Ethics: "Too much pressure = Too many lies?"

- The discussion that the SSI monograph is attempting to generate is a good discussion to have.
- The monograph itself, however, is very subjective (not a lot of objective data) and uses a few data points to make sweeping generalizations of the Army that are neither conclusive nor warranted based upon the limited data presented.
- The phenomenon of too many requirements and too little resources is not a new thing. That is why leaders must prioritize individual and organizations activities.
- As a LT I used to think of all regulations, doctrine, DA Pams and what not as orders to be executed. I quickly learned, however, that most of these documents are written by individuals who are stovepiped and have nothing to worry about except that one thing that the document is focused upon. It is the job of the commander or leader to prioritize these things to accomplish the organizational mission. That necessarily means that not everything will be completed and some of those things will not be completed 100%. Our job as CDR/leaders then becomes to accurately portray what has been completed 100%, what completed but not to 100%, and what not completed.
- Some use the online training as an example of an ethical problem. I disagree. Most online training for me falls under the category of training completed but not at 100%. After 23 years, I think that I properly understand cyber security, human trafficking, SERE, and what not.

We (I) currently serve in an Army that values 350-1 training (online training) over actual combat training because it looks pretty on a slide show for QTB. Officers lie because if they don't they are gone and if you get a below or par evaluation as a Officer you are gone, if you are honest your gone. NCOs have a bit of wiggle room to do the right thing if your wrong, Officers do not that that luxury.

Thanks for sharing this ... I've been looking for an "official" response to the Army War College paper.