Just Following Orders is Not Sufficient: How to Make Ethical Decisions by Mr J Peter Bradley, PhD

7/29/2019 Just Following Orders is Not Sufficient: How to Make Ethical Decisions by Mr J Peter Bradley, PhD

1/10

Source: Combat Camera

Major Bob Ritchie of the OMLT (Operational Liaison and

Mentoring Team) speaks with a soldier of the Afghan National

Army during an operation in the Panjwai District of Afghanistan



2/10

ARTICLES

MR. J. PETER BRADLEY, PHD, JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS IS NOT SUFFICIENT: HOW TO MAKE ETHICAL DECISIONS, CANADIAN ARMY JOURNAL 14.2 2012 45

JUST FOLLOWING ORDERS IS NOT SUFFICIENT:

How to Make Ethical Decisions

Mr. J. Peter Bradley, PhD

I was speaking with a senior army ocer recently about ethics training or soldiers. When I suggested thatsoldiers should receive training on how to make ethical decisions, he said this was not necessary; all soldiershave to do is ollow orders. I was surprised by this stance, but then wondered i other military personnelmight hold similar views. Tis prompted me to examine my own belies on the subject and write this articleon why junior military personnel should be taught how to make ethical decisions.

When individuals take a position on a particular issue, it is not uncommon or them to overlook opposingpoints o view. With this in mind, I began my analysis by considering potential objections to teachingsoldiers about ethical decision making, and I came up with our. First, soldiers do not need to know about

ethical decision making because that is not part o their job. Second, Canadian soldiers are ethical and do notneed urther development in this area. Tird, ethics cannot be taught. Fourth, orders and regulations provideall the guidance that soldiers need to perorm their duties. In the ollowing paragraphs, I reute each o thesearguments and show why military personnel should receive instruction on how to make ethical decisions.Finally, I conclude with an outline or a short course on military ethics.

PART ONE: WHY TEACH SOLDIERS ABOUT ETHICAL DECISION MAKING?

Is ethical decision making part of the soldiers role?One objection to teaching soldiers how to make ethical decisions might be that they do not need to havethis skill because ethical decision making is not the job o soldiers. Proponents o this position might say thatsoldiers are men and women o action, while ethical analysis is or individuals more interested in talk thanaction. Tis view, to the extent it exists, ails to take into account how requently ethical problems can suracein military lie and the dire consequences that ollow when soldiers make unethical choices. Tis positionalso ignores the act that military proessionals, regardless o how junior in rank, must be capable o makingethical decisions.1 I will expand on each o these points.

First, there are many dilemmas in military lie that require individuals to make ethical decisions. I shouldpause here briey to explain what I mean by the term ethical decision. I use the term in two ways. First,an ethical decision is one in which the choices presented to the decision maker have ethical implications.

I the choices open to the decision maker have the potential to harm or benet people (stakeholders),then the decision has ethical implications. Clearly, most o the decisions that military personnel make inoperations have the potential to harm or benet someone (e.g., subordinates, peers, non-combatants, enemy)and are thereore decisions with ethical implications, which I label in this essay, ethical decisions. Second,an ethical decision can be distinguished rom an unethical decision by examining relevant outcomes,motives and obligations. I the decision maker chooses an option that: (a) leads to moral outcomes,(b) satises the moral and proessional obligations owed stakeholders and (c) ollows rom moral motivesrather than sel-interest or other non-moral inuences, then he or she has made an ethical decision.

Second, mishandling decisions with ethical implications and making unethical choices can be harmul atmany levels. As pointed out in the Chie o the Land Sta s policy on army ethics, unethical actions on the

part o soldiers can erode public support or military operations,2

a strategic blow to the military orce o anydemocratic nation. At the tactical level, unethical behaviour can hurt both the stakeholders impacted by thedecision and the decision maker himsel. Te violence inherent in military operations ensures that unethicalchoices by soldiers can cause harm to those nearby. Consequences or the decision maker can includedisciplinary action i the unethical actions are also illegal actions. Te decision maker can also experiencemoral trauma. In his work with Vietnam veterans, American psychiatrist Jonathan Shay observed thatmany o his patients suered rom post-traumatic stress because o moral injury.3 Recently, Brett Litz


3/10

46 THE CANADIAN ARMY JOURNAL 14.2 2012

and his colleagues ne-tuned the concept o moral injury, dening it as perpetrating, ailing to prevent,bearing witness to, or learning about acts that transgress deeply held moral belies and expectations. 4Because each o the actions included in Litzs denition (perpetrating, etc.) involves decisions that can leadto serious mental health outcomes such as post-traumatic stress, depression and other aictions, it seems

appropriate or the military to protect its personnel with high-quality training in ethical decision making.

Tird, ethical decision making is an important part o proessional lie. Being a member o a proessioncarries an expectation that the individual will act in accordance with ethical values and proessional codes.But values and proessional principles come into conict on occasion, and simply ollowing rules ororders will not always lead to proper proessional behaviour. Proessional people need to be able to makeproessional decisions, and training is required to provide them with the skills they need to make suchdecisions. Tat is why training in ethical decision making is included in the proessional development odoctors, lawyers, accountants, engineers and members o other proessions. Te Canadian military purportsto be a proession, and the Canadian Forces (CF) manual, Duty with Honour,5 declares that everyone in theCF, regardless o rank, is a member o the Canadian military proession; consequently, the CF should be

teaching its members, even junior members, how to make ethical (proessional) decisions.

o sum up, ethical decision making is an important part o the soldiers role. Ethical decisions are integralto military operations. Te consequences o getting such decisions wrong can have ar-reaching eects,and the militarys proessional status requires that all its members, rom the highest to the lowest ranks,know how to make ethical choices.

Why the emphasis on ethics training?Arent Canadian soldiers ethical?A second possible objection to teaching soldiers how to make ethicaldecisions is that it is unnecessary because they are, or the mostpart, ethical people. Because Canadian soldiers have not committedunproessional acts like some soldiers in other militaries, proponentso this view might say that Canadian soldiers do not need ethicstraining. Tere are several problems with this position.

First, Canadian soldiers have engaged in unethical behaviour in thepast. Te most signicant examples are the proessional ailures oarmy personnel in Somalia and Bakovici in the 1990s. During thedeployment o the Canadian Airborne Regiment to Somalia in 1993,soldiers committed a number o unethical, and illegal, acts.6 Several

Somali men were killed by Canadian soldiers under questionablecircumstances during this tour, but the event that is rememberedmost is the torture and beating to death o a local teenager who hadbeen caught stealing camp equipment.7 Around the same time thatthe Canadian Airborne Regiment was experiencing ethical ailuresin Somalia, the 12e Regiment blind du Canada was having its own

problems in Bosnia-Herzegovina, in the ormer Yugoslavia. At the heart o this episode was a group oabout 40 Canadian soldiers who had been tasked with protecting the sta and patients at a mental hospitalin Bakovici. Distressing reports emerged in the spring o 1994 alleging that some o these soldiers had beeninvolved in drinking parties, sexual activity with nurses and interpreters, rough treatment o patients, andblack-market activity.8 Investigations into the Somalia and Bakovici incidents showed that Canadian soldiers

had indeed made poor moral choices. In addition, these moral ailures resulted in embarrassment or theCanadian Forces, grie or the victims and career repercussions or the perpetrators.

Tird, not all unethical acts are large-scale, public events that bring unwanted attention and humiliation tothe military and the nation. In act, most unethical acts are smaller, common occurrences that go unnoticedexcept by those directly involved. Actions such as roughing up detainees, selecting a avoured soldier orpromotion over a more worthy individual or alsiying reports may seem relatively small on the grand


4/10

WWW.ARMYFORCES.GC.CA/CAJ 47

ART ICLES

scale o unethical behaviour, but they are unethical acts nonetheless andofen go unreported. Incidents o such minor magnitude occur moreregularly than we might think and erode proessional ethos. So how isa junior soldier implicated in such episodes supposed to act? Without

any training in ethical decision making, individuals are lef to gureout what is right on their own.

Although there have not been any large-scale, public displays ounethical behaviour rom Canadian soldiers in recent years, there havebeen lapses in our not-too-distant past, and we can be certain thatminor transgressions are occurring now. Tere is a tendency to downplaysmaller transgressions, but even minor breaches o ethical behaviour canhave a detrimental eect on the proessional development o juniorpersonnel and thereore must be eliminated to the greatest possible extent.eaching soldiers about ethics and ethical decision making can help in

this area.

Can ethics be taught?A third objection to teaching soldiers how to make ethical decisionsmight be the commonly heard assertion that ethics cannot be taught.Tis position is ofen based on two assumptions: (a) by the time most people reach early adulthood,their ethical character is rmly set9 and (b) there is no evidence that ethics education or trainingactually enhances ethical unctioning.

While it is true that much o our personal development occurs in the early years, we do not stop evolvingwhen we reach adulthood. In act, people are still growing in late adolescenceabout the age that manyrecruits join the military. Consider, or example, how the attitudes o most military personnel changein the early years o their career on issues related to physical tness, patriotism and teamwork.In many cases, these values are developed and shaped by military experience.

As or the argument that ethics training does not inuence ethical behaviour, we rst need to understandthat ethical behaviour is much more complex than most people realize. In act, there are our componentso ethical behaviourperception, judgment, motivation and actioneach o which is itsel a orm obehaviour.10 For example, perceiving the ethical implications o a situation is a critical moral behaviour,even though it is a cognitive response that may not be observable to others. Similarly, moral judgment is acognitive behaviour that draws on the intellectual abilities o individuals to weigh all the issues when solving

ethical problems. Moral motivation reers to the willingness o an individual to act on the basis o ethicalideals rather than sel-interest. Ethical action is where all the dimensions come together: the individual takesaction afer coming to an understanding o the ethics o the situation (perception), made an ethical choice(judgment) and decided to pursue the ethical option (motivation).

When we view ethical behaviour as a complex array o actions and abilities, we observe that education andtraining enhances some aspects o ethical behaviour, but perhaps not others. Research has shown that moralperception (also called sensitivity) and judgment can be improved through education and trainingwe canteach people to be more aware o the ethical implications o daily lie and to improve their moral decision-making ability.11 While there is no research evidence showing that education directly aects ethical actionitsel, there are studies showing that increasing ones moral judgment with education or training can lead to

ethical actions, thus indicating a link between education and action via judgment.12

It should be pointed outthat research on the relations between ethics education and ethical action is still an emerging eld, with nostudies based on military samples yet, so there is still much to learn in this area. Tat said, ndings to dateindicate that important aspects o ethical unctioning can be enhanced with education and training.


5/10


Overall, it appears that education and training does have a positive eect on the ethical development oindividuals. In act, virtually every Western military now devotes considerable resources to ethics educationor ocers (or more on this, see the volume o essays on military ethics education by Robinson, de Lee andGarrick).13 While such education or ocers is commendable, it should be extended to junior members o

the military.

Dont orders and regulations provide all the guidance required?A ourth objection to teaching soldiers how to make ethical decisions might be that orders and regulations,by themselves, are thought to be sucient or guiding the behaviour o military personnel. In the words othe colleague I mentioned in my introduction, all soldiers have to do is ollow orders. Ofen this is true,but not always. I can think o our instances in which orders may not be sucient.

First, situations can change afer orders have been issued, and military leaders may not be present to givesoldiers direction when they need it. Army units are dispersed on the battleeld to a greater extent than inthe past, so it is not uncommon or junior soldiers to work independently or in small groups. At times like

these, individual soldiers may be required to make decisions that have serious consequences, perhaps evenwith lie-and-death implications. Even though soldiers in such situations are usually operating under ordersor statements o commanders intent, situations can change afer orders have been issued, and unexpectedopportunities to pursue other important goals can emerge. I the commander is not available to providedirection when these changes occur, the soldier on the ground must decide what to do. Indeed, this is one othe reasons why the Canadian army subscribes to the mission command philosophy in which subordinatesare empowered to perorm and respond to situations as their commander would have, had the commanderbeen there in person.14


Colonel Hercule Gosselin, Commanding Ofcer o the Operational Mentor and Liaison Team (OMLT) is given a tour

o an Aghan National Police (ANP) Control Point (CP) in the Panjwai District by the ANP CP Commander


6/10


ART ICLES

Second, even the most comprehensive orders, standard operatingprocedures and rules o engagement (ROE) cannot cover all thesmaller decisions that must be made when obeying orders. Imagine, orexample, all the little, and not so little, decisions a sergeant might have

to make while obeying an order to establish mobile checkpoints in anurban combat zone. Where do I position the checkpoints? Which omy soldiers do I place at the rst point o contact where people enterthe checkpoint? What levels o military orce will be used? Under whatconditions? Te list goes on. In act, the decisions that must be madein such small-unit operations have serious ethical implications, asillustrated in an article by Tomas Smith on the diculties Americansoldiers experienced in avoiding civilian casualties at hasty checkpointsin Iraq.15 Smith noted that soldiers were applying their ROE in a waythat emphasized orce protection at the expense o non-combatantimmunity. In response to comments about the shortcomings o ROE,

a general, who was quoted in the same article, stated that ROE werenever intended to tell service members exactly what to do in a specicsituation instead, they serve as reminder o general principleso the law o armed conict.16 In other words, soldiers are expected to interpret ROE, and because suchinterpretations have lie-and-death implications or civilians and soldiers, they are, by nature, ethicaldecisions, which require soldiers to have highly developed ethical decision-making abilities.

Tird, even though military personnel are obliged to ollow legal orders, individuals up and down the chaino command ofen exercise discretion when ollowing orders. Subordinates can respond to orders in a varietyo ways. Tey might ollow orders to the ullest extent possible, ollow orders hal-heartedly or ollow someorders while ignoring others. In the same vein, Canadian military historian Anthony Kellett has observed acertain exibility with respect to ollowing orders in combat, with soldiers occasionally expressing outwardcompliance to orders while not actually obeying them.17 Such reactions to orders are quite complex, reectinga chain o assessments and decisions in which individuals contemplate the orders they receive, consider theimplications o the orders and then take one orm o action or another. When viewed this way, we see thatmilitary personnel make decisions involving ethical implications all the time, even when obeying orders.

Fourth, superiors can issue illegal or immoral orders that subordinates should not obey. Tis is rare, butcrimes o obedience can occur when someone in authority gives orders exceeding the bounds o moralityor law,18 and soldiers then commit crimes by complying with the orders. It is important that soldiers knowhow to tell the dierence between legal orders and illegal orders, but it is easy to conuse the two. Classes

on how to evaluate ethical problems and make ethical decisions would help soldiers distinguish legal ordersrom illegal ones. Crimes o obedience, such as the atrocities at My Lai19 and some o the transgressions atAbu Ghraib,20 typically occur because junior personnel are not sure o the dierence between legal and illegalorders. Such events can also ollow rom vague and ambiguous orders rom leaders, which can then interactwith the emotions o ollowers to create an environment in which soldiers commit harmul acts. For example,the torture and beating to death o Shidane Arone by Canadian soldiers in Somalia ollowed rom a mix oinuences: (a) vague authorization by ocers to abuse Somali nationals caught inltrating the camp and(b) the soldiers anger over many things, including the large number o thieves slipping into camp each night.21

Orders and regulations alone are not sucient or guiding military behaviour. Soldiers need to know howto make ethical decisions because there are so many decisions to be made, even when ollowing orders.

Furthermore, soldiers need to have decision-making skills or when leaders are not present or or the rareoccasions when they receive illegal or morally ambiguous orders. In the absence o any ormal training onhow to make judgments about right and wrong, soldiers have to rely on their own personal decision-makingabilities, which may not be suciently developed. Clearly, the military institution has a moral responsibilityto teach its people how to make sound ethical decisions.


7/10


PART TWO: WHAT SHOULD BE TAUGHT IN ARMY ETHICS TRAINING?

Now that I have stressed the value o teaching soldiers about ethical decision making, allow me to suggestin this nal part o the essay an outline or a short, introductory course on army ethics that could be oeredin Canadian army units. Te course comprises ve modules, described below, that could be taught overa two-day training period or presented as individual sessions o about two or three periods each,by instructors rom within a units chain o command.

Te rst module introduces soldiers to the ethical and legal inuences that dene what it means to be aproessional soldier in the Canadian Army. Tis is an introduction to the ethical oundations o army ethosin which soldiers would learn what proessional concepts such as ethics, morality, legality and ethos mean.Tey would also learn how Canadian values, international law (i.e., Geneva conventions, law o armedconict) and military rules and regulations (i.e., Queens Regulations and Orders, rules o engagement,Statement o Deence Ethics) come together to shape army ethos. Tis is an excellent occasion or a unitleader (e.g., company or platoon commander, sergeant-major) to explain to soldiers what it means to bea member o the regiment, battalion, unit, etc.

Te second module would ocus on inuences that can cause soldiers to make unethical choices. Soldiersdecisions are determined by a combination o their own personal qualities (intelligence, motivation, etc.) and

characteristics o the situation (leadership, peer support, threat level, etc.). Instruction in this module wouldhighlight the personal characteristics that soldiers need to muster to make the correct choices, and point outthose negative personal qualities (e.g., prejudicial attitudes, lack o sel-condence) that can contribute tounethical choices. An important part o this module would ocus on the social inuences in military unitsthat can lead to unethical outcomes (e.g., negative peer inuences, animosity towards out-groups)and decision-making errors that commonly occur in stressul situations.


Sergeant Miranda Robertson questions local Aghans on the needs o their communities to help determine what projects

should be undertaken by the Provincial Reconstruction Team


8/10


ART ICLES

Te third module would expose soldiers to the types o ethical challenges they may ace on operations.O course, ethical challenges can vary rom one kind o military operation to another, so this modulewould have to be updated regularly to ensure its relevance with current Army operations. opics coveredhere would include issues such as how to distinguish combatants rom non-combatants, how to apply

proportional orce (not so much as to incur non-combatant casualties, but enough to ulll the mission),how to treat detainees and prisoners, and how to respond when witnessing unlawul behaviour or culturalcustoms that would be considered unethical in Canada. orture should also be covered in this module toillustrate how uncontrolled emotion and poor leadership can lead good soldiers to engage in torture.

Te ourth module would teach soldiers how to conduct an ethical analysis, that is, how to mentally workthrough an ethical problem to decide on a morally correct course o action. As mentioned in the rst parto this essay, soldiers at all levels o the Canadian Army are considered to be military proessionals, so theyneed to be able to make proessional decisions when required. Te teaching points o this module wouldbe based on the our-stage decision-making model promoted by the Army Ethics Programme (perception,judgment, action, learning)22 and the idea that ethical decision making is about taking the interests o

others into account, not looking afer onesel rst.

Te fh module would ocus on implementing ethical solutions. Many individuals are able to determineright rom wrong but then ail to do the right thing or one reason or anotherperhaps through ear oretribution rom leaders, losing the support o their peers, or other risks. Consider the options open to ajunior soldier in Adam Days story o a vehicle patrol during Operation AHENA in Aghanistan.23 A sectiono Canadian soldiers had been tasked with reconnoitring a number o objectives, but they did not completethe mission as ordered. Instead, the team stopped about halway through the patrol and napped until it wastime to return to the base. Imagine the dilemma this presents to a junior member o the patrol. What actionshould the soldier take? I the soldier is able to delude himsel into thinking the mission was stupid or toorisky, he might be personally satised with the way the patrol was partially executed and not do anything.On the other hand, he would know that it was proessionally wrong to complete only part o the mission.A simple ethical analysis could tell him that. But what should he do now, especially i no one else romthe patrol team is taking action? Te intent o this module would be to show soldiers how to deal withsituations like theseto give them options when aced with dicult choices.

CONCLUSION

It is clear that ethical decision making is an important part o the Canadian military proession, and allmilitary proessionals need to know how to make proessional choices. Like most Western military orces,the CF has programs in place to educate ocers and senior non-commissioned members about ethics.

Given that we are now in the age o the strategic corporal,24

training in ethical decision making needsto be provided to junior soldiers as well.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

A ormer CF member who served in the inantry and personnel selection branches, Dr. Bradley teachescourses in psychology and ethics at the Royal Military College o Canada. o correspond on this paper,mail or call Dr. Peter Bradley, Royal Military College o Canada, P.O. Box 17000 Station Forces, Kingston,Ontario, Canada, K7K 7B4. Phone: 613 541 6000, ext 6620 (CSN: 271-6620). Email: [email protected].

ENDNOTES1. Tere is a considerable overlap between the terms ethical and proessional. In some cases the terms are virtually synonymous,

because all proessions have codes o ethics or guiding the behaviour o their members, and many o the dicult decisions thatproessionals ace are ethical decisions.

2. Canada, Department o National Deence, Duty with Discernment: Chie o Land Sta Guidance on Ethics in Operations (Strategic Edition), 56.
mailto:[email protected]:[email protected]


9/10


3. J. Shay,Achilles in Vietnam: Combat rauma and the Undoing o Character(New York: Scribner), 20.

4. B.. Litz, N. Stein, E. Delaney, L. Lebowitz, W.P. Nash, C. Silva and S. Maguen, Moral Injury and Moral Repair in War Veterans:A Preliminary Model and Intervention Strategy, Clinical Psychology Review 29 (2009), 700.

5. Canada, Department o National Deence, Duty with Honour: Te Proession o Arms in Canada (2004), Page 11,

available online at http://www.cda.orces.gc.ca/ci/engraph/poa/doc/DutyWithHonourLongVers_e.d.6. Canada, Department o National Deence, Dishonoured Legacy: Te Lessons o the Somalia Aair

(Report o the Inquiry into the Deployment o Canadian Forces to Somalia, 1997), Vol. 1.

7. D. Bercusson, Signifcant Incident: Canadas Army, the Airborne, and the Murder in Somalia(oronto: McClelland and Stewart, 1996), 814.

8. B. Came and L. Fisher, Military Investigates Misconduct, Macleans, July 29, 1996, available onlineat http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cm?PgNm=CE&Params=M1ARM0010961(accessed May 11, 2010); R. Belanger, Bakovici Scandal Te Beat Goes On, Esprit de Corps, June 1998,available online at http://ndarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_7_6/ai_n28723887/ .

9. C. Orwin, Can We each Ethics? When Pigs Fly, available at the Globe and Mail onlinehttp://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/can-we-teach-ethics-when-pigs-y/ (accessed April 17, 2010).

10. D. Narvaez and J.R. Rest, Te Four Components o Acting Morally, in W.M. Kurtines and J.L. Gewertz (eds.),Moral Development: An Introduction (Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1995).

11. M.J. Bebeau, Te Dening Issues est and the Four Component Model: Contributions to Proessional Education,Journal o Moral Education 31:3, (2002) 271295.

12. E.P. Pascarella and P.. erenzini, How College Aects Students: A Tird Decade o Research, Vol. 2(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 2005), 350.

13. P. Robinson, N. de Lee and D. Carrick, Ethics Education in the Military(Aldershot, Hampshire, UK: Ashgate, 2008).

14. Canada, Department o National Deence, Canadas Army: We Stand on Guard or Tee (no date), 87.

15. .W. Smith, Protecting Civiliansor Soldiers? Humanitarian Law and the Economy o Risk in Iraq,International Studies Perspectives 9 (2008), 154.

16. Major-General W.B. Caldwell, Rules o Engagement Not Vague, availableat http://www.mnraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&kid=9810&Itemid=128(accessed March 4, 2008).

17. A. Kellett, Combat Motivation (Boston: Kluwer-Nijho Publishing, 1982), 147.

18. H.C. Kelman and V.L. Hamilton, Crimes o Obedience: owards a Social Psychology o Authority and Responsibility(New Haven, C: Yale University Press, 1989), xi.

19. Ibid., 1.

20. M. Danner, orture and ruth: America, Abu Ghraib, and the War on error(New York: Te NY Review o Books, 2004).

21. P. Worthington and K. Brown, Scapegoat: How the Army Betrayed Kyle Brown (oronto: Seal Books, 1997), 112; Bercusson,1996, 814; G. Shorey, Bystander Non-Intervention and the Somalia Incident, Canadian Military JournalVol l, no 4,(Winter 20002001), 1928; G. Shorey, Disobedience o Proessional Norms: Ethos, Responsibility Orientation and Somalia,in C.L. Mantle, ed., Te Unwilling and Te Reluctant: Teoretical Perspectives on Disobedience in the Military(Kingston, Ontario,Canada: Canadian Deence Academy Press, 2006), 199.

22. Army Ethics Programme, Workshop 003: Making Decisions, available onlineat http://www.army.orces.gc.ca/land-terre/downloads-telechargements/ethics-ethiques/aep-peat/workshop_003.ppt .

23. A. Day, Somalia Redux? Te Yahoo Deence, erminal Bullshit Syndrome and the Myth o the Isolated Incident,in B. Horn, ed., From the Outside Looking in: Media and Deence Analyst Perspectives on Canadian Military Leadership(Kingston: Canadian Deence Academy Press, 2005), 149151.

24. C.C. Krulak, Te Strategic Corporal: Leadership in the Tree Block War,Marines Magazine, January 1999,available online at http://www.au.a.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htm.
http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/poa/doc/DutyWithHonourLongVers_e.dfhttp://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010961http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_7_6/ai_n28723887/http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/can-we-teach-ethics-when-pigs-fly/http://www.mnfiraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&kid=9810&Itemid=128http://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/downloads-telechargements/ethics-ethiques/aep-peat/workshop_003.ppthttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htmhttp://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/usmc/strategic_corporal.htmhttp://www.army.forces.gc.ca/land-terre/downloads-telechargements/ethics-ethiques/aep-peat/workshop_003.ppthttp://www.mnfiraq.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&kid=9810&Itemid=128http://www.globecampus.ca/in-the-news/article/can-we-teach-ethics-when-pigs-fly/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_6972/is_7_6/ai_n28723887/http://www.encyclopediecanadienne.ca/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=M1ARTM0010961http://www.cda.forces.gc.ca/cfli/engraph/poa/doc/DutyWithHonourLongVers_e.df


10/10


While at one of the forward operating bases, the Honourable

Governor of Kandahar, Rahmatullah Raoufi greeted and

discussed affairs with Brigadier General Denis Thompson,

the Commander of Task Force Kandahar

Documents

Just Following Orders is Not Sufficient: How to Make Ethical Decisions by Mr J Peter Bradley, PhD