Should dissent be founded on the right action or the right effect? A third of the MCWAR officers surveyed argued that in the face of a moral dilemma, the military professional should focus on the effect desired: mitigation of the immoral order, rather than the conscience- salving but possibly ineffectual act of resignation. These officers advocated an indirect approach: addressing higher authority, leaking the story to trusted journalists or politicians, and dragging their feet in execution— “slow rolling” in military parlance. “What else can I do?” asked one officer rhetorically. “My only option is to conduct covert actions to reduce the risks of misfortune and of American casualties.”18 This approach is certainly not without precedent. As one Army colonel commented in response to the survey, “The most (commonly) used form of disobeying an order I’ve seen is slow-rolling.”19 This option does have some prima facie appeal, combining its own moral logic with a pragmatic focus on effects.
*****
Thanks to Paul from Facebook for bringing this to my attention. This paper is actually causing quite a stir amongst the military crowd, and is certainly thought provoking. It also is relevant considering the General McChrystal firing a couple months back.
What struck me as extremely interesting, is the conclusion and the preferred method of dissent with today’s command. That would be covert dissent, because it allows the commander to stay in their position of power and continue to protect their people and others.
Commanders have a choice when they have decided that an order is immoral. They could be overt or covert with their protest. If they are overt, they would be fired or have to resign, but their message would be loud and clear. This is a symbolic stance, and can be successful if used properly. The problem with that one though, is their men would still be a victim of that order because the replacement leadership would probably be selected for it’s ability to carry out the order and not question the higher command. You would hope that the symbolic open protest would stop the activity, but what if it doesn’t? Now you are no longer in the loop to stop the source of this terrible and life threatening decision making.
Or an officer can stay in that position, yet covertly protest the order using a number of methods. You can fight it from within. Slow rolling or ‘dragging your feet’ was mentioned as the most commonly used way to disobey an order. Other methods were to leak the immoral or unethical order to the press or appealing to higher authorities. With these methods, an officer can stay in command, achieve the goal of commanding and protecting their troops, while at the same time disobeying the order. In other words, to stay in their position of power and dissent covertly is preferred.
Now if I was to compare this to the private industry, there are similar themes. On the blog I have talked about some of this stuff under the category of Jundism. ‘Have the courage to do what is right’ is one of those topics that I have touched on. I have also discussed ways in which managers or contractors can report wrong doing within the company. You can be an overt whistleblower, or you can dissent covertly. My thoughts on it are to dissent covertly, use whatever strategy you can to protect self and others, and leave the company as soon as you can find another gig. With this last method, you can also educate your subordinates to do the same and as a manager you can protect them until they too can leave. Just leave and don’t waste your time and life on a pathetic company. With this method, the company will either suffer massive attrition, damage to their reputation and a loss of money. Or if they care to be competitive in today’s market, they will learn that ‘taking care of your people’ is pretty darn important.
The only time I advocate open protest is when lives are needlessly put at risk because of a company policy, and time is of the essence. You must protect yourself and others, and do it the smartest way possible. But I also realize that the situation dictates.
Another point to bring up for those of you that have an interest in monitoring companies. Probably one of the best indicators of the quality and health of a company, is to review how many folks have resigned or were fired. Those companies with high attrition rates are usually the ones that do a terrible job of taking care of their people. Or to review those companies with numerous defaults on contracts.
I have even heard of guards organizing and striking, and that would be another area to investigate. Or better yet, guards collectively jumping contract, and crossing over to another company. That way they maintain work and their team cohesion, and they overtly hurt the company by costing them money (training, transport, etc.) or causing a default on contract.
But these contractors can also become blacklisted by said company with both of these incidents. A contractor’s reputation might be negatively impacted by an action like this as well. So with that said, a contractor really has to be smart as to the best course of action.
With that whole blacklist thing, I will have to do a separate post. You can get blacklisted or put on a ‘do not hire’ list for all sorts of reasons and it is another reason why dissent must really be thought through before you take action. Good stuff and definitely some ‘to be, or to do‘ related ideas. –Matt
——————————————————————
Breaking Ranks: Dissent and the Military Professional
By Andrew R. Milburn
Click here to download the PDF
Lieutenant Colonel Andrew R. Milburn, USMC, is assigned to Special Operations Command, Europe, Future Operations (J3).
There are circumstances under which a military officer is not only justified but also obligated to disobey a legal order. In supporting this assertion, I discuss where the tipping point lies between the military officer’s customary obligation to obey and his moral obligation to dissent. This topic defies black-and-white specificity but is nevertheless fundamental to an understanding of the military professional’s role in the execution of policy. It involves complex issues—among them, the question of balance between strategy and policy, and between military leaders and their civilian masters.
Any member of the military has a commonly understood obligation to disobey an illegal order; such cases are not controversial and therefore do not fall within the purview of this article. Instead, the focus is on orders that present military professionals with moral dilemmas, decisions wherein the needs of the institution appear to weigh on both sides of the equation. Whether the issuer of the order is a superior officer or a civilian leader, the same principles apply. However, because issues at the strategic level of decisionmaking have greater consequences and raise wider issues, I focus on dissent at this level.
