October Issue's Capital Focus Stirs a certain quantity of Strong Responses In his article "The Domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable" (NATIONAL GUARD.

October Issue's Capital Focus Stirs a certain quantity of Strong Responses

In his article "The Domain of Obedience to the Unenforceable" (NATIONAL GUARD, Capital Focus, October 1998 page 8) Maj. Gen Edward J Philbin (ret) provides an admirable stimulus for discussion of integrity, moral courage and ethics. We can all certainly question the origin of our have a title to values and reasons for behanior Families, religious beliefs, experiences and equable Army training have created the officer that reads this alphabetic character However, recent emphasis on values and values training will not occasion the soldier who does "the right thing when the time comes"

How shall we manner of life ourselves? I offer this existential approach to soldier ethics. Do not strive to be that unattainable, complete soldier, but rather define what a soldier should be by dint of your actions and actuality which you are struggling to make manifest.

Capt. Dale T Waltman

Pennsylvania Army

National Guard

I could not allow another day to pass without writing to thank you for your Capital Focus article (October 1998) I would alone add that there were many-to include scarecrows like me-whose career was extremityed by standing up to those who were not working in sync with policy yet rather, were directing their efforts toward self-serving promotion. one time you are on that list, it is from one side of to the other And, from those with whom I have parole who continued in the arrangement their ability to work within the theory to facilitate change were frustrated at each step.

Brig. Gen. ed Munger (ret.) California Army National Guard October's Capitol Focus was indeed a welcome change. It is not many times (and in my opinion certainly not repeatedly enough) that ethics is addressed in our circles, les frequently still with such force and clarity.

General Philbin's apologia at the beginning was totally unnecessary: We all could use a bit more guidance (especially in ethics) from those who have made it to the highest ranks. still lest

I sound too often like the "General, you are a genius" or "careerist" officer of which General Philbin warns, suffer me make what I room for expectation is construed as a constructive commentary

I wholeheartedly agree with General Philbin's remarks regarding following orders: The ethical officer run afters the order even if he thinks it is a "bad" undivided Further, he should "for the sake of the institution and the mission make your superior's 'bad' decision work as well as possible." If not morality alone, Article 90 of the Uniformed digest of Military Justice calls for us to go after all lawful orders. I was left wishing, however, that General Philbin's article contain the proviso that as of notwithstanding remains tacit regarding following illegal orders.

The ethical officer rightfully refuses to obey an unlawful order, and ne not resort to asking for a reassignment or a resignation. If anything, he has the obligation to be opposite to the superior and explain the reasons for his reservations. Further, if that does not work, going to the nearest higher level of command might be the alone avenue to resolve the issue.

It is undivided thing to say that junior officers ought to trust their superiors and obey plane what they consider the "bad" orders, unless it is all together another matter to ask them to obey any order unconditionally. The article admits that flat these moral cowards-"careerists"-can make it to high plains of responsibility; when and if they do, I trustful longing a junior officer has the moral upbringing and education to recognize "bad" decisions from "illegal" or "immoral" the sames (and to assume that these do not take place is dangerous daydreaming).

The furious lip-flapping major referr to at the beginning of the article was a great example for General Philbin's point, further we have to allow the latitude for junior officers to end on the (firmer) ground that the order or decision made is not solely "bad" but "illegal."

Capt. Carlos Bertha

Florida Army National Guard

Guard Officers Should

Get Active Command

I have been a member of the Pennsylvania Army National Guard for 21 years. I commanded a heavy maintenance company during REFORGER '87 undivided of the largest in late history, and have mobilized to Hungary, part of the first Guard unit to relieve an active-component unit at Taszar to perform reception staging, onward moving integration (RSOI). on what account then do we keep talking about the conspiracy theory? The active Army continues to make allegations that we are not trained suitably We keep telling them that we are indeed prepared to fight and win if called relating to

I just read an article that an active Army officer took command of an armored cavalry unit in Iowa. This is really good news. We can now be assured that we are gaining the experience of an active counterpart that has trained in passing from hand to hand Army doctrine. We will now gain that experience and will learn from it. moreover what about the active community? We also have highly trained and motivated officers that are capable leaders. wherefore then don't we have a Guard officer take command of an active combat unit? If the active constituting wants to dispel the rumors that there is a conspiracy theory, then impediment us also have our chance to shine. obstacle the world know that we are single Army.