An editorial in this weeks 9/11 Special Issue of The Lancet reveals that soldiers were positively influenced by leader-led battlefield ethics training in understanding ways to interact with and treat non-combatants, resulting in fewer reports of ethical misconduct during deployment in Iraq. The training also encouraged soldiers to increase their willingness in reporting colleagues for alleged misconduct.

On the battlefield, there have been a number of high profile breakdowns in the ethical conduct of soldiers towards non-combatants, and these are serious concerns in war. So far, evidence-based strategies to deal with this problem are limited. Researchers in this investigation evaluated an ethics training program based on video clips and leader-led discussions. It was tested approximately half way through a 15-month high-intensity combat deployment in Iraq in the end of 2007 and beginning of 2008.

Soldiers from an infantry brigade combat team were selected randomly and were asked after they completed three months of the training to complete an anonymous survey. Reports of any unethical behavior and attitudes were compared with randomly selected pre-training samples from the same infantry brigade.

421 out of the 500 randomly selected soldiers agreed to participate in the post-training survey, while 397 soldiers of the same brigade completed the anonymous pre-training survey. Training was linked with considerably lower rates of self-reported unethical conduct of soldiers, and soldiers were more willing to report and address misconduct in comparison than those before training.

After training, reports of damage which was not necessary or destruction of private property was 5% compared to 14% before training. 97% of those participating believed that the training made it clear to understand how to respond towards non-combatants.

The strongest predictor of unethical behavior was the frequency of combat and intensity. Yet, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) was not a substantial predictor, which breaks the myth regarding that PTSD is a cause of unethical conduct.

The researchers say that their discoveries can notify on-going training initiatives across the globe and provide military leaders with crucial data as they persist to maintain a high ethical and professional climate in combat. They say:

“Our findings have important implications for how military leaders prepare their forces for military operations ranging from peacekeeping to combat. Our study is the first published study to provide both potential methods for preventing unethical conduct and associated factors for unethical battlefield conduct. Emphasis should be placed on training those with high levels of combat exposure, and should include experientially-based leader-led discussions.”

In a joined comment, Dr Jennifer Leaning and Dr Michael Lappi, Harvard School of Public Health, Boston, MA, USA, explain:

“The US military has become a conventional force of unconventional warriors. Every soldier is now tasked with the dual responsibility of combat actions and civil affairs, often in the same region and on the same day. So although the emphasis on top down leadership, to drive unit discipline and adherence to norms, still applies, much greater responsibility is now placed on the individual soldier to make immediate and difficult moral decisions independently.”

They conclude:

“To assess whether this intervention proves to be durable and effective requires further research. Other interventions, such as raising the selection bar for military service and reducing deployment frequency and duration, also warrant consideration. However, soldiers deployed in counter-insurgency operations will always need to fall back on their own capacity, buttressed by sound training, for resilient and nuanced legal and moral choice.”

Written by Grace Rattue