After reflecting on the Army's values as found in the old FM-1 and its replacement, ADP 1, I have come to the conclusion that Lind has it just wrong. Moral courage is alive and well in the U.S. Army.

A small part of my reason for saying that is the number of emotional responses to Lind’s article, which prompted JMA to start this thread. The US military does have its problem children; this is demonstrated in some of the posts made by JMA that quote negative comments about the U.S. military by some present or former U.S military members. However, even some of those posts may be forgiven if the posters thought they were only addressing fellow members of their military.

The visceral reactions displayed on this thread and others on this board to critical comments by Lind, and to Carl, Fuchs, and JMA to name a few, exemplify the institution’s moral strength.

Readers might reflect for a moment on the implications of adhering to the Warrior Ethos. The 4th tenet of that ethos specifies “I will never leave a fallen comrade.” This tenet exemplifies the Army value of loyalty, which is further explained in FM-1 as ”bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit, and other Soldiers.”

Instantiating loyalty involves defending the institution to which one is loyal against criticism by outsiders. Thus, Lind, Carl, Fuchs, and JMA are responded to emotionally because they, as outsiders, do not have the right to criticize the institution to which American Pride, Bill Moore, The Curmudgeon, and I currently belong or have belonged in the past. JMA and Fuchs also do not have the right to criticize the US President or any other member of America's leadership because they are not Americans. This exercising of loyalty ought to be obvious to both JMA and Fuchs as they have expressed it themselves—Fuchs when JMA has castigated the Bundeswehr and the German people, to neither of which has JMA ever belonged; JMA when I, an American, criticized John Buchan, apparently one of his icons (and a former senior leader of a Commonwealth nation), or when I discounted his officer pre-selection process (excuse me, the British system which he espouses) without having been a selectee under that process.

Current and past members of the U.S. Army have the privilege, perhaps even the duty, to critically evaluate their Army, within the context of their Army. From the perspective of loyalty, Carl and JMA, having never served in that Army, do not have that privilege. Similarly, I, having never served in the Rhodesian Light Infantry, do not have the license to criticize JMA’s service therein, however much I might wish to do so; only he and his RLI mates have that privilege. To allow outsiders to make negative comments about the U.S. Army, and the United States in general, without response is to be disloyal to that institution and that nation.

Soldiers have a right to complain (perhaps it is the only right they have). However they have limits on how they may express that right, limits set by the Army’s values and American public laws. Airing the U.S. military’s dirty laundry by running off to the press with stories about the problems in the U.S. Army is equally disloyal, at least until such time as no other recourse exists within the appropriate chain of command. One might view that now infamous Rolling Stone article involving GEN McChrystal in such a light. I do not know enough to say one way or another and reserve judgment.

The very things that Lind finds indicative of moral rot are the things that seem to represent moral vigor. If Lind were to see the kind of critique he says is missing from the military, then he would indeed be witnessing the moral collapse he bemoans. He would be witnessing disloyalty. The fact that he doesn’t suggests that the U.S. Army still has a vigorous adherence to its values.