Do Your Duty in All Things

“Duty is the most sublime word in our language. Do your duty in all things. You cannot do more. You should never wish to do less.”

Robert E. Lee

Nearly twenty-five years ago as a young major attending the Army Command and General Staff College, I wrote a paper titled “Duty: Understanding the Most Sublime Military Virtue.”  There was at that time a fairly extensive debate about how many “virtues” defined our profession and which among them was most important.  I suggested then—and continue to believe now—that Duty was among our most important virtues. 

 In posing the question of whether “Duty is Dead” we renew a frequent and healthy debate about what we mean by Duty.  Certainly the proposition that “Duty is Dead” suggests that some question the continued relevance of Lee’s “most sublime” virtue.  From time to time throughout my career I’ve found it helpful to reexamine the documents that unite us and bind us in determining what words retain significance in defining our profession. 

Our Army defines Duty as “fulfilling one’s obligations…the legal and moral obligation to do what should be done without being told.”  We have several obligations as members of the American military profession, the most important of which are found in the officer’s Oath of Office.  In taking the Oath, we swear to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States.”   

In swearing an Oath to the Constitution, military professionals agree to place the defense of the United States above their personal welfare.  Moreover, in swearing to “support the Constitution,” we also commit to the spirit of the Constitution—an exhortation to contribute to “a more perfect union.”  Thus, military professionals commit to more than simply getting the job done; we obligate ourselves to personal excellence.  Title X of the U.S. Code adds to the obligations outlined in the Constitution, charging the Army and its members with “supporting the national policies.”

Members of our Armed Forces must ‘do their duty in all things.’  We defend our Nation, support the constitutionally-elected government, remain dedicated to professional excellence, and place these obligations ahead of our own welfare.  There are tensions among these profound obligations of Duty, and coupled with the strains of ten years of conflict some may ask “Is Duty Dead?”  It is helpful to consider the continuity of our profession in navigating through and beyond current challenges. 

American military professionals have wrestled with the tension among Duty’s competing obligations for more than 230 years.  In times of peace, when defending our Nation can seem a remote possibility, military professionals have dedicated themselves to pursuing professional excellence and preparing themselves for future conflicts.  When conflict arises, military professionals shift their focus to defending our Nation and supporting the duly-constituted government.

An unbroken record of sacrifice and courage testifies that the members of our profession have collectively ‘done their duty in all things.’  On August 5, 1864 Seaman James Avery, a 39 year old Scotsman, left the safety of his ship, the U.S.S. Metacomet, braved intense enemy fire, and aided in the rescue of ten crewmen from the U.S. monitor Tecumseh at the Battle of Mobile Bay.  More than 140 years later, Sergeant First Class William Tomlin, an Army Infantryman from Angier, North Carolina, led counterattacks, coordinated indirect fire, and rallied reinforcements near the town of Chakak, Afghanistan to turn an otherwise dire situation into a victory.  Seaman Avery and Sergeant First Class Tomlin’s unflinching performance of their duty—defending our Nation and supporting its policies—are only two of the countless examples that assure us of the primacy of Duty from our past through to the present.  Like them, we cannot do more than our Duty, and we must never wish to do less.

I offer a final thought about the need to reflect periodically on our understanding of the virtue of Duty.  In taking the Oath of Office, we assert that we “take this obligation freely.”  Service in our Armed Forces is wholly voluntary, as is the commitment to “to do what should be done.” Our understanding of Duty and the reality of the sacrifices made in the fulfillment of that virtue are what animate our service and give it real meaning.  These experiences transform what would otherwise be servitude into a free exchange.  This free exchange is why Duty is not only alive and well but remains the sublimest word in our professional language.           

by General Martin E. Dempsey
37^th Chief of Staff of the United States Army.

Duty: The Principle that Defines Our Profession

Duty. This single concept is the foundation of the profession of arms.  It’s the fundamental precept that Airmen will do what they have been entrusted to do in times of peace and peril.  Trust is formed instantly between Airmen because of this commitment.  

Aircraft are flown, missiles are readied, and satellites are launched -- all on the fundamental notion that each of us has done our duty.  It encapsulates our core values of service before self, excellence and of course, integrity. 

Duty is not at all affected by sarcasm, the petty scandal of weakness and the passing tinsel and trash of material things. As a concept, it is transcendent by simple adherence to the values it embodies; that we are committed to something bigger and more noble than our own self aggrandizement; that other Airmen are depending on our action; and that the consequences of lack of will are great and will be borne by many. 

The universal values of love, trust, right conduct, and truth are embodied in this organizing principle and so ennoble it.  Duty brings about a faith in other people that is akin, in its finest hour, to the faith many share in God. The character transformation that comes about by living according to this precept is what gives us our heroes -- Airmen who know they must act in order to save others.

What makes some cower in the face of danger and others rise?    When you constantly act for others, for the greater good, your mind and intellect are disciplined and become your servant rather than your master — training for the time when you will be tested.

There is no equivalent organizing principle in any other profession.

And yet, I agree, the notion of duty seems distant in today’s world, like something left behind from a glorious history.  In that era, as General Robert E. Lee is attributed to saying -- you could do no more and no less.  Duty was a sacred calling. 

To a younger generation these hallowed thoughts may seem out of touch.  Sarcasm and cynicism have crept into the calculations.  The values that made the notion of Duty so sacred have been quietly dissected and detached. 

For some, Duty has been reduced to simply fulfilling one’s responsibilities as opposed to performing at your highest level for the greater good; or by living each day knowing you could have done no more to help others in your mission. 

Thankfully the system has a way of recognizing Airmen like this. Over time they are diminished.  Based on those Airmen I suppose, as proposed here, there is talk of duty being somehow passé or more directly, dead to a new generation of Airmen.  From my perspective, nothing could be further from the truth. 

For thousands of years, despite not being able to describe gravity or understand it we have walked on this earth.  The fact that a new generation of brilliant young Airmen has a different lexicon doesn’t  diminish the expectations of our culture to live up to this notion of Duty.

Duty is the gravity in the profession of arms. Whether or not you understand it is of little consequence. You must conform to it. It penetrates every aspect of our expectations and training. It is who we are and what we believe. 

More than the other services, who have the luxury of numbers to cover their risk, the United States Air Force deploys and is prepared to fight one Airman at a time. The notion of duty must be so ingrained that it is instinctive. 

I have never been more confident of this. Airmen are deploying from every Air Force specialty code, early in their careers, empowered by our best traditions and highest expectations. Many of them are volunteers to return to the war.  They felt connected to the profession of arms there, in conflict, in a way that only they who have experienced it can know. There’s certain peace that warriors know; and it comes from this, the certain knowledge that they could have done no more to help their fellow Airman.

Global Power, Reach and Vigilance all depend on individual Airmen doing their Duty.  This is the reason we are the world’s finest Air Force.

One last thought on this.  Character development is the single most important aspect of your development as a leader.  Leadership and duty hinge on an individual’s character. The values have to align.

Thoughts, words and deeds must match.  Your credibility, authenticity and ultimately your power to transform will turn on your character.  The tiny temptations of power will unveil any flaw, no matter how minor.  The demands of your Duty will reveal any weakness in your character.  Either the circumstances in life will define you or you will define the circumstances.  The difference in those outcomes is found in your character. 

The net effect of your life comes to you in moments of crisis. People of character and purpose have clarity and the will to act.  All the other endeavors you may be engaged in at the Academy are for this purpose alone.  The end of education must be character. It alone will allow you to see and understand the duty you have to your fellow Airmen, Soldiers, Sailors and Marines and earn the trust to lead them.

Thank you for letting me share a few thoughts with you on this.  This is an exciting time to be serving your Air Force and Nation. There’s never been a greater need for young officers of character and distinction.  I look forward to the next generation of great American Airmen.

by Brig. Gen. Balan Ayyar

Air Force Recruiting Service Commander

Dead Man Walking: Duty on Death Row

        
         An aging demigod sits schackled in solitary confinement awaiting final execution, sentenced to die for influencing millions to commit atrocities in his name and for leading millions of others to sacrifice themselves foolishly for misguided notions of honor.  The longer this cultic personality is kept from the public eye, the more alien he appears and the more palatable his absence.  Now that the years have passed into decades, it is time to assess the long-term negative effects of his incarceration:  the “liberation” of society to self-entitlement, self-absorption, and, ultimately, disappointment and cynicism.  Perhaps the verdict was too severe. Perhaps, a full and immediate pardon is in order.

The identity of the convict above is not a person but a concept: Duty.  While Duty is not completely dead in the United States, its days appear to be numbered.  Duty, as a motivator for action, has grown out of favor in American society for a number of disparate reasons.  Among them are Americans’ overreactions to the duty-incited excesses of the past, the widespread fear of being branded “intolerant” for believing that some things are inherently right regardless of context or circumstance, and the innate tendency to repel any threat that challenges one’s own sense of self-prioritization or belief that personal happiness trumps all other things.  To many people, Duty conveys a mindless obedience to orders or is seen as a tool to manipulate people through guilt.  These conceptions often spring from the abuse of tyrants or the gullibility of ignorant masses whose irresponsible actions bear false witness against Duty’s true character. 

Even in the institutions that still celebrate a version of the concept, Duty appears as a mere shadow of its former self.  Notable incidents occur on rare occasions in which people perform acts of self-sacrifice motivated by their sense of Duty, but these acts are celebrated or mocked precisely because of their exceptional nature.  This essay argues that the re-emphasis of Duty in the United States is critical as a moderating balance to the self-entitled mindset of individual Americans and the health of American society as a whole.

To avoid confusion, Duty is defined in this essay as an individual and internally-held moral obligation to principles superseding personal gain, pleasure or advancement.  Commenting on this aspect of Duty, Vice Admiral James Stockdale, a former prisoner of war in Vietnam said,

The obligation to do our duty is unconditional.  That is, we must do it for the sake of duty, because it is the right thing to do, not because it will profit us psychologically, or socially, or economically, not because if we don’t do it and get caught we’ll be punished.  …. So you can’t ask what benefits will accrue from performing your duty.  You must do your duty because it is your duty.[1] 

In this capacity, Duty is primarily a selfless motivation to action, even though at times, one’s Duty may correspond to one’s personal desires or lead to personal rewards.  Some people might argue that a person has a legitimate Duty to self and personal happiness, but such a use emasculates the term and replaces the stone foundation of “right” with the shifting sand of personal whim. 

A person is somewhat defined by her conception of her Duty.  Individuals choose what, if anything, takes priority over their own personal comfort.  However, once Duty is decided upon, it demands obligation, even to the point of personal sacrifice.  While there is always a choice whether or not a person does her Duty, she cannot neglect her Duty without doing harm to her self-identity.  In this way, Duty is closely linked to a person’s sense of honor. 

In recent decades, Americans have largely ceased inculcating Duty in young men and women as a motivator for action and begun preaching personal fulfillment as their chief catalyst.  Consequently, the United States has gradually evolved into a society in which its citizens are driven primarily by a sense of entitlement.  The vast majority of Americans approach life from the position of “I deserve” rather than “I owe.”  Dr. Jean Twenge, psychology professor and author of Generation Me, reports that this evolution finds its consummation in a generation of Americans who have been brought up to believe that they deserve happiness and fulfillment above all else.  In her assessment, Generation Me “has never known a world that put duty before self.”^[2] 

According to Twenge,

Today’s young people…speak the language of the self as their native tongue.  The individual has always come first, and feeling good about yourself has always been a primary virtue.  Generation Me’s expectations are highly optimistic:  they expect to go to college, to make lots of money, and perhaps even to be famous.  Yet this generation enters a world in which college admissions are increasingly competitive, good jobs are hard to find and harder to keep, and basic necessities like housing and health care have skyrocketed in price.  This is a time of soaring expectations and crushing realities.^[3]

Twenge warns that “our high expectations, combined with an increasingly competitive world, have led to a darker flip side, where we blame other people for our problems and sink into anxiety and depression.”^[4] 

This essay is not a polemic against today’s young people—far from it.  Young people become what they are conditioned to be by the societies in which they live.  Rather, this essay calls attention to the resultant hollowness flowing from the “Duty-less” decades of recent American history.  Blame, anxiety, and depression are just a few by-products of a society prioritizing self-entitlement over selfless duty.  When children are raised to feel that they are the center of the universe and that nothing should override their responsibility to themselves and their own personal happiness, they are eventually confronted by the cold reality that life does not cooperate with their expectations and that their ever-increasing appetites lead only to persistent hunger and constant dissatisfaction.  Moreover, even when life appears to be cooperating, they must often face the realization that a universe revolving around them is a pathetically small place to live.  Confronted by these realities, self-entitled individuals grow bitter, cynical and disenchanted. 

Americans would do well to overturn Duty’s death sentence and release the rehabilitated penitent back into mainstream society.  Parents, teachers, and authority figures must consciously reassess their aims of developing “self-esteemed” people motivated primarily by personal gain and, instead, seek to shape young men and women who embrace a sense of duty and find meaning in their service to society.  More must be done to communicate to young people that there are some causes, concepts, and ideas that are bigger and more important than themselves and their personal happiness.  They must be shown that fulfillment is found when they contribute to a cause rather than merely benefit from it, and that their significance lies in being critical cogs in a life-giving machine rather than being the machine itself.  Simply put, self-entitled members of Generation Me must now be taught that life is NOT primarily about them. 

This shift from self-entitlement to selflessness, from choices predicated on personal preference to actions motivated by duty, will not be easy since many in today’s positions of authority and influence share the backgrounds and perspectives of those in the target generation.  Consequently, developmental institutions should seek out mentors whose personal and professional histories demonstrate a commitment to duty and an ability to inspire it in others.  The first and most critical task is to educate the educators. 

There is no better initial target audience than the US military due to its unique mission and national representation.  The active-duty and veteran military communities represent a promising place to begin the search for mentors since Duty’s legacy, however vaguely remembered or poorly practiced, are kept alive in the hushed whispers of military elders and the exploits of its heroes.  Additionally, cadets in officer training pipelines represent an ideal population with which to initiate the tutorial.  Far from being exempt from the consequences of Duty’s decline, cadets are products of their society.  Officer training schools, despite their histories and reputations, are not the repositories of successful Duty indoctrination, and a lieutenant’s commission does not, in itself, transform an intelligent young person into a Duty-focused officer.  Charged with the future task of leading men and women in the defense of the country, future military officers are the perfect disciples for Duty’s return to prominence. 

by Lt Col Patrick Donley

[1] James B. Stockdale, A Vietnam Experience:  Ten Years of Reflection (Stanford:  Hoover Press, 1984), 70-1.

[2] Jean M. Twenge, Generation Me:  Why Today’s Young Americans Are More Confident, Assertive, Entitled—And More Miserable Than Ever Before (New York:  Free Press, 2006), 1.

[3] Ibid., 2.

[4] Ibid., 5.

Duty: The Double-Edged Sword

              Recently, a former graduate of the Air Force Academy (class of 1970) asked my opinion on what I thought the Academy is doing well today. The graduate knew that I’ve been serving this past year as USAFA’s Senior Scholar (assigned to the Center for Character and Leadership Development). He also knew that I’ve never been in the military.

Although his question caught me by surprise, my response was immediate. “Without a doubt,” I replied, “I’m amazed at how quickly and effectively the Academy teaches Basic Cadets about their duty.”

Until this past year, I never really thought much about the virtue of duty. Growing up, my parents didn’t emphasize the concept and my wife and I certainly never used the term or emphasized duty with our own children (we focused on responsibility, a much different virtue). Moreover, duty is certainly not a virtue valued or practiced in the academic world (professors have responsibilities, not duties).
  

So I hope the reader will appreciate how much I’ve learned this past year about duty, not only how essential it is to the military ethic but how quickly our Basic Cadets are able to grasp its foundational role in the profession they have chosen to pursue.

I am not suggesting that all cadets fulfill their duty all the time. It takes time for cadets to develop the settled habits of the “Five Rights”: Right place. Right time. Right uniform. Right attitude. Ready to do the right thing. I’d also argue that a cadet or an airman can develop these habits and do so for reasons that have nothing to do with duty (such as a desire to graduate or to receive a promotion).
 

Yet the Air Force Academy is doing something right. As a member of the faculty, I’ve had the opportunity to listen to cadets sincerely express their commitment to duty and I’ve seen them display this virtue on a consistent basis. Moreover, I can’t imagine practicing duty without sacrificing something (e.g., free time for cadets, family time for airmen), and I have been amazed at how quickly cadets recognize and accept that their duty requires them to make these sacrifices, including their ultimate sacrifice to our Nation.

But as the title of this essay suggests, duty may be a double-edged sword. I wonder whether the “command and control” model of the military promotes a mindset about duty that diminishes the willingness of an officer to stand up for what is right regardless of whom the officer is talking to. I wonder whether cadets and airmen believe candor, the willingness to tell the truth even when it’s unpopular, is part of their duty.

To me, fulfilling one’s duty also means having the courage to ask great questions. Yet in large bureaucracies, most middle managers learn to defer to authority, recognizing the occupational hazards of questioning ideas, processes that are “owned” by someone with more authority. What too often results is a culture where no one speaks up, takes a critical stance or questions assumptions.

This seems especially pertinent within the military bureaucracy, where duty can be seen as nothing more or less than developing and mastering a “go along to get along” mindset. Instead, if duty is truly a calling, then I want to suggest that it’s the duty of all military officers, at the right time and place and in the right way, to “call into question” their profession’s assumptions and dominant ways of thinking. My concern, however, is that within the military asking great questions is too often seen as an act of defiance or disobedience, rather than as the actions of someone fully committed to his or her duty as a military officer.
 

Of course, there are a set of skills associated with asking great questions or speaking with candor. We all know that asking a question at the right time or speaking with candor in the right way makes a difference. But these skills ought to be modeled and taught by military leaders who aim to create a culture where candor and asking great questions is valued and ever-present. Even at the Air Force Academy, I’d argue that once cadets have displayed competence in what they need to do and learn how to do it, we should begin to encourage cadets to ask “why” questions, even those thorny, difficult questions that may challenge the veracity and effectiveness of the Academy’s many long-standing traditions and practices. Moreover, these questions, raised mostly by fourth and third class cadets, should be fully answered by the upper classmen within their Squadron. Indeed, my hope would be that over time the Wing leadership will display the courage to strengthen or enhance a particular tradition or practice, all because a third-class cadet had the courage, as part of his or her duty, to respectfully ask “why do we do it this way?”

For me, “ready to do the right thing” captures the essence of duty. I also suspect that most of the time “the right thing” has little to do with acts of candor or asking great questions. But sometimes the “right thing” is about the courage to stand up for one’s subordinates or to ask a question in the search of a better way to do things. In any organization, there are times when speaking with candor or asking a question is a matter of your responsibility. And in the military, it’s your duty.

by Dr. Arthur J. Schwartz
Senior Scholar at Center for Character and Leadership Development
U.S. Air Force Academy

Duty and the Repeal of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell

Back home, I am a Permanent Professor of Behavioral Sciences and Leadership at the Air Force Academy.  I am spending a year on a “deployment sabbatical” so I can better prepare cadets to be the next generation of Air Force leaders.  While preparing to deploy, I reflected on what I wanted to accomplish in the six months I would be gone.  I had not been overseas in an operational capacity in many years and I wanted to add value to the deployed mission.  As I reflected, I recalled a quote by Robert E. Lee, “Duty, then is the sublimest word in our language. You cannot do more; you should never wish to do less.”  I deployed with simple goals:  Do my duty at all times and make a difference wherever I serve.

I am serving at a rear echelon location leading a wing staff that supports the warfighter.  Our wing executes approximately 30% of the daily Air and Space Tasking Order.  At our morning commander’s update, I see the amazing work our forces are doing around the theater and I am humbled by their courage and professionalism.    

My current duty is much different from my previous duty.  I spent the first half of my “deployment sabbatical” deployed to the Pentagon as the Air Force writer on the SecDef’s Comprehensive Review Working Group (CRWG) study of the impact of repealing the law known as “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT).  I led the team responsible for writing the Support Plan for Implementation, which is the basis for the Air Force’s Tier I, II, and III training.  Leadership-Professionalism-Discipline-Respect, the Air Force’s themes for repeal training, are spot-on with the CRWG report and with academic research related to organizational change. 

However, these themes will ring hollow if we do not professionally execute repeal.  All Airmen – commissioned and enlisted, uniformed and civilian – must execute repeal with courage, integrity, excellence, and service.  We must do our duty and uphold our commitment to the Oath of Office.  Once DADT is repealed, it becomes the law of the land and we are duty-bound to uphold all laws to the best of our ability.

With the repeal of DADT, our duty as American Airmen to uphold our Oath of Office remains unchanged.  We must do our duty to keep our standards high; create an environment free from barriers that prevent Airmen from rising to the highest level of responsibility possible; and ensure all who serve are able to do their duty without fear of reprisal, harassment, or prejudice.  We must do our duty to protect personal beliefs while honoring and respecting ALL who serve; evaluate others based solely on individual merit, fitness, and capability; and treat others with dignity, courtesy, and respect.  We must do our duty to create a cohesive team able to win our nation’s battles.  We must do our duty to do the right thing simply because it is the right thing to do. 

We can never do more; we should never wish to do less.

 

By Col Gary A. Packard, Jr., Colonel, USAF

Director of Staff, 379 AEW, Southwest Asia