Leveraging the Moral Imperative
Leading the long war
by Maj Brian C. Collins
The dynamic nature of the long war has presented our Nation with many challenges. Struggling under a seemingly Herculean task, substantive progress has been slow to realize of late. As a result, open dissatisfaction with the war’s conduct—at home and abroad—is at an alltime high. To correct this situation it must be fully recognized that our struggle is vastly different than any for which we have heretofore been prepared. Our adversaries are not people as much as ideas. The greatest way in which the Marine leader can contribute to defeating the insipid ideology of our opponents is to inculcate a sense of moral responsibility at every opportunity.
Emphasizing moral responsibility in the long war’s conduct is offered as a practical means to achieve victory. The effect is to encourage necessary unity by creating a renewed sense of purpose among three principal community groups—the Marine, our potential friends and allies abroad, and our fellow Americans. It is important to note that morality is not proposed as a justification for war, but rather given that war has already been enjoined, moral leadership is essential. As the long war proceeds and success becomes less tangible, it is natural that collective motivations have waned. To reverse this trend, the responsible leader should emphasize to all who will listen the inherent good in advancing the cause of human dignity.
Across cultures it is commonly held that personal liberty consists of freedom from physical attack, freedom of thought, freedom of religion, and equal protection under the rule of law. Indeed, this axiom is contained within both the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the Cairo Declaration on Human Rights in Islam. While the fringe radical may disagree, the mass popular base within the global community largely believes these virtues inviolate. Morality, as referred to in this article, is thus defined as one’s responsibility to provide these basic elements of human liberty to all.1
The contextual battlespace. The battlespace for the long war is more cerebral than physical. The struggle is fought predominately between the ears and cannot be defined by reference to geography or lines on a map. In this “war amongst the people” we still retain the imperative to win battles—battles now predominantly taking place in the minds of individuals as opposed to strictly physical engagements.2
These battles are part of the larger war designed to defeat a growing global insurgency.3 The lessons of history demonstrate that successful counterinsurgency strategies are predicated upon a sound campaign based upon influence. Support and cooperation of the populace, home and abroad, produces both tangible and intangible benefit. A psychological line of operations must therefore become our bid for success. The purpose of moral direction is to guide our action, define intermediate objectives, and enable the realization of our desired end state. Moral virtue is a tool of influence, and influence is the means to our expected end.
 |
| It’s not just about combat power. (Photo by LCpl Jeffrey A. Cosola.) |
Effects-based leadership. The message of morality directed to the individual Marine has the practical benefit of establishing conditions for greater effort that naturally results from strength of conviction. It is no secret that there is decreasing support for component efforts of the long war and this is of corresponding consequence when considering the motivation of our Marines. The impact of increased public disaffection on the Marine’s conscience is inevitable and thus effectiveness is compromised. Those who argue that protests at home do not impact the morale of our Marines are, quite frankly, wrong. Statements in opposition to the campaign in Iraq in particular, though carefully crafted to profess “support for the troops,” appear strangely counterintuitive to the average Marine. Marines have a visceral dislike for being portrayed as victims in such a manner, but the growing chorus of discord sows some level of doubt nonetheless. Today’s leader can counter this message by continually reminding our Marines that their work is important at levels seldom acknowledged.
As leaders it is also our responsibility to remind our charges that selflessness and sacrifice still have a place in this world. Marines are naturally of idealistic character or otherwise they would not have put on our uniform. It is a leader’s job to keep that fire burning. We owe it to them and to the public we serve. Appealing to the individual Marine’s sense of altruism will ultimately act as a catalyst as they in turn share their own moral purpose with the communities with which they subsequently interact.
One such community is the greater people of Iraq. The result of a survey of Iraqis is illustrative of our failings so far. In this survey, 100 percent of respondents stated they disapprove of any attacks upon civilians, yet 78 percent claimed that Americans have a negative effect on the security situation.4 It is remarkable that despite a common aversion to the kinds of attacks increasingly perpetuated by the minority lawless in Iraq, the strongest military in the world is not only perceived to be ineffective but detrimental. How did this come to be, and how is it best corrected? Certainly our modus operandi must change lest the faith of the indigenous population be lost irrevocably to the insurgents.
In this situation, our primary focus on physical security as the primary key to prosperity has often exacerbated the cycle of violence. For every bombing, sweeping raids and arrests must follow. For every raid and arrest, another bomb is detonated, and so on. This is not to say that the military should not actively pursue insurgents, but actions must be precise in order to limit excess grievance in the general population. Iraqis, as well as many Americans, have lost sight of our purpose and want us gone as a result.
Explicitly stated or not, our purpose in most countries to which we are presently deployed is to simply improve the lives of individuals. Through the provision of services, this sometimes implied task must be rendered evident to the people we are overseas to aid. Sometimes these people have unfair expectations of us; nevertheless, we must not waver in this regard. If the United States—and the Marine Corps by extension—does not follow through on promises of a brighter future, our potential friends will throw their lot in with the enemy. Appeals to the moral nature of our mission will demonstrate our resolve and foster alliances, even in cultures halfway around the world.
Again, however, the battlespace is on this side of the ocean as well. Our enemies recognize that the source of our Nation’s strength is derived from the will of our people. They are on record as stating that the defeat of the U.S. electorate’s will to persevere will result in American capitulation. As members of the Armed Forces we are in a delicate position and cannot directly intervene is this battle since it is simply not the place for the uniformed military to publicly argue for or against the decisions of our national leadership. On the other hand, openly advocating moral action in defense of clearly defined humanitarian objectives will be met with few critics and goes a long way toward building the consensus so desperately needed.
National unity of purpose is essential. The humanitarian consequences of abandoning our tasks at hand are severe. As leaders of not only Marines, but also as leaders of our Nation, we have a further imperative to responsibly offer perspective to our fellow Americans that they may not have been exposed to. We should encourage debate of the merits of conflict in a manner that is greater than the simple either/or propositions batted around today. We should educate our compatriots that the only way to defeat our adversary’s ideology and ensure that attacks of increasing scale do not continue upon our shores is to achieve a simple, singular objective—demonstrate a resolve and commitment to improve the quality of life of those individuals who make up the enemy’s basis of support. Our Nation has to do better than it has because the long war is a competition. We have lost the ideological initiative through division. The outcome will be determined by who is more committed to providing for the disenfranchised—physically and ideologically—and our national will to this end must be uncompromising.
The leader’s mandate. A critical feature to ensuring a positive outcome in the long war is the advancement of a sense of moral responsibility. Our Marines should be reminded of the nobility of their cause. Their idealism will be infectious and will benefit many. At the same time, we must use a moral grounding as the basis upon which we compete with our enemies—both of us competing for the minds of our respective population bases. Idealism alone will not win the war, but without it, the United States certainly stands to lose. Our Nation is in a time of crisis. Principled leadership must prevail. When it does, victory will soon follow.
Notes
1. The mention of liberty, and not democracy, is intentional. This article advocates a promotion of values and not a political system. The dogged pursuit of democracy may actually detract from the purpose of intervention; however, that discussion is left for another forum. Regardless and whether right or wrong, democracy is widely perceived to be a uniquely American enterprise that is an imposition often rejected outside Western culture.
2. The term “war amongst the people” is borrowed from GEN Sir Rupert Smith. For more on his ideas see, GEN Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2007.
3.While there may be debate as to whether our enemies represent an insurgency, a growing body of analysis would indicate that this is indeed the case. Perhaps the best argument in this regard is made by LTC David Kilcullen, Australian Army, in his article, “Countering Global Insurgency,” dated 30 November 2004, available at www.smallwarsjournal.com/documents/kilcullen.pdf.
4. Data used derived from a WorldPublicOpinion.org-sponsored poll entitled, “The Iraqi Public on the US Presence and the Future of Iraq,” 27 September 2006. This poll was conducted by the Program on International Policy Attitudes, a joint program of the Center for International and Security Studies at the University of Maryland, College Park, MD, and the Center on Policy Attitudes, Washington, DC.
>Maj Collins is an infantry and Middle East/North Africa Regional Affairs Officer currently serving as the Operations Officer, 2d Bn, 1st Mar. This article was his Hogaboom Leadership Writing Contest entry.
