The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the U.S. Military

Martin L. Cook's deceptively slim volume, The Moral Warrior: Ethics and Service in the U.S. Military, is so densely packed with issues and analysis that it could easily sustain a semester or two of intense study in military ethics by itself. It is certainly a must-read for anyone struggling to disentangle the many troubling, interconnected questions that worry all those who hope to see the United States retain its global supremacy without undermining its moral foundations. Cook, a gifted teacher who has recently moved from the faculty of the U.S. Army War College to that of the U.S. Air Force Academy, is a master of the rare art of clarifying complex problems without minimizing their depth and significance or losing sight of their vital real-life implications. The nine chapters of the book are divided into two parts: Part One, "Moral Facets of Military Service," and Part Two, "Moral Soldiers and Moral Causes: Serving the Needs of Justice in the New World Order." The chapters in Part One primarily address the moral responsibilities of individuals - particularly officers - who choose to serve in the military. Cook is able to bring a unique combination of "insider" knowledge (from his years of teaching to and learning from all ranks of military officers) and objective "outsider" insight (from his perspective as a civilian scholar) to his critique of recent debates about how to define the military profession in the 21st century and what should be expected of the modern military professional. One of the most vital issues Cook raises in this section is the responsibility of military professionals to offer non-partisan advice to political leaders and policy makers regarding decisions on the use of military force. Cook notes that, on the one hand, "As the direct custodians of the health of their services' cultures and the lives of their soldiers, sailors, marines, or airmen, military professionals are rightly reluctant to send them on what they deem to be ill-considered missions." Yet, on the other hand, it is not appropriate for military leaders to outright refuse or intentionally undermine missions chosen and properly authorized by their civilian political leaders. Senior officers may have the option of resigning in protest, but they never have the right to subvert the constitutional requirement of civilian control of the military. Cook offers valuable suggestions, supported by historical examples, of how military officers can fulfill their moral obligation to make their voices heard in order to prevent blunders or even tragedies without overstepping their roles within the democratic state. With characteristic realism, he observes that this balancing act "requires the maturity of judgment to grasp that while [the military leaders'] world would be neater if political leaders would just define the mission and then get out of the way, that will almost never be the world within which they live and work out their professional obligations."