Jenkins 1

Robbie Jenkins Professor Whisenant Comms 300 14 February 2012 The Information War on War After two year-long deployments to Afghanistan, and not to mention numerous years in the military, Lt. Col. Daniel L. Davis began a personal campaign to reveal the truth concerning the U.S. war in Afghanistan. Convinced that his commanding officers were falsely dressing up reports in order to depict a sense of progression, Col. Davis decided to level with the American people. Without the permission of his superiors, he wrote two personal reports, one of which was classified, met with several congressmen, and interviewed with a reporter from the New York Times. In an article which appeared online in The Armed Forces Journal, an independent periodical, Col. Davis wrote that No one expects our leaders to always have a successful plan.... But we do expect and the men who do the living, fighting and dying deserve to have our leaders tell us the truth about whats going on (Shane, In Afghan War). This dichotomy of interests between the U.S. military and one of its soldiers raises a number of ethical dilemmas. Before we can analyze these ethical dilemmas, however, we must first consider one question: Is the U.S. military actually lying to the American people about the war in Afghanistan? Although he declined to respond to Col. Daviss accusations specifically, Col. James E. Hutton, chief of media relations, did reject the idea that military leaders had been anything but truthful about Afghanistan, asserting that the U.S. military is a values-based organization, and that the integrity of what we publish and what we say is something we take very seriously (Shane, In Afghan War). Further investigation on a federal scale is necessary to

Jenkins 2

adequately answer this question. Nevertheless, let us suppose that Col. Daviss accusations are credible. Why, therefore, is the military intentionally deceiving the American people? Undoubtedly, few would argue that lying is ethical, but is there justification for top officials in the U.S. military to falsify reports? In this instance there may be. The military may base their actions on two theoretical approaches to ethics: egoism and utilitarianism. For both of these approaches, we must consider the consequences associated with publishing truthful accounts, especially if the war is going disastrously (Shane, In Afghan War). One ostensible consequence which could arise from truthful reports is a resurgence in Taliban support. If insurgents, or even those merely sympathetic to the Taliban, have reason to believe that the U.S. is not successfully waging the war in Afghanistan as previously thought, then the Taliban will be more successful in recruiting others to its cause. More support for the Taliban translates into greater danger for the American soldiers in the country, as well as in surrounding countries with close ties to Afghanistan. If this is the primary reason for the military to falsify reports, then its action is a utilitarian one. Moreover, it falls under the category of act utilitarianism, an ethics theory which states that the right act is the one that produces the greatest ratio of good to evil for all concerned (Bivins, 74). In this case, one may argue that more people in America are affected by the lying than soldiers saved, but imminent death seems to far outweigh possible offense, thus distorting this ratio under the lens of act utilitarianism. Also, military leaders could argue that the American people, though large in respect to number, have such a nominal direct impact in the war that they are not even considered a public concerned with the war in Afghanistan. Another potential consequence which would undoubtedly surface as a result of publicizing the truth about the war to the American people is the loss of support from the home

Jenkins 3

front. A loss of support among the American populus would deter young men and women from enlisting. Therefore, there would be significant decline in army volunteers. Few would enlist if there loomed the ominous and very real chance that he or she would have to fight a losing war. A decline in army recruits, as well as an overall deflation in American morale, would ultimately result in a loss of military funds allocated to the military from the government. Consequently, one theoretical reason for the military to dress up reports is egoism. According to the ethical theory of egoism, any act is moral when it promotes an individuals best long-term interests (Bivins, 71). In other words, the top commanders could very well be trying to not only maintain an optimistic perspective among American citizens, which is vital to its immediate success, but also preserve its image as a capable force and thus secure future funding. In this light, and considering that Col. Davis is employed by the military, his accusations appear internecine in nature, meaning that they are not only detrimental to the military, but ultimately detrimental to him. He is, in essence, biting the hand that feeds him. If he is employed by the military, therefore, why is he seeking to expose its falsification of records? Does he not fear the consequences? The answer to the latter question is no, he does not fear the consequences. Fortunately, his superiors have already promised that he will not receive any punishment for his campaign. Regardless, he does not fear the consequences, because to him, there seems to be an absolute right and wrong. Unsurprisingly, this is referred to as non-consequentialism, where the action itself should be the focus of decision making. Subsequently, some actions are simply right or wrong by nature (Bivins, 66). The reason, then, he is seeking to expose the militarys falsification of records is that it is unethical, no matter the consequences.

Jenkins 4

As is the case in nearly every situation, the ethical standard which should be applied is dependent on ones own perspective and beliefs. The idea of perception is important because it also relates to the scope. Col. Davis may not see the far-reaching and detrimental impact of his campaign because that impact does not fall within his scope. On the other hand, producing war reports for the American people does fall within the scope of the military. It has the responsibility, thus it has to apply the best standard it can. Whether this standard is ethical or not, however, becomes irrelevant when we consider the military also has the authority to control the documents it releases.

Jenkins 5

Works Cited Bivins, Thomas. Mixed Media: Moral Distinctions in Advertising, Public Relations, and Journalism. 2nd ed. New York: Routledge, 2009. Print. Shane, Scott. In Afghan War, Officer Becomes a Whistle-Blower. The New York Times, 5 February 2012. Online. 10 February 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com>