Military Ethics In The Pentagon

By MajGen Perry M. Smith, USAF(Ret)

Marine Corps Gazette

November 1999

'Our government cannot function cloaked in secrecy. It cannot function unless officials tell the truth. The Constitution only works when the… branches of government trust one another and cooperate.' --Congressman Lee H. Hamilton

The purpose of this article is to discuss the ethical climate in Washington and some of the ethical dilemmas that military personnel face as they operate in the bureaucratic and political jungle of the Pentagon, the White House, and Congress.

As long as military budgets are large and as long as there are many Active and Reserve officers and noncommissioned officers working in Washington, the military's presence here will remain high. The military's interaction with Congress and with the various departments within the executive branch will continue to be complex and important.

The military ethic of a strong institutional and personal commitment to duty, honor, and country has served this Nation well in war and peace for over 200 years. The concept of civilian control of the military is deeply ingrained in our national culture and is one of the great strengths of our constitutional system. Unlike so many other nations, we have not had to face a real problem with a "man on horseback" with desires or plans for a military coup. This great democracy has been blessed by a long line of military leaders who respected and followed the very basic democratic tenet of civilian control. The "Bonapartist" phenomena is unknown in the American political culture.

But let's face it-Washington is a tough political town, and there are pressures from various sources that make it difficult for military men and women at all levels to stay true to the traditional military ethical concepts of duty, honor, and country. It may be useful to break down the Washington scene into a couple of segments: the interaction of the military with Congress, and the interaction of military officials with various parts of the executive branch of our Government.

Military Interaction With Congress

Perhaps most interesting is the military relationship with Congress. There is a constant, daily stream of military people going to Capitol Hill to brief staffers, to meet with individual congressmen, and to give testimony in open and closed hearings to subcommittees and committees of both houses.

Senators and Representatives have strong local interests and often take positions that serve their constituencies but do not necessarily serve the national interest. For instance, if there are military bases in their districts or if there is a defense contractor or subcontractor with a production facility in their district, they are very unlikely to vote in favor of closing the base or canceling the weapons system (or subsystem) being built in their district. In fact, they are likely to work very hard against any position of the Department of Defense that might put some of their constituents out of a job. Congress is a place where deals are made, votes are traded, and political "log rolling" takes place. Rational decisionmaking, where the best choice among a number of viable options is picked irrespective of political considerations, is not the name of the game. It is awfully easy for a military person to become cynical about this process and to begin to see Congress first as incompetent, then as an impediment to progress, and finally as the enemy.

Although the process of making laws and passing appropriation bills to fund these laws is a messy one, the interests of many groups are being heard; the result, though far from perfect, is representative government at work. Since this whole process is clearly part of the system that underlies our constitutional form of government, it is incumbent upon those who have sworn allegiance to the Constitution to work with a high sense of purpose and integrity in full cooperation with congressmen and staffers.

Having testified many times to many committees and subcommittees of both houses of Congress, I have noticed how parochial interests tend to balance themselves out. In most cases, Congress makes good decisions, if not perfect ones. What also has impressed me is the lack of leaks by members of Congress and staffers. I have briefed committees of Congress on a number of very sensitive, compartmentalized programs, and not one of these programs has ever been leaked by any of the members or staffers that I briefed.

One of the cardinal rules for military people in dealing with Congress is never to lie. It is wrong, and it is clearly a violation of a military son's constitutional responsibility. Much less important, but certainly of interest, if you lie, you will be caught, and you will never have any credibility in Congress for the rest of your life. It is amazing how long memories are on the Hill. Most congressmen and key staffers stay for decades. You can go away for years, come back and find most of the same people in the same committees facing you in the same hearing room. It is important for military people, no matter what position they hold, not to assume that their wisdom is greater than the collective wisdom of the Congress and the people they represent. This mistake is made often. I am appalled at the arrogance of some military people who think that they are always right and the Congress is always wrong when it will not support their position.

A final point about Congress: what if you are told by your boss that he or she wants you to "cook the numbers" or not tell the whole story in your upcoming testimony? May I suggest the following course of action. Reply by saying, "If you want me to testify, I must have the authority to tell the truth; I just can't go to the Hill and lie." If you don't think this approach will work, may I suggest that you go to the Hill anyway, tell the truth, and accept whatever consequences result.

Ethics Within the Executive Branch of Government

Switching to the subject of ethics within the executive branch, the problems are many. In the interest of protecting your boss, defending your Service, or serving your ambitions (and for lots of other reasons), it is very easy to sell your soul incrementally. If the goals you and your Service are pursuing are good and honest ones, you may feel the pressure to lie as a means to carry out those goals. One thing is worth remembering in this regard: duty, honor, country should not and does not apply just to ends, it also applies to means. Military men should not follow those tenets of Machiavelli that advocated unethical behavior; the American democracy of today is not the Italy of the 16th century, and we should not follow the rules outlined for Machiavelli's prince.

Too many people in the Pentagon see another Service, the Joint Staff, or the Office of the Secretary of Defense as the enemy and are willing to act unethically if necessary to win the bureaucratic wars. So often the rationale is along the following lines, "If we don't 'game' the POM (the overall departmental program for the upcoming six years), the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD) will kill some of our most important programs." Or more subtly, "If we show weakness toward this program, OSD or Congress will kill it." Military Services must, of course, understand the bureaucratic and political rules of the game, but they can still live within the framework of high institutional and personal integrity. If standing up for a principle costs you a promotion, a great new job, or forced retirement, so be it. Happily, what often happens when a person maintains his integrity is that the boss backs down when he or she understands how strongly the subordinate feels. The boss may be mad at you at first but learns to respect you as a person who always tells the truth. It is the responsibility of everyone in the chain of command to take a stand on issues of integrity. If the integrity level of the boss is not too high, you can often raise it by taking a stand.

I would hope that in the years ahead the military can lead the way in raising the level of integrity throughout our Government by setting good examples and by maintaining a sense of outrage when uncovering legal or ethical violations. For those who operate in the corridors of power both now and in the future, a useful model for them to emulate is George C. Marshall--a leader, a man of great vision, and most important, a man of towering integrity throughout his long and distinguished career of public service. In the brilliant book, Commander in Chief, Eric Larabee tells the story of BG Marshall in 1938, when he strongly disagreed with President Franklin Roosevelt on an important issue. Marshall clearly felt that FDR was wrong and that someone had to tell the President the truth directly and forthrightly. A year later Roosevelt chose Marshall to be the new Chief of Staff of the Army. When you look at what Marshall accomplished as Army Chief of Staff, as Secretary of State, and as Secretary, of Defense, it is easy to come to the conclusion that when Roosevelt picked this honest man for a position of great influence it was the most important personnel decision of his 12-year Presidency.

Finally, a word about the integrity of political appointees in the Pentagon. It is incumbent on all civilian officials in the Pentagon to establish and maintain a position of integrity that is as high or higher than that of the Military Services. This responsibility is absolutely fundamental. Those senior civilian leaders in government (or anyone else) who would politicize the military and who would reward the bureaucratic street fighters rather than the people of substance and honesty do a terrible disservice to our great democracy. In addition, those who accept money or other compensation from defense contractors or consultants are as much of a threat to our system of government as any foreign enemy.

The name of the game in the Pentagon for the future, for both military and civilian officials, must be subordinates who demonstrate a deeper commitment to personal and institutional integrity than to their personal ambitions and bosses who respect, support, and reinforce that commitment.

Widely known as an author and commentator on military affairs, Gen Smith wrote A Hero Among Heroes about his father-in-law, LtCol Jimmy Dyess, a Marine killed in action in World War II, who was the recipient of both the Carnegie Medal and the Medal of Honor.