Ethics by Design: Strategic Thinking and Planning for Exemplary Performance, Responsible Results, and Societal Accountability

68 Ethics by Design

Example: Application in Military Organization

Finally, let’s look at application in a military context before we

discuss your organization’s social contributions. To some, this

sort of example seems so obvious, and to others this seems

like a contradiction of terms. To military strategists and plan-

ners, however, this represents both a current known gap and a

future refinement for military planning models. Desired social

outcomes and ethical performance are on the minds of major

military planners around the world, especially in the larger

international militaries, as it is increasingly finding its way into

curricula at military institutions. In this example, we begin to

explore how social responsibility can be integrated into military

planning models.

In this context, the old adage of winning the battle but los-

ing the war becomes particularly relevant. Military planning that

does not take social impact into consideration can accomplish

victories on the battlefield—the military equivalent to an organi-

zation that successfully produces tires—but still have a larger,

disastrous impact on society that in-turn impacts the military

organization and its ability to function. The book started with

the notion of ethics being about consequences that are “as real

as it gets,” and this holds especially true in military contexts.

Success at a tactical level that does not lead to improved

societal impact (or worse, has a negative societal impact) can

actually interfere with a military organization’s ability to decrease

threats to national security (an assumed objective for any non-

terrorist military organization). Said to the point, military plan-

ning that does not include societal planning can actually create

conditions for on-going threats to security.

Like Kaufman stated about education,

30

military organiza-

tions do not operate in a vacuum, and in truth what they do and

accomplish is of concern to those who pay for it, pass the leg-

islation to support it, and rely on it to be self-sufficient. If, in the

end, a given military activity does not allow citizens to live bet-

ter and contribute better, it is probably not worth doing and will

be condemned, and budgets will be reduced by taxpayers and

legislators as well.

Socially Desirable Ends 69

First, let’s explore how such thinking and planning actually

furthers the mission of military institutions. In an article in USA

Today, two retired U.S. military officers (one Marine and one

Navy pilot) succinctly articulate the argument and vision.

31

In

their article, Zinni and Smith call for a “vibrant” strategic agenda

for national security and foreign policy based on the reality that

many threats to security and national interests—such as illegal

immigration, terrorism, or public health and environmental

problems—stem from complex social problems. For example,

young people living in countries where there is high poverty

and/or violence and few opportunities are “prime recruiting tar-

gets” for participating in or instigating riot, terrorism and war.

They argue,

“We cannot inoculate our nation from these threats.

Instead, we must address the roots of these complex

problems. Simply put, it is time to repair our relation-

ship with the world and begin to take it to the next

level—a level defined not only by our military strength,

but also by the lives we save and the opportunities we

create for the people of other nations…Whether it’s

taking the lead in increasing funding for and using

innovation to expand access to potable water in the

Middle East, decreasing rates of HIV/AIDS in Africa

and Southeast Asia, building international partnerships

to put impoverished kids in school or addressing cli-

mate change, the next administration must reframe and

restructure our foreign policy and national security

architecture. We must match our military might with a

new commitment to investing in improving people’s

lives overseas.”

Military power as it has been traditionally defined will not

address the underlying causes of terrorism or other threats to

national security so long as it is treated in isolation from the

social causes that lead to the threats. But military might and

military strategy conceived of in systemic terms yields a refined

mission, which translates into refined operations and tactics,

and on into a refined use of the resources available. Few