic in an accessible and understandable manner (p. 1). Despite efforts to update doctrine and policy, challenges remain in applying the Army Ethic in training and combat.
The challenges of educating and nurturing the Army Ethic in Soldiers go beyond the words of the Soldier’s Creed, “I will always place the mission first, I will never leave a fallen comrade, I will never quit, I will never accept defeat.” Combat is the arena where the Army Ethic and personal morals collide. Without appropriate training and ongoing support, the Soldier will become vulnerable to what is known today as moral injury.
Many soldiers are unaware of the term moral injury, nor do they understand the symptoms that accompany a moral injury. Psychologists continue to wrestle with a singular definition of moral injury. However, it was Jonathan Shay who originally coined the term in his book, Achilles in Vietnam. Shay defines moral injury as “the psychological, social, and physiological results of a betrayal of ‘what's right’ by an authority in a high-stakes situation” (Shay, 2014, p. 182). At the core of Shay’s definition is a matter of trust. At the center of the Soldier and leader relationship is trust. Whether it is the leader or Soldier that violates the Army Ethic or deeply held morals, there is an aspect of trust eroded. This erosion of trust becomes a readiness issue for the United States Army and its ability to fight and win the nation’s wars.
Research Questions and Strategy
For this research paper, a qualitative lens will guide examining the topic of the Army Ethic and moral injury within the United States Army. The literature review that follows will begin by examining the Army Ethic as it is the all-encompassing ethos of all Soldiers throughout the United States Army. Additionally, a review of moral injury will follow a byproduct of a violation of the Army Ethic or a Soldier’s ethos. The following questions will guide the research of this paper:
1. What are the challenges for the United States Army in educating and training the Army Ethic among Soldiers?
2. How does a violation of the Army Ethic or personal ethos generate moral injury and impact trust in United States Soldiers’ lives?
Literature Review
The Basis for the Army Ethic
The possession of an ethic in war is nothing new for American Soldiers. The history of the United States of America encapsulates victory in battle and how the young nation achieves victory. The concept of an Army Ethic was on full display when George Washington stated, “when we took our oaths and donned our uniforms, we did not lay aside our sense of right and wrong” (Zust and Krauss, 2019, p. 45). The expectation in war with Great Britain is fought consistently with society’s values and respect for the enemy’s human rights.
The arena of war today blurs the lines of the knowledge of right and wrong. The fundamental nature of war consistently causes violations of organizational ethics and personal morals. The emotional scars Soldiers receive live beyond the battlefield and accompany the Soldier on their journey home. Emotional scars of war are not new; history used various terms over the past couple of centuries to describe what is now known as moral injury, Soldier’s heart, war neurosis, or shell shock, to name a few (Drescher and Foy, 2008, p. 86).
A lack of training, understanding, and acceptance by leaders continues to surround the concept of moral injury. A possible cause of these issues is the lack of understanding and training of the Army Ethic throughout the ranks. Understanding and training the Army Ethic at the unit and Soldier level and how leaders care for Soldiers when an emotional injury occurs will follow throughout this literature review.
The Army Ethic at the Organizational Level
Every major organization forms a culture through the use of values, ideals, or creeds. The United States Army is no different. The Department of the Army wrote (2010), “Army culture is the system of shared meaning held by its Soldiers, ‘the shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterize the larger institution over time’” (14). The purpose of the Army Ethic is to explain to Soldiers and leaders why we conduct and live our lives in a specific manner.
The Department of the Army (2014) suggests the Army Ethic goal is to motivate and influence Soldiers to perform in a manner that endears a grateful nation (p. 3). Further, the Department of the Army (2010) writes there are three primary purposes of the Army Ethic:
(1) establish core principles as guidelines for moral judgments based on a given operation's moral goal, e.g., defense of America’s autonomy and territory or responding to a humanitarian crisis. (2) it must inform operational design and mission command by helping leaders adapt to the operational context by applying the principles of the Ethic (3). It must provide the standards and framework for developing an individual Soldier's character by instilling the profession’s values and virtues. (p. 19)
As mentioned above and in the Army Ethic goals, the purposes transcend the Army organization down to the individual Soldier behind each weapon on the battlefield. For this reason, a tension exists within the moral complexity of the Army’s ability to remain lethal on the battlefield and demonstrate a strong professional Ethic from the institutional level down to the individual Soldier (Department of the Army, 2010, p. 16). In other words, success in battle as a nation depends on a strong ethic, both organizationally and individually.
The Confusion of the Army Ethic
Due to the complexities of combat, the United States Army's goal is to have an ethic that avoids confusion. The Department of the Army (2014) wrote, “The goal is an articulated, accessible, commonly understood, and universally applicable Army Ethic -- motivating Honorable Service, guiding and inspiring right decisions and actions” (p. 3). Further, the United States Army wants and needs the Army Ethic to drive its character development (Department of the Army, 2014, p. 3).
Unfortunately, when outlining and defining the Army Ethic in doctrine and policy, the Army failed to provide a clear and understandable explanation. Anderson (2016) remarked in his research regarding the Army Ethic, “while the 2013 version of ADRP 1 offered a definition and outlined a framework for the Army Ethic, it did not ‘fully describe the Army Ethic so that it is accessible, commonly understood, and universally applicable’” (p. 9). Producing an accessible, easily understood, and universally applicable ethic is a difficult challenge for any organization. Still, the mission of the United States Army demands exactly this to achieve success.
The failure to produce a universally understood and applicable ethic at the organizational level presents a harmful effect on the Mission Command doctrine. If the values and morals meant to unify an organization are not understandable, then the goal of trust between the commander and subordinate leader will always be in tension. Further, the lack of a singular ethic bonding the organization shatters the Mission Command doctrine's success at the tactical level (Department of the Army, 2014, p. 5).
Like the Mission Command doctrine, the Army Ethic molds Soldiers through training. If subordinate leaders are to be trusted to make the right decisions in the fog of war, training must become instinctively in line with the Army Ethic. A challenge Sevick (2011) writes in his research, “When it comes to morality and decision making, our Soldiers simply do not conform to traditional rationalist models that emphasize moral judgment gained from reflection and reasoning” (p. 3). Instead, Soldiers act emotionally. Emotions are an essential response to almost all high stakes situations throughout humanity. The results either bring a sense of relief and joy or tattoos an emotional wound upon the heart and mind of the Soldier, leader, or commander that outlasts any physical wound of war.
Moral Casualty in the Foxhole
Military leaders possess an increased understanding of the importance of emotional trauma better today than in past wars. Yet, moral injury remains a force protection and unit readiness issue. The Soldiers’ phycological and spiritual compass is at most significant risk when the Army Ethic or morals of their faith are at odds with a violent situation on the battlefield. Zust and Krauss believe part of the challenge in preparing leaders and Soldiers for the ethical and moral dilemmas is a failure to build moral reasoning into the Mission Command process (Zust and Krauss, 2019, p. 45). Zust and Krauss (2019) believe the inclusion of moral reasoning within Mission Command training will “build healing processes into post-combat actions that help service members address perceived moral contradictions” (p. 45).
The human aspect of war highlights the importance of building moral reasoning into mission command training. Nash articulates war in the following way:
War is a clash of opposing human wills, fueled by emotion and influenced by mental and moral forces as by technology and material factors. It is seldom the physical destruction of people or equipment that brings victory. Still, the destruction of adversary’s will to fight because of the bombs, bullets, and other hardships they endure. Combat stressors are weapons whose targets are the hearts and minds of individual opposing warriors. (Drescher and Foy, 2008, p. 90)
The wars in Afghanistan and Iraq left a wake of Soldiers deploying and experiencing combat multiple times. As researchers continue to learn more about the cause and effects of moral injury, they are beginning to redefine moral injury from Shay’s original definition to reflect a perpetuation of war at the human level of combat. Nash and Litz (2013) defined moral injury twenty years after Shay as “the enduring consequences of perpetrating, failing to prevent, bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral beliefs and expectations” (p. 368). For Nash and Litz (2013), the aspect of moral injury lies in the “loss of trust in previously deeply held beliefs about one’s own or others’ ability to keep our shared moral covenant” (p. 368).
The failure to keep a shared moral covenant not only results in a loss of trust, but Nash and Litz (2013) believe also leads to “shame, guilt, and self-destructive impulses, and their perpetuation because of an inability to forgive oneself for failing to live up to one’s moral expectations” (p. 368). The question of moral injury turns to, “How is one healed?” Again, Nash and Litz join a choir of researchers advocating the path of recovery begins with the ability to give forgiveness. Nash and Litz believe the emotional, cognitive, and spiritual aspects of forgiveness are vital to overcoming moral injury and preventing compiling acts of revenge or mental anguish that erodes trust within a unit (Nash and Litz, 2013, p. 371).
Summary of Findings
The literature review revealed a systematic challenge to understand the Army Ethic throughout the United States Army. In a review conducted by the Department of the Army (2014), Soldiers and Army civilians were unable to identify or express the Army Ethic with clarity, “Specifically, members across the profession noted that no single document exists to identify and define the Army Ethic” (p. 4). A failure of this magnitude poses a tremendous challenge for any organization, let alone the United States Army, whose mission is to defend the nation under established values and morals.
The reality is every Soldier is a moral actor in the realm of combat. Zust and Krauss (2019) concluded, “All combatants are moral actors because they make life and death decisions influenced by their core values and lethal skills” (p. 45). The challenge for the United States Army today doesn’t lie as much as it once did in propelling Soldiers to take the life of an enemy if required to; the challenge now is assisting Soldiers once they have taken a life.
As the literature directs, the United States Army now needs to find ways to support Soldiers processing moral injuries. The mission of supporting Soldiers through moral injury is pronged; first, it requires preparation through training. Second, it deals with the topic of forgiveness after any given mission. The Chaplain Corps and other ethical leaders within the United States Army are positioned to assist units train and prepare for the moral dilemmas of war. The real challenge will be pairing Soldiers with chaplains and mental health practitioners to work through forgiveness for actions taken or not taken in periods of combat.
Professional Practice
The Chaplain Corps and Religious Affairs Specialist possess an opportunity to lead from the front regarding the Army Ethic and moral injury topic. The Chaplain Corps participates in the United States Army resiliency program, which helps leaders and soldiers prepare for combat’s emotional gymnastics. However, incorporating a more robust training program geared towards the Army Ethic in combat and recovery will help soldiers deepen their combat preparation, effectiveness, and recovery.
Zust and Krauss (2019) point out in their commentary, “Leaders can help prevent moral injury and set the conditions for healing. The first step is to equip subordinates with the training and good moral leadership needed to mitigate and resolve their moral dissonance” (p.48). Further, leaders that embed moral dilemmas within training will prepare their Soldiers to process various moral situations within combat. In training, leaders can establish boundaries for how Soldiers operate and begin to lay the groundwork for Soldiers to learn how to heal from moral injury and adapt even while combat operations continue (Zust and Krauss, 2019, p. 49). Chaplains and religious affairs specialists are ready to lead this endeavor.
Incorporating chaplains and religious affairs specialists into the fabric of training allows them to assist and advise the commander and other leaders throughout a unit as ethical and moral questions of war arise. The reality is that all leaders are an image of the Army Ethic and how they prepare and reason ethical and moral dilemmas will transcend their command. By equipping leaders and providing experts to assist in the Army Ethic and moral injury fields, the Army will receive better-trained Soldiers, prepared and equipped for combat's resilience.
Additionally, the Chaplain Corps is uniquely situated to assist with the recovery from moral injury as secular research points to the act of forgiveness as a central tenant to moral injury recovery. Nash and Litz (2013) write, “Forgiving requires strenuous emotional, cognitive, social, and spiritual work, including sustaining compassion, attaining wisdom, and forgoing talionic justice such as might be found in acts of revenge” (p. 371). Most faith belief systems provide the rituals required to encourage and assist Soldiers in receiving forgiveness.
In past wars, the ritual has been a critical component to the readjustment and returning to society for Soldiers. Often by ship, Soldiers made a slow journey and return from combat to the United States. The time provided opportunities to talk among one another, time to speak with a chaplain or other healthcare workers. The journey provided time to mourn among fellow Soldiers. The rapid return home from combat since Vietnam continues to pose challenges for chaplains and religious affairs specialists in caring for Soldiers.
Further, the issue of recovery and forgiveness deepens for members of the United States Army Reserve and National Guard as they scatter to their communities throughout the country post-deployment. Soldiers in the United States Army Reserve and National Guard are isolated from the Soldiers, leaders, and chaplains that accompanied them on deployment. Additionally, chaplains and medical staff return to their parishes or medical practices and cannot assist the Soldiers in greatest need.
Ultimately, the Army's goal is to motivate and inspire a shared identity within the Army. Senior leaders are the stewardship of America’s most precious resource, her people (Department of the Army, 2014, p. 20). To use a former slogan and concept, leaders must be, know, and do. They were especially surrounding the topic of ethics and morality.
Connecting Moral Injury to Policy
As mentioned above, one of the most significant leadership challenges to the Army Ethic is the lack of clarity provided in regulation and policy to leaders. Over time, updates have striven to clarify leaders, subordinates, and civilians alike regarding the Army Ethic. Yet, clarity continues to lack in written form.
Finally, the Department of the Army took time to discuss the Army Ethic topic in greater detail in the recent publication of Army Leadership (ADP 6-22). As understood throughout this paper, trust is the pillar in which the Mission Command Doctrine stands or falls. The Army Ethic's goal is to build a culture of trust-based upon the enduring moral principles, values, beliefs, and laws that guide the military profession (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 1-6). Thus, a robust Army Ethic will assist in training up a strong Mission Command culture.
A review by Army leadership needs to discern how the Army Ethic transcends the multi-domain battlefield. The rapid expanse of technology in the battlefield of space and cyber domains provide senior leaders with challenges not experienced in their early days of military service. The Army Ethic applies to these domains the same, but proposes the question, have the regulations kept up to combat changes?
Further, as the literature review and findings point out, forgiveness is a large part of moral injury recovery. Equipping the Chaplain Corps to take the lead in this endeavor is imperative. An update to the Department of the Army pamphlet for Moral Leadership must be completed and released not only for the Chaplain Corps but also for leaders at all levels. Additionally, it is essential the Chaplain Corps, as the lead on this update, include a chapter within a new Department of the Army pamphlet regarding moral leadership on the topic of moral injury and guiding principles to train leaders regarding resilience and forgiveness.
Conclusion
Addressing the Army Ethic and moral injury will require multifaceted tools and approaches as the United States Army moves into new areas and methods of combat. Challenges will remain, particularly how the United States Army clearly expresses and trains the Army Ethic. A clear and accessible Army Ethic is vital to establishing a shared ethos and moral belief system among all Soldiers.
Further, when a Soldier experiences harm to their moral belief system, Soldiers need to know how to process and recover from the moral injury experienced. Chaplains and Religious Affairs Specialists are knowledgeable and able to assist leaders at all levels in preparing Soldiers for future combat's moral dilemmas. Ultimately, there are tools for equipping soldiers for embracing a strong Army Ethic and processing moral injury, and they reside in ritual and the act of forgiveness.
Moving forward, approaching the Army Ethic and moral injury will remain a leadership issue. Leaders have a responsibility to incorporate moral reasoning into all training. Leaders have a responsibility to ensure Soldiers do not lay aside their sense of right and wrong but embrace what guides them both in and out of combat, the Army Ethic.
Reference
Anderson, E. (2016). Fostering the Army Ethic. https://publications.armywarcollege.
edu/pubs/724.pdf
Brock R. (2019). The Battle Inside: Addressing Moral Injury Can Help Prevent Veteran Suicide.
https://www.moaa.org/content/publications-and-media/news-articles/2019-news-
articles/the-battle-inside-how-addressing-moral-injury-can-help-prevent-veteran-suicide/
Carey, L. B., & Hodgson, T. J. (2018). Chaplaincy, spiritual care and moral injury:
Considerations regarding screening and treatment. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 619.
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00619/full
Department of the Army. (2010). The Profession of Army [White Paper]. https://www.army.
mil/e2/downloads/rv7/info/references/profession_of_arms_white_paper_Dec2010.pdf
Department of the Army. (2014). The Army Ethic [White Paper]. https://api.army.
mil/e2/c/downloads/356486.pdf
Department of the Army. (2019). Army Leadership (ADP 6-22). Retrieved from
https://www.army.mil/e2/downloads/rv7/info/references/profession_of_arms_
white_paper_Dec2010.pdf
Drescher, K. D., & Foy, D. W. (2008). When they come home: Posttraumatic stress, moral
injury, and spiritual consequences for veterans. Reflective Practice: Formation and
Supervision in Ministry, 28. https://journals.sfu.ca/rpfs/index.php/rpfs/article/view/158
Nash W. & Litz B. (2013). Moral Injury: A Mechanism for War-Related Psychological Trauma
in Military Members. Clin Child Fam Psychol Rev, 16(4):365-375. doi:10.1007/s10567-
013-0146-y
Shay, J. (2014). Moral injury. Psychoanalytic Psychology, 31(2), p. 182.
Sevcik, M. (2011). Moral Intuition and the Professional Military Ethic. Small Wars Journal.
https://smallwarsjournal.com/jrnl/art/moral-intuition-and-the-professional-military-ethic
Smith-MacDonald, L. A., Morin, J. S., & Brémault-Phillips, S. (2018). Spiritual dimensions of
moral injury: contributions of mental health chaplains in the Canadian armed
forces. Frontiers in psychiatry, 9, 592. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/
fpsyt.2018.00592/full
Zust J. & Krauss S. (2019). Force Protection from Moral Injury: Three Objectives for Military
Leaders. Joint Force Quarterly, 92 (1): 44-49. https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Media
/News/News-Article-View/Article/1737148/force-protection-from-moral-injury-three-
objectives-for-military-leaders/
