Ethics in Asymmetric Conflict Scenario

Sycophancy, insubordination, soldiers running amok, fratricides, internal strife, suicide menace are some of the few facets that have acquired shocking familiarity in the organization. Cracks at all levels of leadership, if not too rampant, are indeed a basis of concern. Present day’s peacetime and operational dynamics in military have evolved- from increasing consumerism and depreciating value system in the society. The challenges in present asymmetric battlefield are compounded by stress and strain of combating an invisible foe, which always retains initiative to act.

In order to succeed in an asymmetric battlefield - the dominant combat environment in the decades to come, we shall require leaders of uncommon agility, resourcefulness and imagination; leaders willing to adapt and able to think and act by swiftly shifting gears to fluid dynamics and tempo. Fast developing situations are not expected to be favourable at all stages and till we face and report such situations boldly, the organization as such shall remain in a fool’s paradise, ending up assessing itself, incorrectly - which shall ultimately influence our decision and policy making. 

Irrespective of technological advancements, ‘human element of leadership’ in combat shall remain most crucial. We will still need leaders to call things as they see them and tell their subordinates and superiors alike what they need to hear, and not what they want to hear; without getting beyond the laid down limits of discipline. We no more hear of the leaders who, in past, had held the arm of higher leadership to turn them around and give them the correct picture, with no compromise on authenticity and credibility. If an officer and a leader does not tell blunt truths or create an environment where candour is not encouraged, then one does disservice to oneself, one’s command and to the institution; rendering the entire edifice of ethics – hollow and superficial.

Sir Francis Bacon was a seventeenth century jurist and philosopher as well as confidante of the senior minister of England’s King James. He gave this advice to a protégé looking to follow his steps at the court: “Remember well the great trust you have undertaken: you are as a continual sentinel, always to stand upon your watch to give (the king) true intelligence. If you flatter him by speaking what he wants to hear, you betray him”[1]. There is another incidence which I have been a witness to: a senior officer on a visit to an infantry battalion was taken to the training area, to be shown firing practice that a rifle company was carrying out. After having seen firing of a detail, the General Officer wished to review the targets, and accordingly the same were fetched to him. The results were not very encouraging and the same was pointed out by the visiting General Officer, when he left. Subsequently, as expected, the subaltern who was in charge of the firing was summoned by the Commanding Officer and was given a dressing down, as to why he did not fudge the targets, prior to them being shown; this would have upheld the so-called ‘izzat’ of the unit. To which the subaltern replied, ‘Sir, I thought, being the Commander of the formation, he should know the true standards of our shooting, as also I have been working hard, as their company commander, to improve the standards’. Wasn’t the youngster ethically and morally upright, by not giving an inaccurate picture to the higher leadership?

Candour and credibility remain more so indispensible because we will see more irregular and difficult conflicts of varying types, in the years ahead; conflicts where traditional duties of an officer are accompanied by real dilemmas – dilemmas posed by low intensity conflict scenarios comprising of civilians, non state hostiles, embedded media and an adversary who cannot be identified till he decides to reveal. It is here that the leaders are expected to follow the dictates of their conscience and maintain the courage of their convictions while being respectfully candid with superiors and encouraging candour by subordinates. This shall see them in good stead to meet challenges facing them as officers and leaders, in the years ahead as also serve the organizational interest in long term. The ‘strategic corporal’ shall align with his mentor’s & role model’s thought process, the mantle that has to be taken by unit leadership. Since in an irregular warfare, the decisive edge is provided by the initiative and judgment of junior leadership, a contagion of ethical build shall thus get kindled. The change will have to be from ‘values to virtue’ i.e. in behavior and subsequently in character, emanating from upright deeds that shape up into habits and culture. Accordingly, an appropriate climate, encouraging candour is warranted, to flow from ‘top-down’, in all kinds of military setup.

It is strongly felt that emboldened ethic is the sole panacea to iron out complexities in the organization. Sense of discipline and professionalism should not imply break in flow of communication, to hamper the overall organizational growth. No technology can come to rescue, when matters get down to dealing with human resource and setting a benchmark for the subordinates. The talk has to be walked by the leaders. The men have to be trained towards ethical thinking independently, and then act autonomously. They have to understand that what they ‘believe in’ is right and is more important than merely obeying orders or succumbing to peer pressure. The leaders have to order straight and need to convince their command as to why a particular order has to be followed. Most importantly, a climate of healthy dissent, as foundation, has to be nurtured.

Lawrence Kohlberg, an American psychologist best known for his theory of stages of moral development, has propounded three levels of the same. The pre conventional level, in which individuals act correctly primarily in order to avoid punishment; a conventional method where they respond to peer pressure and are driven by a concern for reputation; and a post conventional level during which individuals use their own reasoning to determine ‘universal ethical principles’ of right and wrong and then abide by them because they have ‘seen validity of principles and become committed to them’[2]. Aim of grooming the command should be to empower and enable them move up the ladder towards post conventional stage. The objective should be to train soldiers who act ethically, not because they have been told so, or because they think it will make them look good, but because they themselves have determined that it is the right thing to do. Otherwise, they may acquiesce to unethical orders or peer pressure[3].

Need is of a transformational style of leadership and an environment where negativity associated with the word ‘accountability’ is replaced by the word, ‘responsibility’ i.e. a job is performed in desired fashion not because one is accountable but because one is responsible for the same. Encouragement should be to build appropriate character, rather than appropriate behavior, which shall flow out of the former.    

As far as doctrinal formulations are concerned, requirement is to stimulate thoughts and to facilitate discussion on the effects of the present era of asymmetric battlefield on the Army’s ethic and on its efforts to develop its soldiers and their leaders. So far, research work, if any, towards this, has largely been piecemeal and stand-alone. Various think tanks are reluctant to take it on, since it is felt that takers for the same are going to be minimal in the senior hierarchy as also the gains are not likely to be too tangible.

We, as an organization have to shake-off our ‘denial mode’ and start realizing the problems, before it gets too late. Modalities of research, to include issuing of directives and its ownership can be debated and worked out. The Army must recreate its own expert knowledge by selecting from research and scholarship and then filtering those ideas through the sieve of battlefield experiences and other expert practices to arrive at understandings that can be considered for dissemination, accordingly. However, to offset the gestation period, the orientation towards ethical and moral development to bolster uprightness needs to be incorporated in style of command, commencing at the tactical level, upwards.

Finally, the approach to ethics training in the military has to be a combination of ‘top-down’ and ‘bottom-up’. The danger with only ‘top-down’ approach is that ethics training often comes to be viewed as yet another chore imposed on junior commanders, as a ‘check-the-box’ requirement. Also, it cannot be purely vice-versa. The two approaches will have to be pursued in a compatible fashion; ideally, units may have a centrally operated programme that outlines the principles and provides training for trainers, while the actual management is conducted at the lower levels.