STRATEGICEDITION

CLS guidance on ethics in operations

DUTY withDISCERNMENT:

STRATEGICEDITION

Copyright 2009 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of National Defence. This official document is published on the authority of the Commander, Land Forces Command.

Walker, Richard J.Duty With Discernment: CLS Guidance on Ethics in Operations /Lieutenant-Colonel R.J. Walker, CD, Ph.D., Army Ethics Officer.

Directorate of Land Concepts and DesignKingston, Ontario2009

Publication Data:Directorate Army Public Affairs,Ottawa, (September 2009)

Government of Canada Catalogue Number: D2-244/2009E

NDID Number: B-GL-347-001/FP-000

ISBN: 978-1-100-11857-4

Layout and Cover DesignDirectorate Army Public Affairs

CLS ForewordDuty with discernment(Good judgment with insight)

PART ACommand authority (Officers):Ensuring ethical certainty and moral resilience

PART BRespect the dignity of all personsand you will respect yourself

PART CControl authority (NCMs): Living our ethos

APPENDIX 1Army ethos

APPENDIX 2The soldiers card

APPENDIX 3The Canadian soldiers code of conduct

5

7

15

21

29

31

33

3

Table of contents

4

Duty with discernment(Good judgment with insight)

Members of the Army,

Recent global events caution us that the veneer of civilization can be very thin and the humanitarian need to protect the weak and the inno-cent from a ruthless and implacable foe confirms to us that being a force for good in the world is a uniquely human enterprise. While the emphasis of past conflicts has been on combat power and strategic terrain, the operational imperative of asymmetrical warfare is now focused on the human dimension as the key force multiplier in the fight for values and ideas. While it was once sufficient for a soldier to have a good tactical eye for ground, we now need soldiers who have a strategically discerning eye for people. Where once only physical courage defined heroism, the need for moral courage throughout the breadth of our Army is now a key institutional goal in shaping our culture. Similarly, while always ensuring that we have the right tools for the job, we must also acknowledge that the moral component of the conventional Laws of Armed Conflict has polarized. The threat forces may in their blatant disre-gard for the sanctity of human life, target the moral centre of our Army as a medium through which to degrade our will and sap our national resolve.

This Commanders guidance is published in a Strategic Edition and a Soldier Edition. The former is intended to affirm the Army Command vision, while the latter is intended to resonate at a tactical level. The aim of this book-let is to clearly articulate both our expectations of you in our jus in bello (how we fight) conduct of operations and to assert to you that our conduct as professional citizen soldiers will serve to define our specific mission narrative to both national and international audiences. The former is intended to affirm the Army Command vision, while the latter is intended to resonate at a tacti-cal level. As in the finest traditions of the Canadian Army, we expect an ethical warrior, as a protector and a defender, to reflect the best of Canadian values within an increasingly dangerous and complex operating environment. Yet, even a limited armed conflict requires a substantial base of public support.

5

If we do not confront the soft relativismthat is now disguised as virtue, we will find

ourselves morally and intellectually disarmed.William Bennett, The Death of Outrage

6Lieutenant-General Andrew Leslie CMM, MSC, MSM, CD Chief of Land Staff / Army Commander

Notwithstanding the moral outrages that may be perpetrated by the enemy, that support will erode or reverse rapidly, no matter how worthy the politi-cal objective, if Canadian society believes that we conduct ourselves in an unethical, inhumane, or iniquitous manner. Our ethical and moral compass is values-based. Though we function within codes of military laws which dictate acceptable conduct, in operations we are challenged by a myriad of harm-based decisions. Each has a moral component, and each demands that a discerning and insightful judgment be made.

The theme of this CLS guidance is that the nature of operations, as with nature itself, abhors a vacuum. If you fail to assert positive leadership, someone or some idea will inevitably lead your troops astray. Should you fail to properly inform, train, or prepare your soldiers, they will be neither posi-tioned for success nor empowered with the requisite insight to make the dis-cerning judgements required of the strategic corporal, captain, and colonel of today. Similarly, if you fail to inculcate, demonstrate, and police the values and beliefs inherent in our Army ethos, your soldiers will be denied the ethical certainty they require to know what right looks like and to do their duty with discernment.

Ensuring ethical certainty within the asymmetrical battlespace and developing our moral centre demands a healthy ethical climate, free from re-prisal, which inspires the moral courage to speak truth to power in fixing the problem and not the blame. Akin to physical fitness, ethical combat fitness is a command responsibility, which is inextricably linked to operational effec-tiveness we ignore it at our peril.

Chief Warrant Officer Wayne FordMMM, MSC, CDLand Force Command / Army Sergeant-Major

Command authority(Ofcers):Ensuring ethicalcertainty andmoral resilience

7

Part

A

PART A - Command authority(Ofcers):

Ensuring ethical certaintyand moral resilience

1. Asymmetrical warfare presents on a spatial, functional, temporal, and moral plane. Within an information warfare construct, the moral com-ponent of asymmetrical warfare has proven to be an operational imperative. Achieving the ethical certainty of acceptable norms of conduct is an all-ranks function. It is analogous to a tug-of-war team whereby ethics and leadership are two strands of the same rope. A failure in either leads to both failing the mission and failing our soldiers.

2. Asymmetrical warfare is a struggle whereby the legal distinction be-tween civilian, combatant, criminal and soldier can be problematic within an environment where the moral component of our operations defines our abil-ity to transform tactical victory into a desirable strategic outcome. Actively shaping the ethical character of the conflict is now a vital element in shaping the battlefield. Driving all other considerations is that we have an absolute moral and ethical imperative to prepare our soldiers to conduct and succeed in combat, and to do their duty with discernment.

3. It is the responsibility of senior Army leadership to anticipate the ethical uncertainty inherent in asymmetrical warfare and to arm our junior of-ficers and younger soldiers with the basic moral principles they can rely on to make the discerning moral choice when facing ambiguity. While general rules such as our Code of Conduct are helpful, they can never replace or address the innumerable values-based judgments required by the fluidity of opera-tions.

9

It is exceptional and difficult to find in one man all the qualities necessary for a great general. What is most desirable, and which

instantly sets a man apart, is that his intelligence or talent are [sic] balanced by his character or courage.

Napoleon l: Maxims of War, 1831

10

On the other hand, your commitment to the Army Ethics Programme (AEP) serves to insulate your soldiers from moral angst and provides the ethical cer-tainty inherent in an Army ethos (values and beliefs) whereby the immutable values of loyalty, duty, courage and integrity are demonstrably professed and practiced. Our ethos constitutes our moral compass and our shield against ethical uncertainty. Yet, it is insufficient that the compass exists metaphorically as a technology. To influence his deci-sion-making, the soldier must know the compass, understand it, be convinced of its value, know how to use it, use it properly and trust it.

4. Zero tolerance for ethical failings should not be con-fused with a zero defect mentality. Notwithstanding our best in-tentions, the fog of war makes operational mistakes or miscalculations inevitable. There is a clear distinction between a mistake and doing wrong. A mistake is simply a judgement leading to an undesirable result, while doing wrong is an individual choice that violates our integrity. Mistakes illustrate important lessons from which we learn, and serve to test the fidelity of our trust in our subordinates and mission command.

Command authority delegates mission authority but never responsibility. The strategic corporal, captain or colonel is empowered to do their duty with discernment based solely on your delegated authority; while you, the com-mander in trust of their judgment, retain full responsibility. Mistakes under delegated authority will occur and demonstrable acceptance of commander responsibility must be seen to take place or the credibility of mission com-mand will be lost. Wrong-doing, on the other hand, is always an individual choice leading to individual culpability. Those who know of the wrong-doing and fail in their obligations to act under QR&O 4.02, 5.01 are, by individual choice, culpable.

5. The strength of our Army in meeting the complexity, ambiguity, and ethical uncertainty of asymmetrical operations rest in our uncompromising adherence to an Army ethos (our values and beliefs) based on our expecta-tions of Army service, Army values, and Canadian societal expectations. Op-erational success demands qualities such as emotional intelligence, empathy, subtlety, sophistication, nuance and political adroitness. An ethical warrior is a more skilful and adaptive warrior. Put simply, an ethical warrior reflects empathy when empathy works and lethal aggression when such is required. Ethical warriors are protectors and defenders trained to close with and de-stroy the enemy if and when required. Enshrining this self-image within our Army ethos safeguards our humanity, defines us to others, and empowers the Canadian soldier to make the discerning judgements needed in addressing full spectrum operations.

6. The Army ethos is the identity card of the values of the Canadian Army. It underlies every action performed by any Canadian soldier, anywhere in the world. It reflects the ethical code by which we act and is reinforced by the inculcation of those values through the chain of command, with no separation between what we profess and what we practice. Our ethos guides our moral behaviour that individual behaviour as seen by, and which influ-ences others. It is the habit of the heart, mind and character of the citizen soldier. It is what we do when no one is watching. Yet, in informational war-fare, the world is watching. Therefore any real, falsely perceived, or fabricated incidental breakdown in ethics, discipline, or leadership may be amplified by the media, the public, or the enemy as a symptom of moral degradation.

7. Since war is hell, you have a moral obligation to insulate your sol-diers from the psychological scarring associated with combat and to provide them with an emotional road map to get home safely. You must arm your soldiers with a meaningful warriors code that both motivates and restrains them. That warriors code is reflected in the Army ethos of duty, loyalty, integrity and courage. It mirrors how we fight and it preserves our moral character.

8. The concept of a few bad apples is never an excuse for ethical failings within an Army. While neither military discipline nor the Army Eth-ics Programme (AEP) is about making inherently bad people good, the AEP is, on the other hand, about practicing an ethos-based culture that rewards and recognizes ethical leadership while simultaneously negating any vacuum within which bad soldiers can prosper. The AEP, through LFCO 21-18, provides the operational tools to position your soldiers for ethical certainty, moralresiliency and operational success. As directed, you must appoint a Unit Ethics

11

12

Coordinator (UEC) and have established a Unit Ethics Plan based on an ethi-cal risk assessment. This structured ethics community is supplemented by the Human Dimensions in Operations (HDO) survey regimen, which informs you on the health of the unit ethical climate and the Lamplighter initiative, which provides a recourse for any Canadian soldier to meet their legal and moral obligations to act in accordance with QR&O 4.02 (Officers) and 5.01 (NCMs). Yet no tools can exceed the power of personal dialogue in providing soldiers a genuine mechanism of voice. That need for voice and your need to listen increases in direct proportion to the intensity of combat operations.

9. Ethical leaders talk with and not to soldiers. While command respon-sibility is your legal authority in war, soldiers will only follow your ethical leadership by your personal example. If ambiguity and uncertainty are the hall-marks of asymmetrical warfare, then your task is to instil ethical clarity through the inculcation, demonstration, and policing of the Army values: duty, loyalty, integrity and courage. Remember soldiers always know!

10. Within Command Responsibility resides the three-way command harm dilemma: the mission v. risk to our soldiers v. risk to innocent civilians. The decision process may start with: Is it legal? And if legal, is it moral or eth-ical? The resolution resides in the morally justified Doctrine of Double-Effect, which holds that there is a morally-relevant difference between intending evil and foreseeing that it may occur as an unintended conse-quence of a legal and ethical act of war.

11. In following the Laws of War, you need to ensure that the orders that you give your soldiers are devoid of revenge or the get even factor, and align with our Army group values so that they can do their duty and live reas-sured with the aftermath. Your soldiers should and will recognize and chal-lenge manifestly unlawful or unethical orders.

12. Moral courage means taking personal responsibility and is the pri-mary challenge to all ranks who must display the moral courage to speak truth to power in an honest reporting of often bad news. In fostering that moral courage, a commander must listen and must act. Speaking truth to power provides a genuine mechanism of voice from those who know the situation. Command humility recognizes that while rank denotes responsi-bility, it does not always connote intelligence, creativity, or combat smarts. Trust your subordinates. Trust your soldiers. Listen to them very carefully be-cause it is their lives that are on the line.

13. We are professional soldiers to whom ethics are not, repeat not, an optional extra. Ethics are the absolute core of what defines us as professional warriors. It is ethical restraint that makes the distinction between a warrior and a barbarian. We are charged to live and sometimes die by a warrior code of honour reflected in our stringent obedience to the ethical code of restraint inherent in our Army ethos. Command authority resides in an officer corps that can differentiate between command (Officer) and control (NCM) func-tions.

14. Yet we face an enemy in the war on terror that neither observes the fundamental rules of international humanitarian law, nor respects the code of the warriors honour. We face a terrorist strategy in which casualties civilian and non-combatant are intrinsic to their object of war. The ethical com-mand dilemma is how we remain true to a warrior code of honour that the enemy does not share; or how do we observe ethical restraint when the other side will not?

15. The tactical and operational dilemma we may face is that our op-ponents could come to believe that they gain an advantage in breaking the Laws of War by engaging in perfidy, subterfuge, and a blatant disregard for human life yours, theirs, and everyone elses. Yet our professional Army can only prosper and retain our legitimacy, self-respect, confidence and public support through Laws of War restraint, and by refusing to stain our warrior honour.

13

16. As a commander, you may face five unique moral dilemmas:

a. Moral numbing The ethical implications of stand-off weapons systems generating a hubris in technical performance that may mask reality, by mak-ing us forget or become numb to the fact that we are killing.

b. Moral frustration The temptation of vengeance, revenge, or the gratu-itous use of force against those who display no warriors honour, who have defiled our comrades, and who degrade their claim to combatant respect.

c. Perverse consequences of doing good The more ethically pure your conduct is, the more likely this observance may be exploited by the enemy as a potential weakness or vulnerability. This includes the insuperable dilemma of hostage taking, the use of human shields, or the siting of enemy military objectives near hospitals and schools.

d. Perverse consequences in risk aversion Casualty avoidance is a primary concern in Western military cultures. We face an enemy who is prepared to die, not in the cause of victory, but simply as a contribution to perpetual conflict. With no hope of tactical victory, they choose martyrdom in a vainglorious but failing attempt to make us look weak, inept and unprepared; targeting the moral centre of our Army and our democratic process in an attempt to exhaust our national resolve.

e. The legalization of ethical reasoning While legal review is a funda-mental construct in the operational planning process, beware

of the false premise that legal coverage equates to sufficient ethical coverage. While acting in accordance with Canadian law is deemed to be ethical, societal values hold the Canadian

soldier to the highest possible ethical standards. Therefore, fidelity in maintaining the expectation of public trust is an operational imperative. Operational ethics is a com-mand responsibility. The international Laws of War are the friend of civilized societies and the military forces they field. The Laws of War help, and do not hinder, the conduct of operations. It is important that the letter and

spirit of each tenet of international law be thoroughly understood so that neither the success of the mission nor the welfare of the soldier is compromised.

14

Respect the dignityof all personsand you will respectyourself

15

Part

B

PART B - Respect the dignityof all persons

and you will respect yourself

1. Threat forces now represent 4th generation strategic factions. They cover the full spectrum from criminal elements to religious extremists that choose to wage terrorism on or amongst the people. Terrorists believe they have a certain strategic advantage over democratic governments because they are prepared to commit suicide or take hostages in the murder of in-nocents. This can place democratic governments, which value human life, in an insuperable moral dilemma. These non-state actors are not deterred by the threat of punishment under international law. The enemys targeting of innocents is an explicit psychological strategy designed to turn our respect for the legal status of non-combatants, our limits of moral perseverance, and our revulsion over overt violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict, into an exploitable vulnerability. They view our social respect for the rule of law and our belief in the sanctity of human life as our centre of gravity or as a weakness, instead of the fact that in a war of ideas and human ideals our compassion and respect for the dignity of all persons serves as our manifestly greatest strength.

17

All soldiers taken must be cared for withmagnanimity and sincerity so that they

may be used by us.Chang Y

18

2. The enemy has adopted the doctrine of persistent combat based on the components of unlimited time, a full disregard for the sanctity of human life, and no shortage of martyrs. It is as they express metaphorically: The West has all the watches; we have all the time. Subsequently, the enemy targets non-combatants in ever-increasing acts of barbarism aimed at: triggering our rage from their outrages, eroding the moral centre of our society and impos-ing a moral and political dilemma on governments.

3. Expectations of reciprocity in treatment will be problematic. Con-ventional norms give us conditional hope that if we treat the enemy well, the enemy will reciprocate. Of primary concern is that our restraint may dissolve if adversaries act dishonourably, abuse non-combatants, or commit atrocities against captive forces. Correspondingly, we cannot assume any reciprocity of expectations regarding the well-being of Canadian soldiers kidnapped or cap-tured by threat forces. While we will unquestionably meet the spirit and letter of duty-of-care of unlawful combatants, bona fide Prisoners of War and all other detainees, commanders at all levels need to be aware that this is a uni-lateral guarantee - whereby we play operate in accordance with by the rules of war and that the enemy may not.

4. Commanders must understand that the most compelling reason for our soldiers to accept restraint is the internal moral damage that they risk in failing to do so. The ethical ambiguity and uncertainty of the asymmetrical battlespace can place the Canadian soldier in moral peril. Our soldiers are a product of a society which values human life and prohibits unlawful killing. Within the mandate and the power to kill lies the potential to corrupt char-acter and promote hubris a destructive individual or group arrogance. Our Army ethos provides the warriors code which keeps our soldiers from losing their humanity and their ability to enjoy a life worth living outside the realm of combat.

5. Our work on Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) confirms that catastrophic war experiences not only cause disabling psychiatric symptoms but they can also ruin good character, based not solely on exposure to vio-lence but also on a personal betrayal of failing to do the right thing. Allied experience shows us that veterans who were directly or indirectly party to immoral or dishonourable behaviour perpetuated by themselves, their com-rades, or their commanders, have the hardest time reclaiming their lives. What happens in the field does not stay in the field; both the perpetrator and the witnesses to an unethical or criminal situation will be emotionally

19

scarred for the rest of their lives and none can ever return home with their personal or corps/regimental honour intact. The tragic paradox is that fight-ing for ones country may render one unable to enjoy the quality of life of the society that one is fighting for.

6. Hating the enemy is not a precondition for combat effectiveness. Hatred of the enemy may prove to be irrational and self-destructive. If sol-diers abandon restraint and allow themselves to be overcome by hatred in revulsion to a heinous act, they risk losing their humanity; a consequence which serves to undermine the moral authority of our troops in theatre. Yes, hate the act but not the man. An act of retaliation is a crime and we dont do that. In accordance with the CF Code of Conduct (Appendix 3) we treat

all detainees humanely, and any mistreatment of de-tainees or non-combatants is illegal, immoral, and will not be tolerated because we dont do that.

Controlauthority (NCMs):Living our ethos

21

Part

C

PART C - Control authority (NCMs):Living our ethos

1. As NCMs you have intimate contact with your soldiers. Your function as immediate role models for ethical behaviour increases in direct propor-tion to the intensity of operational exposure. It is through you that we live our ethos by: inculcating our values, demonstrating our values, and polic-ing our values through a fully transparent intolerance for any behaviour which stains our warrior honour.

2. Within a climate of ambiguity and uncertainty, there is a premium on demonstrated (not simply professed) leadership. In asserting ethical cer-tainty, leaders at all levels insulate their soldiers within the Army ethos (duty, loyalty, integrity and courage) and set the tone and conditions for subordi-nate actions. Leaders set the Unit moral compass to align with our group val-ues and to steer away from any misplaced group loyalty or insidious Band of Brothers claims of supporting buddies whether right or wrong. Turning a blind eye to wrongdoing is an ethical failing and a criminal act; and we dont do that.

3. Of particular concern is the tendency to defend the good soldier euphemism whereby we may tolerate particular soldiers, supported by oth-ers, for being good in the field, but who are, in fact, simply soldiers of bad character pursuing an alternate ethos based on the values of cruelty, abuse of power and disrespect for the law. These may be the miscreants who fill a lead-ership vacuum and lead others astray. The aim of the Army Ethics Programme (AEP) is not to make bad people good, but to provide the leadership, group structure and the requisite supervision to deny the opportunity for those sol-diers of dubious personal character to violate the Army ethos.

23

You must know that it is no easy thing for a principleto become a mans own, unless each day he maintain it

and hear it maintained, as well as work it out in life.Epictetus

4. Be aware of the Tour-Term Syndrome, which can affect soldiers be-haviour and attitudes towards the latter part of an operational tour. The tour-term stage whereby everything may become suspect by that point in time can be identified by soldier boredom, fatigue, mission disillusion, or the increasing fear of becoming a casualty as tour end looms. This survival angst may stimulate negative behaviours such as modifications of ROEs, risk aver-sion, or whatever it takes, in the soldiers view, to get home safely.

5. As a combat leader, your background or career aspirations are irrel-evant to your soldiers. They are concerned that you are competent, that you care about their welfare, and that you will foster a safe and ethical command environment. Remember the soldier always knows.

6. The ethical climate is the pervasive characteristic of our Army that affects how decisions are made. The health of the ethical climate is based on a soldiers perception of how leadership does business and constitutes a shared perception of right behaviour. If we permit a vacuum between what we pro-fess and what we practice, the soldier will identify and fill the incongruence between the normative (the way things are right now) compared to the way things should be. We permit no vacuum to occur and amplify the group (sec-tion, platoon, company, battalion, or brigade) assertion of our ethos with our credo we dont do that.

24

25

7. Leaders supervise, oversee, check, train to standard, uphold stan-dards and ensure the safety of troops. They never allow a leadership vacuum to form. Your soldiers are aware of and are personally committed to your ex-pectations because you communicate those expectations. They exude con-fidence, ethical certainty, and uncompromising discipline because you inculcate, demonstrate and police the Army ethos.

8. Leaders respond quickly and aggressively to signs of illegal or un-ethical behaviour. Ethical violations are not just mistakes, they are fundamen-tal failings in our profession of arms Canadian values and our Army values are not negotiable. If we lose our moral purchase and our operational legiti-macy, we will lose public trust.

9. Emotional stress disablers, such as seeing a comrade killed or de-filed by a barbaric act, can spark frustrations, anger, and a desire for revenge. As hard as it may be, do not let emotions lead soldiers to commit hasty and illegal actions. If you witness or hear of such acts, you must not let misplaced group loyalty prevent you from taking proper action. Our ethos insulates our moral centre against such acts as we encourage our soldiers to hate the act but not the man.

10. In a war on values and ideas rather than terrain and resources, the natural justice you demonstrate in your tactical contact with non-combat-ants and detainees negates enemy intent and will be the key to victory the ultimate reason for an army to fight justly.

11. Remember we have a zero tolerance for failure in our legal and moral obligation to act under QR&O 4.02 (Officers) and 5.01 (NCMs). This, in concert with our commitment to true, honest, complete and precise reporting, negates the possibility of any staff or command cover-up. Once this is known to all, attempted cover-ups based on perceptions of divided loyalty (Army, corps or mission) fail because all who collude are legally culpable. 12. Leaders educate and train subordinates about the nature of combat stress and routinely check for indicators such as revenge motivators or troop lack of human respect. While fear is the natural state of the soldier in opera-tions, combat stress can be a key threat to ethical conduct. Combat stress can be generated by enemy action, mission demands, or by an unhealthy ethical climate that is not free from reprisal. Allied research indicates that combat stress has been linked to criminal misconduct, abuse of detainees, desecration of bodies, looting, alcohol abuse, malingering, desertion and the unlawful in-jury and murder of non-combatants. Hyper-alertness, irrational fear, impaired performance and soldier apathy are well-known consequences of combat stress. Yet while we are warriors, we are also human beings within whom stress is not a sign of weakness but a sign that we are human.

13. The stressors of combat, or the barbarity of the enemy, are never ex-cuses for committing egregious offences which violate our Army ethos. Abuse only supports the enemy and does their work for them. All issues of cruelty or mistreatment must be viewed through the prism of our ethos and national interests. We emphasize the issue of cruelty and not torture because there is a legal distinction between the two. As the lower level of abuse, cruelty can be as effective as torture in the violation of our ethos through the destruction of human dignity. To the Canadian soldier there is no moral distinction between either as we abolish cruelty in our Army, so we abolish torture we dont do that.

26

14. Beware of your soldiers attempting to rationalize incremental abuse of others based on the end justifies the means benefit excuse- as in- just softening them up for interrogation. While any form of direct physical assault is obviously wrong, other forms of indirect abuse such as sleep deprivation are equally wrong. Abuse by degrees is always abuse and since we know what right looks like, you must always report and intervene by personal example in any such case because- we dont do that.

15. Little things mean a lot extreme physical abuse occurs after milder forms of abuse are tolerated. Mild physical abuse appears after verbal abuse is tolerated. Never allow the tolerated sequence to begin. For exam-ple, do not dehumanize or vilify the enemy or non-combatants by labelling them. Demeaning labels diminish individual identity and emphasize ethnic, cultural, social or religious identity instead. You must tell troops how they are to refer to the enemy and the civilian population. Otherwise, soldier creativity for dehumanizing labels will tend to fill the vacuum and we dont do that.

16. In the stress of combat, be aware that the absence of a demonstra-ble and positive leadership presence may permit pernicious authority figures to dominate the group. Soldiers who find themselves socially isolated cannot then challenge these negative group norms if no one supports them. In this toxic environment, the phenomena of bystander apathy or the likelihood of bystander intervention (stepping up to do the right thing), may decrease with increasing group size.

17. The concept of compassion for wounded enemy soldiers or dis-tressed civilians should be viewed explicitly rather than assumed to be im-plicit within our values. Compassion is a requisite humanizing quality that soldiers should be encouraged to express. Genuine compassion and empathy for the non-combatant population provides an effective weapon against ter-rorist insurgents. Our victory comes when the enemy loses legitimacy in the society it targets and thus loses their recuperative power.

18. Alternatively, in pursuit of cultural sensitivity in the battle for hearts and minds, you need to positively align soldier exchanges with the populace with the natural use of schemas (a script in our head which defines acceptable or predictable civilian behaviour). Since soldiers under stress will attempt to reduce complex situations to basic reciprocal ethical premises- (we are here risking our lives defending you; ergo, you should appreciate or like us), you need to ensure that there is no mismatch between our schema as liberator and the local population, which may have adopted a counter-schema that views us as occupiers.

27

19. You need to be aware of the basic psychological relationship between the qualitative nature of our behaviour (positive/negative) and the consisten-cy of the attitudes we communicate to others. Our attitudes dont determine our behaviour the reverse is true. If we act respectfully towards others, our attitudes will improve. If we act disrespectfully or cruelly, our attitudes will become more negative because as humans, we attempt to eliminate con-tradictions. Therefore, if we abuse the enemy, it must be that they deserve it. And since they are bad it is difficult to hold anything other than a negative attitude. This results in a destructive feedback-loop; a slippery slope of treat-ment versus attitude.

20. If you dehumanize your enemy, you dehumanize yourself. Without restraint, you will do things that you will regret and you wont go home with honour.

21. We are a professional Army which follows an Army ethos. We pursue an enemy relentlessly and as violently as required, but what sets us apart from our enemies is how we behave. In everything we do, we must observe the stan-dards and values that dictate we treat non-combatants and detainees with dignity and respect.

28

29

Ap

pen

dix

1

Army ethos

31

How can we improve behaviour?- All our actions should be ethically acceptable.- We recognize manifestly unlawful or inappropriate orders.- Whether a witness to, or victim of, unethical behaviour,we have an obligation to speak out.

How do leaders foster an ethical climate?- Leaders make ethical expectations clear.- Leaders discuss ethical concerns.- Leaders deal with ethical risks.- Leaders ensure a reprisal-freeenvironment.

How do you decide what todo?- Ethics is about right andwrong, and doing what isright.- Consider your obligationto act.- What are the issues?What are the facts?- If unsure, talk to your UnitEthics Coordinator (UEC).- Though you must alwaystake responsibility for youractions, inaction is neveran option.

The soldiers card

Ap

pen

dix

2

32

A soldiers primer on military ethics

Empowering the Canadian soldier to know

What right looks like

Helpline:The Army Ethics Programme (AEP) covers Canadian soldiers anywhere in the world. To report an ethical violation or concern, contact the Army Ethics Officer at 613-541-5010 extension 2467.

Obligation to act!Canadian soldiers are expected to display the moral courage to act do the right thing for the right reason. QR&Os state the legal obligation to report to the proper authority any infringement of the orders and instructions gov-erning the conduct of any person subject to the Code of Service Discipline. Turning a blind eye to wrongdoing is not an option.

Be a Lamplighter!When something just isnt right, we, as soldiers, have both an ethical and legal obligation to act. Under the Lamplighter program, all you have to do is light the lamp by advising your Unit Ethics Coordinator (UEC) who will identify the proper authority.

Doing the right thing is not always easy, but it is a lot easier under the Lamplighter program.

The Code of conduct applies to all CF personnel carrying out military opera-tions other than Canadian domestic operations. These 11 rules are designed

to allow our soldiers to successfully complete any military mission according to a standard of conduct demanded

by our Army Ethos, our fellow Canadian citizens, and the international community in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict.

1. Engage only opposing forces and military objec-tives.

2. In accomplishing your mission, use only the necessary force that causes the least amount of collateral civilian damage.

3. Do not alter your weapons or ammunition to increase suffering, or use unauthorized

weapons or ammunition.

4. Treat all civilians humanely and respect civilian property.

5. Do not attack those who surrender. Disarm them and detain them.

6. Treat all detained persons humanely in accor-dance with the standard set by the Third Geneva Convention. Any form of abuse, including torture, is prohibited.

33

Code of conduct

Ap

pen

dix

3

The Canadiansoldiers

7. Collect all the wounded and sick and provide them with the treatment required by their condition, whether friend or foe.

8. Looting is prohibited.

9. Respect all cultural objects (museums, monuments, etc.) and places of worship.

10. Respect all persons and objects bearing the Red Cross/Red Crescent, and other recognized symbols of humanitarian agencies.

11. Report and take appropriate steps to stop breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict. Disobedience of the Law of Armed Conflict is a crime.

34

Code of conduct

The Canadiansoldiers