Just as comanders are responsible for the climate in their units,
so the Army as an institution is responsible for the moral climate it fosters.
In this article, I will outline some of the contradictions and ambiguities
in Army regulations (ARs) and field manuals (FMs) that make it difficult for
leaders to understand the distinction between corrective training and punishment.
I will argue that ARs, case law, the Office of the Inspector General,
and higher-echelon commanders have, nonetheless, made it clear that such
a distinction exists and must be respected. Failure to recognize and respect
this distinction can and often does lead to illegal abuses of authority. These
abuses of authority within the Army’s ranks, and the cultural undercurrents
that condone these patterns of behavior, cripple efforts to wage an effective
counterinsurgency (COIN) campaign by fostering a mentality of paternalistic
tyranny rather than good stewardship. The moral implications of this mentality
are neither consistent nor compatible with counterinsurgency doctrine,
Bookmarks