For generations, Americans have advocated for leadership driven by the “content of [our] character” and not superficial traits. The phrase, made famous by Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., calls for judging individuals by the quality of their ethics and moral actions rather than those exterior features over which they have little control. As a reflection of the society it represents, the U.S. military has ensured, nearly since its inception, that character serves as a critical factor in the military doctrine. For instance, the Army defines character as “one’s true nature, including identity, sense of purpose, values, virtues, morals and conscience.” Throughout many generations of leadership, how the military conducts itself – on and off the battlefield – has been a cornerstone of the modern professional armed forces. Indeed, the requirement of exemplary conduct is even codified in statute: “[a]ll commanding officers and others in authority” across the armed services are required to, among other things, “show in themselves a good example of virtue, honor, patriotism, and subordination.” These are bedrock values taught to the warfighter with similar reverence as refusing to give up a mission or never leaving a fallen teammate behind. This is a part of the warrior ethos, and the very essence of why service members might sacrifice so much for their country.
Perhaps for the soldier, the concept of character is best represented in the words in General Douglas MacArthur’s famed “Duty, Honor, Country” speech to the Corps of Cadets at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point:
Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying points: to build courage when courage seems to fail; to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith; to create hope when hope becomes forlorn. Unhappily, I possess neither that eloquence of diction, that poetry of imagination, nor that brilliance of metaphor to tell you all that they mean.
The unbelievers will say they are but words, but a slogan, but a flamboyant phrase. Every pedant, every demagogue, every cynic, every hypocrite, every troublemaker, and, I am sorry to say, some others of an entirely different character, will try to downgrade them even to the extent of mockery and ridicule.
MacArthur foresaw that some would erode and trivialize those very words that define the character of military leadership. General Norman Schwarzkopf, U.S. Central Command Commander during Operation Desert Storm and widely admired by his peers and subordinates, believed, “Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy.” From George Washington to Dwight D. Eisenhower, John Pershing to Colin Powell, there is no shortage of esteemed military minds and tactical experts who – above all – believed it is character that ultimately defines leadership quality. These principles are woven into the American military’s fabric. For many of us who served, they are a part of the experiences we take with us from our time in uniform. They are experiences that continue to guide our actions and shape us as people. So, what happens when soldiers are told those core beliefs of virtuous leadership are no longer valued? What does that mean for the morale of our Armed Forces? What does it mean for the sacrifices of millions who’ve worn the uniform and their families who supported them?
In recent months, policy decisions, actions, and activities have challenged longstanding, respected norms within the military. Binding Rules of Engagement – the Standing Rules of Engagement and for the Use of Force set by the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff – have been referred to as “stupid” ideas that can be tossed to the side as there are “no politically correct wars.” The continuous removal and blocked promotions of respected senior leaders with little to no stated cause sent shockwaves through the Total Force. The mishandling of classified information by the most senior leadership without accountability, while subordinates are held to a more stringent standard, breeds cynicism in an ever-deepening well of distrust. Meanwhile, nine months into the war with Iran, the rhetoric continues to escalate, with a multitude of threats but no concrete plans for deescalation, nor any articulated vision for a strategic victory. Reported disagreements between military and civilian leadership over whether to continue the war only exacerbate the underlying issue.
These policy decisions, threats of force, and political maelstroms do not exist within a vacuum. They affect trust and commitment. They open doors to activities and behavior that are the very antithesis for any modern military, let alone the strongest that has ever existed. They erode the faith of the global community in American society and contradict definitions of what it means to be a strong, capable leader in the U.S. military dating back to its 1775 roots as the Continental Army, Navy, and Marines.
Whatever one makes of the results, the historic turnout in this year’s Nov. 3 elections should encourage U.S. leaders of all – and no – political parties to take this moment for reflection, including on how the U.S. military can be empowered to once more represent the highest ideals of American character. Reforms should prioritize restoring institutional safeguards, such as protecting military leaders from unjustified firings, holding senior leaders to the same standard as others with respect to handling of classified documents, and ensuring that the laws of armed conflict shape decisions about the use of force.
The military has never been perfect, but its leadership doctrine has evolved over the decades to emphasize leading through one’s actions rather than only words. Setting the examples of reliability, honesty, and truthfulness embodies the very idea of leadership through character. It is something the Pentagon prides itself on. It is something many who have served carry with us into our civilian lives. And it is something that the American public deserves from one of the world’s single largest organizations. If the United States is to rebuild its reputation globally, its trust with allied nations, and its ability to project influence and power in defense of its own interests, then it is a moral imperative that we lead with character. Generations of talented military leaders have implored their subordinates to lead by example and with character above all else.
This Veterans Day should mark an opportunity for leaders to think about how they can honor service members’ character by beginning the difficult work of rebuilding trust in U.S. institutions at home and abroad. Rising to the challenge is what great leaders do.
