Our Most Powerful Weapon: The Army Ethic

Our Most Powerful Weapon: The Army Ethic

Harding Paper Logo
January 24, 2025

 
by MAJ Ryan Crayne, USA
Harding Paper 25-1 / January 2025

 

In Brief

  • The Army Ethic is the U.S. Army’s most powerful weapon, as it is the foundation for the moral legitimacy of the American Soldier.
  • The Russian military and its unethical practices in Ukraine serve as a stark contrast to the ethical ideal, highlighting the necessity of an ethical foundation for any army.
  • Our Ethic provides a framework rooted in the moral purpose of why we, as an Army, exist.

Introduction

As modern warfare plays out on our iPhones, we are haunted by the advent of novel weapons on the battlefield. Our Army, straining to stay afront of its adversaries, invests in countless forms of technology to maintain supremacy in the multi-domain environment. However, today’s military challenges are deceitful in promising their mastery in the form of something crafted from silica or steel. Our Army’s greatest asset is not the sophisticated machinery it deploys nor the advanced weaponry it commands. Instead, it is an intangible force. The moral code binding Soldiers to their purpose and to a higher standard of conduct is known as the Army Ethic. This Ethic, deeply rooted in the principles outlined in Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, provides a moral compass for every Soldier, defining what it means to serve honorably and ethically in the modern military.[1] It does not simply guide individual behavior but rather serves to enable a cohesive force, strengthening the Army as both a lethal and capable fighting unit and as a unified institution dedicated to protecting and upholding the democratic values of American society. By safeguarding human rights and preserving democratic ideals, the Army Ethic creates a culture of trust that is essential to mission success and to the Army’s autonomy as a professional institution in our nation. Ultimately, the Army Ethic is our Army’s most powerful weapon, as it is the foundation for the moral legitimacy of the American Soldier, a contract of public trust to America’s citizens and the lasting strength of the profession of arms.

Defining the Army Ethic

The Army Ethic is defined in ADP 6-22 as: “a set of enduring moral principles, values, beliefs, and applicable laws embedded within the Army culture of trust that motivates and guides the Army profession and trusted Army professionals in the conduct of the mission, performance of duty, and all aspects of life.”​[2]

The Ethic is not simply a collection of rules or standards in doctrine; rather, it is a broad framework encompassing the moral and ethical responsibilities essential to military service. It includes the Uniform Code of Military Justice, the Army Values, our Creeds and Warrior Ethos, and the principles of Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello that make up our Just War Theory.

I recall, as a young lieutenant assigned to the Special Operations Task Force in Afghanistan, participating in the targeting process within the Joint Operations Center. I was a witness to an organization that was the result of the honing and sharpening of the broad might of our force into exacting precision; a carefully regulated apparatus had been formed and now sought to defeat enemies. This was the figurative “bleeding edge” of the metaphorical “tip of the spear,” where one was a part of and abreast of what many would call our most advanced weapons and warfighters. But still here, I saw firsthand that our ethical conduct in war was paramount, reigning supreme over any tactical or strategic advantage our other arms could offer. The Army Ethic that our force is beholden to demands that military engagements adhere to the highest standards of honor and justification even under the worst strains of war.

Central to the Army Ethic is every Soldier’s oath to the U.S. Constitution. This oath binds Soldiers to uphold democratic principles and the rule of law rather than loyalty to any one leader. In his essay, “The Army’s Purpose is NOT to ‘Deploy, Fight, and Win Our Nation’s Wars,’” Ben Ordiway discusses that our profession must be certain not to confuse our mission with our purpose.[3] In supporting the Constitution and the democratic virtues therein, we mold the way in which we carry out our mission “to deploy, fight, and win our nation’s wars” to meet this purpose—not the other way around, which would result in winning our wars by “any means necessary.” Going further still, in his contributions to The Future of the Army Profession, John M. Mattox argues that the Soldier’s oath is more than a ceremonial formality; it obligates Soldiers to protect the ideals enshrined in the Constitution, including justice, human rights and democracy. Mattox emphasizes that this commitment to democratic values supersedes any order from a commander or political figure, thereby ensuring that the “why” of fighting remains clear and principled rather than merely a drive for victory at any cost. By prioritizing loyalty to foundational democratic ideals, the Army distinguishes itself as a protector of the American way of life, rather than allowing itself to be reduced to just a force that wages war as its sole purpose of existence.[4]

Warfighting and the Army Ethic

The Army Ethic does not remain a theoretical “weapon” of semantics; it manifests in daily operations, actions and decisions that prepare for and are a part of combat. I was reminded of its practical power as a Mechanized Infantry Company Commander in Poland as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve. Our formation, equipped with over a dozen M2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles, abreast of another two dozen M1 Abrams Tanks, was the most eastward maneuver force stationed in Europe just months before Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The trust my Soldiers had in their leaders, in our physical and mental readiness and in the legitimacy of America’s presence in Poland were direct manifestations of the Army Ethic. Poland welcomed us as a deterrent to their morally illegitimate bear-like neighbors, and our readiness to enter war was reliant on our ethical practices of preparedness.

Maintaining ethical standards, particularly in warfare, can seem like a tactical disadvantage to some, as it can limit actions or expose Soldiers to increased risk. Yet these very standards form the Army’s strategic foundation, rooting its actions in the law of armed conflict, principles of proportionality and combatant discrimination. The strategic footings planted in the bedrock of the Army Ethic also support the tactical advantages of a just, honest and trustworthy force of all-volunteer Soldiers. In leading a joint force to fight in complexity and uncertainty, Commanders must have a transparent and reliable understanding of their Soldiers’ and equipment’s capabilities. America’s military, with its emphasis placed on trust, has a culture of “qualified dissent” where junior officers, sergeants and even junior Soldiers are expected to advise and potentially oppose the plans of senior leaders in good faith. Constructive disagreement enables Soldiers to voice concerns that may strengthen the institution and improve mission outcomes, contributing to resilient and adaptable organizations. Soldiers, particularly officers, are encouraged and implored not to follow orders if they are deemed illegal, unethical or immoral. These principles grant U.S. Soldiers the distinction of being a force of moral authority both in their individual and in their collective actions.

 The Army Ethic also promotes ethical leadership across all levels, urging every Soldier to serve as a moral exemplar. John Vermeesch, in his article Trust Erosion and Identity Corrosion, highlights trust as the very foundation of the Army’s professional status. Vermeesch warns that, without it, the Army risks losing its professional autonomy; its domestic legitimacy as a profession worthy of American citizen’s trust; and its status as a moral force abroad that garners support from democratic nations around the world.[5] Additionally, each individual Soldier’s identity is expected to espouse these Army’s virtues, privately and publicly. The Army does not believe in moral relativism or in an identity that is not in alignment with the Army Ethic.

Failures and Challenges in Upholding the Army Ethic

Despite its strengths, there are significant dangers when an Army fails to uphold its ethical standards. As an instructor now at West Point, teaching senior cadets Officership and the Army Profession, I frequently encounter questions from soon-to-be officers about the Army’s ethical constraints. They ask, “Why must American Soldiers restrain themselves with ethical shackles when our adversaries are unchained? Why must we spend time and resources and risk American lives to apply the limited means of war in a way our enemies never would?” The argument against self-imposed just war in an unjust world has been long debated, but its answer lies in our founding principles. Without ethical constraints, we lose control over our most powerful weapon—the moral legitimacy of the American Soldier’s actions, purpose and mission.

Not in possession of and unable to wield this weapon, the Russian military and its unethical practices in Ukraine serve as a stark example that highlights the necessity of an ethical foundation for an army. Russian commanders failed to achieve decisive victories in the early days of their 2022 invasion due to maintenance failures brought on by lies, poorly understood plans and their soldiers’ ignorance of their mission because of the obfuscation of it by their leaders. Tanks briefed as capable ground to a halt. Fuel stores briefed as ample dried up. Soldiers briefed as sustained went hungry. The lack of a resounding set of ethical underpinnings in the Russian military made it logical and expected for leaders to lie about their readiness to senior commanders—including to Vladimir Putin himself—on a strategic level. At a tactical level, Russian soldiers were right to distrust their leaders and the environment, and thus they poorly executed the ill-conceived orders that they were briefed in haste.[6] Combined, all of these circumstances not only led to the worldwide condemnation of Russia as an illegitimate actor, but also to its tactical failure and its continued struggles in leading a fractured force.

In Band of Brothers, which recounts Easy Company, 2-506th fighting during World War II, Stephen Ambrose reflected on the positive effect of such a relationship functioning as it should—as opposed to how we’ve seen it play out with contemporary Russian forces—when he wrote, “The Americans established a moral superiority over the Germans. It was based not on equipment or quantity of arms, but on teamwork, coordination, leadership, and mutual trust in a line that ran straight from Ike’s HQ right down to E Company. Democracy proved better able to produce young men who could be made into superb Soldiers than Nazi Germany.”[7]

But conversely, there have also been historical instances where the U.S. Army has failed to uphold its own ethical standards, resulting in significant negative consequences. Injustices, such as misuse of power and mistreatment of non-combatants, have eroded public support domestically and fueled our adversaries’ recruitment in places like the Middle East and east Asia. Failures to uphold our espoused ethics have also left lasting moral injuries on Soldiers—and our leaders are responsible both for those injuries and for those Soldiers.[8] Further still, at the strategic level, if we prize our end state above our ways and means to fight war ethically, we erode our connection to the American people and our purpose in waging war in the first place.

When the Army upholds its ethical standards, however, the benefits are clear. Soldiers who believe in the legitimacy of their mission are more committed to the profession. Recruiting and retaining Soldiers is easier, and the bond between the American people and their military is more robust. “Confidence” and thus civil-military trust in the effectiveness and moral footing of our military waxes and wanes as Americans perceive our causes abroad as just or unjust.[9] We must carefully wield the weapon of an ethical force with moral legitimacy, as its ammunition is the lives of Soldiers and the trust of citizens, both of which are hard to stockpile and, all too often, impossible to replenish.

Conclusion: The U.S. Army Ethic as a Guiding Force

Our mission is to fight and win our nation’s wars, but this comes with an essential caveat—a goliath asterisk that supplants the primacy of the “mission first” motto. In winning our wars, we must do it the right way. As any seasoned sergeant major might caution, it “behooves” us not to forget the moral imperative of our purpose in supporting and defending the Constitution while bearing true faith and allegiance to the same. The Army Ethic, as articulated in ADP 6-22, remains the U.S. Army’s greatest asset, even when compared to the technology and weaponry of the modern operating environment. Our Ethic provides a framework rooted in the moral purpose of why we, as an Army, exist. Upholding this Ethic is the responsibility of every Soldier, ensuring that the Army remains a self-regulating institution capable of aligning its actions with the values it fights to defend. This Ethic fortifies the Army’s commitment to justice, accountability and honor—principles essential for future conflicts and for the ongoing trust of the American people. The lessons learned from both the successes and challenges of adhering to the Army Ethic reinforce its role as the enduring and most powerful weapon in the U.S. Army’s arsenal.

 

★  ★  ★  ★

 

About the Author

MAJ Ryan Crayne is a U.S. Army Marketing and Behavioral Economics Officer who has served in leadership and combat roles in the 1st Infantry Division, 75th Ranger Regiment and the 82nd Airborne Division. He holds an MBA from the University of Michigan and has publishing interests centered around recruiting, retention and the Army profession. MAJ Crayne currently serves as the Officer in Charge, Center for Junior Officers, is a LTG (Ret) James M. Dubik Writing Fellow and is a Senior Instructor in the Simon Center for the Professional Military Ethic at the United States Military Academy at West Point.

 

Notes

[1] Department of the Army, Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession (Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office, July 2019), 1-6.

[2] ADP 6-22, 1-6.

[3] Ben Ordiway, “The Army’s Purpose is NOT to ‘Deploy, Fight, and Win Our Nation’s Wars,’” From the Green Notebook, 20 November 2023.

[4] Don M. Snider and Lloyd J. Matthews, eds., 2nd ed., The Future of the Army Profession (New York: McGraw-Hill, 2005).

[5] John Vermeesch, “Trust Erosion and Identity Corrosion,” Military Review (September–October 2013): 2–10.

[6] Sam Cranny-Evans and Sidharth Kaushal, “The Intellectual Failures Behind Russia’s Bungled Invasion,” Royal United Services Institute, 1 April 2022.

[7] Stephen E. Ambrose, Band of Brothers (New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992), 219.

[8] Pete Kilner, “How Leaders Can Combat Moral Injury in Their Troops,” Association of the United States Army, 17 April 2017.

[9] Mohamed Younis, “Confidence in U.S. Military Lowest in Over Two Decades,” Gallup, 13 July 2023.

 


 

The views and opinions of our authors do not necessarily reflect those of the Association of the United States Army. An article selected for publication represents research by the author(s) which, in the opinion of the Association, will contribute to the discussion of a particular defense or national security issue. These articles should not be taken to represent the views of the Department of the Army, the Department of Defense, the United States government, the Association of the United States Army or its members.