I recently attended an officer promotion ceremony and couldn’t help but notice that the enlisted oath of office was used instead of the officer oath. I didn’t want to complain and ruin the ceremony, so I didn’t. I don’t think anyone noticed, which made me want to write about it a bit as I believe the difference is rather important. Let’s take a look at both so that we may compare.
Oath of Enlistment
I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.
Oath of Commissioned Officers
I ___, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.
Enlisted service members swear to obey orders. Commissioned officers do not. Making the charitable assumption that it isn’t just filler to ensure the oaths are about the same length, there is also additional language in the officer oath that speaks to a those with heightened moral sense. Taking the obligation freely, without any mental reservation. I think this emphasis on choice is very important. Upon some reflection, I’ve come to think of morality as really being all about having the capacity to choose.
Moral Capacity
Some days ago having a discussion with Luc Koch in the comments section of one of his recent articles he made this comment:
I'm more inclined though to draw a distinction between those who need authority to tell them what to think and feel, and those who think and feel for themselves (as opposed merely to the distinction of seeing humans as malleable/all-good vs. restrained by biology/flawed). This distinction obviously transcends atheism/theism. The latter group seem to have a distinct quality to them: subtlety, depth... what I would call a soul, or an implicit connection to the Higher that can be actualized.
Does anything jump out to you, dear reader? Might he be referring to some cosmic divide in character? Might our founders have attempted to codify this divide that they too recognized into the ranks of our military? I think this is the root of the difference between the enlisted and officer oaths. The problem with this type of realization is that a rather uncharitable interpretation of such a statement might be that this insinuates enlisted service members are meant to be somehow inferior. This couldn’t be further from the truth. Inequality doesn’t mean inferiority.
If you’ve never seen the television series based on James S. A. Corey’s series of novels known as “The Expanse,” you’re missing out, especially if you enjoy science fiction. In the television adaptation the character Amos Burton played by Wes Chatham provides a dramatic example of this dynamic. Although an extreme characterization of anything you’re likely to find in the real word, Amos recognizes he lacks sound moral judgement. For this reason he develops a trust relationship with someone who plays the officer role in his life, deferring to her judgement and carrying out her commands with ruthless efficiency. A military with the likes of Amos Burton filling the roles of commissioned officers would be a terror for all mankind. In the enlisted role, however, such a military should only be a terror to our nation’s enemies.
What Good Are Officers?
Many enlisted Soldiers through the ages haven’t been able to help but notice how worthless officers appear to be. This is an easy conclusion to come to. After all, officers haven’t the technical skill or experience of their enlisted counterparts in most cases. This is missing the point, however. It is the responsibility of commissioned officers to be the moral compass for their Soldiers and their organization. This is just one of the reasons that it is critical for these individuals to hold the highest character. There is an uncomfortable implication here, however. For those officers that break trust, that engage in any kind of hypocrisy that can be observed from afar, they really are worthless.
Performance Implications
This dynamic obviously extends outside of the military. Luc isn’t a military man, but he made this recognition all the same. I think Luc would be a fantastic officer in any military organization for this reason. We all have strengths and weaknesses. One of the Master Resiliency Training skills is recognizing character strengths in yourself and others. It is the only skill that corresponds directly with only one competency, in this case, the homonymous competency of Character Strengths. Not everyone has the capacity to become a paragon of virtue just like not everyone has the capacity write hit songs or make millions playing professional sports. If you can you know that virtue isn’t your strong suit, why not find someone who models that behavior and follow their example? If you know you have the capacity, but you’re failing to choose to do what you know to be right, what are you waiting for? There are people that need you to step up, whether in your community, or in your own family.
Closing Thoughts
One of the largest sources of the rapidly decaying performance plaguing our society is the notion that victim-hood is virtuous. This is an inversion of reality. Morality requires choice, and being victimized isn’t a choice. The path from victim-hood to virtue is to enhance your own competencies to the point that you become very difficult to victimize, then with that power choose not to victimize others and even to protect those you care about from predation.1
People with brain damage would call this position an obvious expression of “whiteness” everyone else can recognize this assertion has nothing to do with skin color.
Enlisted don’t lack agency or moral choice, which wasn’t your point of course but for the readers .
Perhaps more to the point the Oath for the Officers was drawn up after the Civil War, as 30% had joined the South at secession, arguably the better 30% at the outset.
Hmm the point about betrayal of morality is taken 🤔.
Our government overall selects for compliance. Non compliance is eliminated. This has filtered to the services, slowly but surely.
One can stand and hold.
Your advancement just stalled, or ceased, you may be eliminated.
What is important is they can be checked. The clearly wrong and immoral can only advance into mush, not steel. They will avenge themselves, but will be checked upon the ground you hold . Yes have done. Can be and is done.
You retire at Major. Lol.
So what.
You’ll have Honor.
They’ll have only a bit more money and lose all battlefield cred and won’t have the men if they need them, and we will need them. You too.
So Honor is practical.
If Honor is needed only a few seconds in life its worth it.
No money buys those moments.
Even if all you get is a nod from The men, honor worth it.
It is better to have Amos and a demotion then to lose Amos for a promotion, to indulge the theme.
Sherman refusing high rank at the start of the Civil war; better a demotion than over promotion.
I worry that the vaccine mandates are intended to purge and test members of the military in order to change the moral character of the military. If I'm right, what is the endgame?
Your thoughts are appreciated.