| | Marshall has been recognized as the textbook model for the way military officers should handle disagreements with superiors, and in particular the civilians vested with control of the armed forces by our Constitution. Your duties as an officer are:- To provide blunt, candid advice always;
- To keep disagreements private;
- To implement faithfully decisions that go against you.
As with Fox Conner's lessons of war, these principles are a solid starting point for dealing with issues of candor, dissent, and duty. But like Conner's axioms, applying these principles to the situations military leaders face today and in the future is a good deal more complicated. World War II was America's last straightforward, conventional conflict that ended in the unconditional surrender of the other side. The military campaigns since-from Korea, to Vietnam, Somalia, and Iraq today — have been frustrating, controversial efforts for the American public and for the U.S. armed forces. Each conflict prompted debates over whether senior military officers were being too deferential or not deferential enough to civilians, and whether civilians in turn were either too receptive, or not receptive enough to military advice. In the absence of clear lines of advance or retreat on the battlefield, each conflict prompted our nation's senior civilian and military leadership to seek the support of an increasingly skeptical American public using a variety of criteria and metrics — from enemy body counts to voting turnout. Then, as now, the American people relied especially on the candor and credibility of military leaders in order to judge how well a campaign is going, and whether the effort should continue. Candor and credibility remain indispensable because we will see yet more irregular and difficult conflicts of varying types in the years ahead. Conflicts where the traditional duties of an officer are accompanied by real dilemmas — dilemmas posed by a non-linear environment made up of civilians, detainees, contractors, embedded media, and an adversary that does not wear uniforms or obey the laws of war. An adversary that could be your enemy on one day or, as we've seen in Iraq's Anbar Province, your partner the next. Many of you have gone over some of these scenarios in ethics classes, or heard the accounts from returning veterans. A situation where, for example, a beloved platoon sergeant is killed by a sniper shot believed fired from a house by the side of the road. When the soldiers arrive, the sniper is gone, but the old lady who lives in the house still remains. The battalion and brigade commands pass down orders to demolish the house — to teach enemy sympathizers a lesson and take away a possible sniper position. The platoon leader conducts an investigation and concludes this course of action is counterproductive. The lieutenant makes the call not to destroy the house, and his C.O. stands by him. This is a true story from Iraq — a campaign that has been dubbed the "captain's war" because, as in any counterinsurgency, so much of the decisive edge is provided by the initiative and judgment of junior officers. When you are commissioned, it will all too quickly be your judgment and your leadership that your soldiers will rely on. As you prepare for this awesome responsibility, learn all the lessons you can here from heroes with real world experience and wisdom in and out of the classroom — people like Master Sergeant Reginald Butler. And speaking of lessons learned, I should note that during my time as Secretary I have been impressed by the way the Army's professional journals allow some of our brightest and most innovative officers to critique — sometimes bluntly — the way the service does business, to include judgments about senior leadership, both military and civilian. I believe this is a sign of institutional strength and vitality. I encourage you to take on the mantle of fearless, thoughtful, but loyal dissent when the situation calls for it. And, agree with the articles or not, senior officers should embrace such dissent as a health dialogue and protect and advance those considerably more junior who are taking on that mantle. I wrote my first — and far from last — critique of CIA in a professional journal four years into my career. Without the support of the several senior agency officers, my career would quickly have been over. Here at West Point, as at every university and company in America, there is a focus on teamwork, consensus building, and collaboration. Yet, make no mistake, the time will come when you must stand alone in making a difficult, unpopular decision. Or when you must challenge the opinion of superiors or tell them you can't get the job done with the time and resources available — a difficult charge in an organization built upon a "can do" ethos. Or a time when you know what superiors are telling the press, or the Congress, or the American people is inaccurate. There will be moments when your entire career is at risk. What will you do? What will you do? These are difficult questions that you should be thinking about both here at West Point and over the course of your career. There are no easy answers. But if you follow the dictates of your conscience and the courage of your convictions, while being respectfully candid with your superiors while encouraging candor in others, you will be in good stead for the challenges you will face as officers and leaders in the years ahead. Defend your integrity as you would your life. If you do this, I am confident that when you face those tough dilemmas, you will, in fact, know the right thing to do. I would like to close with some words to all of you, but especially to the Class of 2008. Soon you will take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. I have taken that oath seven times in the last 42 years — the first when I enlisted in 1966 and the last when I became Secretary of Defense. I want to encourage you always to remember the importance of two pillars of our freedom under the Constitution — the Congress and the press. Both surely try our patience from time to time, but they are the surest guarantees of the liberty of the American people.
__________________  |