Summary
My article /portfolio/writings/lead-us-not-into-temptation/ was cited several times in an essay submission for the Command, Conflict & War Studies module of the Intermediate Command and Staff Course (Land) (ICSC(L)) course held at the Defence Academy.
The question responded to was:
How should commanders adjust to the conceptual challenge posed by facing adversaries who do not share our values and standards?
The essay quoted me several times:
Note, however, that [Goldsworthy] presents a conflicting view on the efficacy of individual ethical training. Using the "pathetic dot theory" and Marxist concepts of base and superstructure, [Goldsworthy] argues that "the qualities of individual leaders have, at best, a negligible impact compared to the systems they operate within."1 This challenges the notion that enhanced training and education alone can effectively address ethical challenges. [Goldsworthy] cites the case of Marine A as evidence that "emphasizing training and values are weak deterrents against ethical failures."2 This incident, where a Royal Marine executed a wounded Taliban fighter, occurred despite extensive training in ethics and the laws of armed conflict.
However, it is important to note [Goldsworthy]'s (2022) argument that systemic conditions in the British Armed Forces may be creating a <q
itemscope
itemtype=“Quotation”>conducive environment for ethical failures. The author cites examples of ethical transgressions by US and Australian special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of how military systems can go wrong, even with robust ethical training programs in place. This underscores the need for ongoing vigilance and systemic reforms in addition to individual accountability measures.
My article /portfolio/writings/lead-us-not-into-temptation/ was cited several times in an essay submission for the Command, Conflict & War Studies module of the Intermediate Command and Staff Course (Land) (ICSC(L)) course held at the Defence Academy.
The question responded to was:
How should commanders adjust to the conceptual challenge posed by facing adversaries who do not share our values and standards?
The essay quoted me several times:
Note, however, that [Goldsworthy] presents a conflicting view on the efficacy of individual ethical training. Using the "pathetic dot theory" and Marxist concepts of base and superstructure, [Goldsworthy] argues that "the qualities of individual leaders have, at best, a negligible impact compared to the systems they operate within."1 This challenges the notion that enhanced training and education alone can effectively address ethical challenges. [Goldsworthy] cites the case of Marine A as evidence that "emphasizing training and values are weak deterrents against ethical failures."2 This incident, where a Royal Marine executed a wounded Taliban fighter, occurred despite extensive training in ethics and the laws of armed conflict.
However, it is important to note [Goldsworthy]'s (2022) argument that systemic conditions in the British Armed Forces may be creating a <q
itemscope
itemtype=“Quotation”>conducive environment for ethical failures. The author cites examples of ethical transgressions by US and Australian special forces in Afghanistan and Iraq as evidence of how military systems can go wrong, even with robust ethical training programs in place. This underscores the need for ongoing vigilance and systemic reforms in addition to individual accountability measures.
…and it concluded as follows:
While this essay has argued for adjustments through enhanced training and leadership development, it is important to acknowledge [Goldsworthy]'s counterargument, challenging us to consider whether systemic changes, rather than individual-focused adjustments, might be necessary to truly address the ethical challenges posed by adversaries with different value systems; this paper would propose this as an avenue for future research.
