Officer puts personal stake in military ethics - Entertainment, Books - Navy Times

Officer puts personal stake in military ethics

Each time a generation goes to war, writes Army 1st Lt. Jacob F. Roecker, “the doctrines of the past need to evolve. The moral code gets repacked to current Soldierpopulation.”

The kernel of that code is “in each of us. It is the moment that we are animated toward preserving the Constitution — and particularly our perspective of it.”

Roecker believes a personal ethic in a professional organization is important enough to merit self-publishing a book, which he notes is “not endorsed by the U.S. government or the Department of Defense.”

He enlisted in 1997 as a network switching systems operator-maintainer. He deployed to Iraq in 2003-04 and 2005-06. In 2006, he entered the Green to Gold Active Duty Option and was commissioned in 2008. In August, he becomes a captain.

He took a break from duty as an assistant operations officer at Fort Sill, Okla., to answer questions:

Q: Did you intend to rhyme “The Kernel” with “colonel”?

Yes. The idea is that Gen. [George W., Jr.] Casey’s command was to find the Army’s Professional Military Ethic and define it, and the current discussion looks at it in the macro sense. In order to define something, you must look at it in its origins, not its extensions. In working on the book, I talked with a lot of people. All of them are field-grade level and above.

Q: Is every soldier taught ethics?

There is no singular perspective. Usually, it’s, “Here are the rules, and here’s what to follow.” In the Abu Ghraib situation, for example, the rules didn’t matter. [Current training] is not a constructive model for allowing soldiers to know right and wrong.

Q: Why does this serious topic fascinate a green-to-gold officer?

One of my hobbies is to think and to study questions. When somebody presents me with a question I can’t solve, I explore it.

QWhy do you not mention your rank in the book?

I didn’t take the time to go through [public affairs] to find out how I could identify myself. It’s a safe way for all parties involved.

Q: Why do soldiers need a class in ethics? Aren’t humans inherently ethical?

When you give somebody weapons and ammunition and they are trained to use deadly force ... then all the rules are thrown out the window. If those rules aren’t internalized, the soldier will operate without rules.

The Army has an influence on an individual’s decision and his conscience. If soldiers knew they were actually in charge of their own version of right and wrong, they would change the organizational structure for the better.

Q: You refer to James Bond, Jack Bauer and Jason Bourne as “demonstrating a results-based ethic.” How?

I was taking a break [from writing] and watching James Bond. He had just slept with somebody and blew something up in order to get information, and I’m noticing it’s all about the results.

In those situations, “What is the greater good?” is communicated at the beginning, and the getting to the greater good is the ultimate goal.

Q: Do civilians need ethics lessons?

Yes. Militarily, for two reasons. The ethical tone of the civilian population will affect who the leadership is, who sends us to war. The ethical tone of the nation directly affects who we have coming in [to the Army].

Q: Why did you enlist in the Army?

I’m the sixth generation in my family to join the military. I didn’t do well in high school, and my dad was kicking me out of the house where — when we were 7 years old — we had to memorize the preamble to the Constitution. Compared to who I was when I joined, the Army has had a great influence on me. I get to show up to work and do what I want to do. The reason why is that I want to do what my employer wants me to do. In exchange, I have the freedom to do what I want.

And they paid for college.

J. Ford Huffman is a Military Times book reviewer.