From the Discussion Post on Morals and Ethics


"You will find that many opportunities will arise for you to discuss ethics and morals with your Iraqi counterparts. These will be among some of the most challenging and rewarding conversations you will have. These conversations will require you to examine your own beliefs in the context of how and why Iraqis see the world differently. You will need to consider why they see the world the way they do (such as understanding the long term effects of having brutal, totalitarian dictator for a leadership model has on the cultural and national psyche). You will need to frame your (our) ethical and moral beliefs in a manner that resonates with them. Here are some vignette topics you can use to discuss morals and ethics with your counter parts:

Corruption – pick one from the recent news (its all over both the Iraqi news and our own since the media is pretty much universal in their coverage). Shape it into a vignette that has a personal impact so it becomes more relevant. Discuss at length its consequences at every level so they understand the harm it does. Do not expect to come to a real concurrence on beliefs with the first conversation, instead focus on planting the seed. You have also established your views on the subject, empathized with them by trying to understand the environment in which their views have grown, and you have set the stage for future discussions.

The Army as a guarantor of human rights – this is a delicate subject, but one you will need to discuss and understand. Remember you are not advising the US Army (or for that matter any western army). These men will be fighting this insurgency and potentially others within their own country day on end, for an indeterminate period. They may be targets of revenge for their actions even after the insurgency is over. They have seen neighbors, friends, family and innocent women and children killed for no other reason then because someone in their family served. When they see a terrorist, they realize that the next time they see this man it may be in an ambush, or fleeing from a crime where one of their family was murdered. For many their frame of reference of a time when security was guaranteed was when Sadam held absolute power (they tend to gloss over some of the more thorny details). They are disheartened by the seemingly (perspective is 9/10’s of reality here) apathetic criminal justice system which seems to value the rights of the criminal above those of society or the safety of society’s defenders and their families. They understand their average insurgent better then we do. They know his background and what he has endured before he ever gets to them. They know that the insurgent is a hard man who will use every advantage such as claiming to only target Americans, to claiming abuse, to using connections to regain his freedom so he can conduct his terrorist activities again.

Within the context of the above you are going to have to make a case for the problems with a rigid, cookie cutter Iraqi ROE. I’ve heard Iraqis become so frustrated with the system that they proclaim the next time they will not risk capturing the terrorist, but instead will kill them. I’ve heard them discuss the need for stronger techniques during the questioning of detainees. You have to argue for the problems with such a cookie cutter, rigid application of force. You have to point out the short and long term problems with such solutions. Explain the consequences of a climate where everyone (or at least every soldier) is free to use violence because it is the most expedient and most convenient. Point out that while Sadam’s regime may have preserved order, the price paid was heavy, and that many innocent people died as a result. Point out that the what they are fighting for is not to set the conditions for another Sadam to come to power. Point out that such conditions allow for abuse of power under the guise of public good. Again, you are going to have to frame your arguments within the context of the environment you are in. You are not trying to castrate them, ultimately (and I mean down the road when the MiTT training wheels come off and we are no longer embedded) their solution may be something we would have trouble accepting in our society. Consider the diplomat’s son in the 1990s who received a “cane” whipping from Singapore authorities for vandalism (I think he had spray painted a car), we considered it barbaric given the type of crime, the age of the boy, that he was an American, and that it was a beating. However, it was not our rules. We often have debates in our own societies about capital punishment, prisoner rights, etc. Be careful about viewing a foreign state’s practices (particularly on where we are trying to develop to be able to stand on its own two feet and make decisions concerning its own interests) through a US centric lens, you may find yourself defending your own point of view and being labeled a hypocrite.

My point in this thread is that no one told me I’d be mentoring on ethics. The “advisory pitch” made things seem much cleaner, discuss a little MDMP, work some effects, and conduct a few AARs. This is not a CTC, and you are not an OC. Advisory work is more like developing a team from the inside out then the outside in. I’d recommend you familiarize yourself with a few other texts besides FMs. You might bring along a little Jonathan Hume, some Plato, some Shakespeare, and the Federalist Papers for a start (actually the list could be very broad, and there are lots of places to ref. good discussions on morals and ethics). You are more then just a military advisor, you are something of a mentor too. Your day to day interactions and conversations over the year your are an advisor will do more to develop and influence your counterparts then any class or block of instruction you give. The former is a cumulative picture about who you are, and what a US Soldier believes in, the latter is a stand alone class that is delivered and received as such." - end of thread post

So what are the thoughts about emotional and character development as a requirment to implementing a strategy for New Enemie and New Rules