An interview with Michael G. Mullen

Joint Force Quarterly, July, 2009

JFQ: A recent essay in the foreign policy journal Orbis is critical of the general understanding of the classical code of American military ethics. The author [LtCol Frank Hoffman, USMCR] asserts that it is no longer taught, modeled, or enforced and that it has consequently eroded since the Marshall/Eisenhower era. It further observes that the U.S. military is unique in that it meets all the requirements of a profession (learning, barriers to entry, promotion criteria, social responsibility, and so forth), save a printed code of ethics. Do you agree, and would it be appropriate to charter National Defense University to fashion such a draft code for your consideration?

Admiral Mullen: Well, you've touched upon a critical issue, really, a bedrock issue for our military. I certainly agree with the author's premise that we need to pay more attention to the study of civil-military relations in this country. I believe our connection to the American people is vital, not just to the Service itself, but to the health of our nation writ large. We all have to constantly monitor that relationship and never take it for granted. As a "Vietnam Baby" myself, I know the difference it makes--for every citizen--when that relationship is not as strong as it should be. It's a big deal.

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

I think the author is also right to observe that the complexities of war today do not lend themselves--and in fact may never have lent themselves--to a neat and orderly separation of civilian control between the levels of war. I recall reading in many histories of the Civil War, in fact, about how very much Abraham Lincoln involved himself in operational and even tactical decisions. His impact was obviously pivotal in the outcome of that war. And civilian influence and control is just as critical--perhaps even more critical--today.

As I have argued, right here on the pages of JFQ, the military must remain apolitical and must always observe, indeed hold sacred, the principle of civilian control of the military. We execute policy. We do not make it or advocate for it. That said, I realize my role is advising policy as Chairman, but that advice is always private. And once the decision is made, we move out. That's what our military does, and we do it well.

I would agree that we do need more of a focus on military ethics and civil-military relations in our schoolhouses. And we are taking a look at that right now. But I am not sure we need to draft up a new code, though I would certainly be willing to consider it.

We've done exceeding well without one to date.

There's a lot of internal talk about leadership in our military, all the time. If you were to stand quietly in the back and listen to a BCT [Brigade Combat Team] commander's or a ship captain's words in front of his or her troops, you are going to hear about ethical behavior and leadership. That is important. And that is where our greatness lies--in our people, and in their knowledge of how critically important their duties are, and above all, in their desire to serve a cause greater than themselves.

JFQ: Rank carries responsibilities as well as privileges. Every junior officer learns that commanders are responsible for everything their unit does or fails to do. Principles and practices nevertheless fail to mesh when commanders and their trusted subordinates fail in important responsibilities. The fiasco that surfaced at Abu Ghraib prison in 2004 is a prominent recent example. Brigadier General Janis Karpinski, USA, reverted to colonel after the dust settled; one colonel was relieved of command; and one lieutenant colonel received a reprimand. No other commissioned officers in the chain of command were sanctioned. In sharp contrast, seven enlisted men and women (one an Army private) received dishonorable discharges and prison sentences. Are steps required to remedy inequitable penalties at all levels of command--not just in the high-profile cases that bring discredit to our nation?

Admiral Mullen: There is no doubt that Abu Ghraib was a stain on our national character, and it reminded us yet again of the power of our actions. The incidents there likely inspired many young men and women to fight against us, and they still do, as a matter of fact.

I don't want to spend much time focusing on a specific case, but this issue does bring up something dear to me, and that's accountability. I'm a big believer in it, and always have been. It's a critical part of how I grew up in the Service. And I believe that accountability has to go from the top all the way to the bottom of the chain of command, in everything we do. Not just in criminal cases of misconduct. But everything.

I think we have taken steps in the recent past to demonstrate that sort of accountability. Just consider some tough decisions Secretary [of Defense Robert] Gates has made with Air Force and Army leadership. For that matter, consider Admiral Fox Fallon [William J. Fallon, U.S. Central Command commander, March 2007-March 2008], a great friend and colleague of mine, who I believe held himself accountable in the most noble of ways.