In her book “Code of the Warrior,” Shannon French points out that unlike the rules of war that are imposed through treaties and agreements, the warrior code is understood by its adherence to originate from inside the warrior culture. Warriors themselves hold one another to the standards.
Like law, the warrior code sets boundaries on behavior. It differentiates honorable and shameful acts.
Posting values on a wall is ineffectual. Ethics without action have little meaning. Moral agency becomes real in the power of decisive behavior. Our control of moral conduct that is a by-product of personal standards and self-sanctions has absolutely no impact if it is disengaged or deactivated. That is why the law of land warfare has little appeal to Soldiers. It is not from them. It is not internalized. Often, in war and in peace, people disengage their morality by implementing a number of techniques.
Training that enables Soldiers to internalize a moral code by applying it to simulations of life situations, without removing ambiguity, is what is needed. Then, Soldiers are enabled to become or remain morally engaged and recognize when they become disengaged.
Soldiers have been taught tactics, weapons and even the rules of war. But connecting “why” between the right conduct and the rules of war has been missing from combat ethics training.
If we want to prepare Soldiers for the moral complexities of warfare then we must go beyond the rules. Instead of telling them to do something, we must explain, demonstrate and give a practical application for ethical decision-making. Ordering them to do what it right is not enough. Behavioral, cognitive, environmental and other personal factors must reciprocally interact to provide the opportunity for growth and learning. A warrior code can be a tool to awaken the moral sense in that process.
Asking why also requires exploring the shortcomings of such theories as the law of land warfare and warrior codes in relation to combat. Soldiers will inevitable ask questions of whether an ethic, a warrior code or the laws of land warfare are a combat multiplier or a combat distracter. Does an ethic lead to victory or survival? And if it does not, are ethics in combat worth the price? These are the questions Soldiers ask themselves privately. Chaplains, as the conscience of the military, must engage this part of the conversation, giving Soldiers permission to ask such questions.
Rules of combat, like the law of land warfare, do not give enough guidance for all combat decisions. These guidelines are reinforced by rules of engagement, which are special orders specifying the use of deadly force in specific zones of combat. Although more specific guidance is given in the rules of engagement, they still fall short because of the multitude of situations that can and do arise in combat.
Mark Osiel recognized these deficiencies in his book “Obeying Orders: Atrocity, Military Discipline, and the Law of War.”
Osiel emphasizes a warrior code that is an added layer to the rules of land warfare. It in no way takes away from the memorization of and adherence to the rules of engagement or law of war. Instead, it reinforces additional ethical motivation to do what is right. For the virtuous, no laws are required because they pursue good for its own sake. Therefore, a virtuous Soldier would act with courage and loyalty for their own sake and would seldom need the imposition of judicial action.