solved Respond to the Following: What Decision did you take at

Respond to the Following:
What Decision did you take at the moment when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site? Why this choice, and not the other? 
The decision I made when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site was not to kill them even though the mission was compromised. It was a moral decision not to take the lives of civilians on the battlefield. I used the three lenses to develop my decision based on Rules, Virtues, and Outcomes. 
Upon reflection, how did you arrive at your decision – did rules, outcomes or virtues factor more into your choice and reasoning, and how so?
The Rules that were considered were the Geneva Convention, Rules of Engagement (RoE), Field Manuel 27-10 The Law of Landwarfare, Military Necessity, Proportionality, and Command Philosophy. Command Philosophy was the only rule that did not supersede Department of Defense Policy, meaning that subordinate unit leadership policy does not supersede the DOD policy. The outcome was either do nothing and retreat or kill them and deal with the consequences back home. Virtues were about moral and ethical decisions; what is right versus what is right for the mission was weighed in.
I arrived at my decision based on a mixture of Rules, Virtues, and Outcomes. Leaders will have to make the tough choice, but with the ethical reasoning model, leaders can choose the best decision for that situation. “Exercise disciplined initiative, take prudent risks, and be accountable for your decisions and actions.” (U. S. Army Website, 2021).
What legitimate arguments can you see for the other choice, and would you choose the same way if confronted with this or a similar dilemma again?
A legitimate argument I can see for the other choice, which was to kill the father and daughter, is that the decision not to put every member of the team and additional U.S. Soldiers at risk of danger and potential death from the Iraqi Forces. The mission was already compromised and, to some, a failure. The Army measures mission success when the mission is complete. Since the mission was already compromised, the mission was already over and failed, no reason to put others at risk from enemy fire. If I were to face the same dilemma again, I would choose the moral choice of not killing innocent civilians on the battlefield again. The outcome of killing civilians has greater second and third effects back in the U.S. from media coverage. Officials would face demotion or reprimand, and the individuals involved would face prosecution and potential jail time.
References:
BNS301M5.2: Ethical Failures of Leaders and Organizations. Excelsior College. (2021).
U. S. Army Website. (2021). Ethical Connections: Ethical Reasoning – The Patrol. CAPL News. https://capl.army.mil/videos/ethical-connections-ethical-reasoning-the-patrol.
RYAN NYLON replied:
Hello Dray and Class,
Thanks for sharing your thoughts on this exercise.  I totally agree with you that making an informed choice was an important aspect to this case.  In addition, having situational awareness on the ground as you described was instrumental in making an ethical decision.  In your opinion class, how would following rules of engagement only impacted the outcome of the final decision?  Besides the ethical lens, are there any other considerations that could have been taken into account that could of produced a better outcome?  Your thoughts class?
BRENNAN ALEXA WASHING replied:
Dray,
Thank you for your post this week; it was very insightful. I agree with your decision not to kill the girl and her father, as it goes against Article 3 of the Geneva Convention, Rules of Engagement, Law of the Land Warfare, and Proportionality (BNS301, n.d.). I also used rules, virtues, and outcomes to make my determination, as well as M5.2 Module notes (n.d.).
I agree that unit-level policy never supersedes Department of Defense policy; however, I believe that it often can feel like it should due to pressure from your leadership. Ground commanders must make ethical and moral decisions, even if it may bring them personal shame within the organization because of “mission failure.” In my personal experience with the military, as long as you can justify your decision, you will be somewhat ok.
Do you believe a better third option would be to tie the girl up or apprehend her until mission completion?
References:
BNS301 Decision Tree. (n.d.). Excelsior College. https://excelsior.instructure.com/courses/23225/pa…
M5.2 Module Notes. (n.d.). Excelsior College. https://excelsior.instructure.com/courses/23225/pa…
*********************END DISCUSSION 1********************
DISCUSSION 2:
ARMENIA JAN MURPHREE posted
Class,
What Decision did you take at the moment when the little girl and her father returned to the hide site? Why this choice, and not the other?? 
I chose to let the little girl and her father live, even though it compromised the mission and the safety of myself and my team. The reason I chose this was because of my own personal morals and those shared morals with my environment. If I were to have neutralized the little girl and her father, I personally would not have been able to morally accept that outcome.  
Upon reflection, how did you arrive at your decision – did rules, outcomes or virtues factor more into your choice and reasoning, and how so? 
I arrived at this decision because of multiple factors. The biggest being my own moral beliefs, but also because the little girl did not intentionally bring me harm. They did not try to shoot me, etc. Yes, the argument could be made that by them going back and telling others where we were, they were trying to harm us, but I do not view their harm immediate and warranting their lives ending at my (or my teams) hands. Also, the fact that hurting a child seems unfathomable and unjustifiable. Also, the upholding of the Geneva and the standards of my country and the world. Many people would not accept killing the little girl and her father, regardless of the mission or the fact that mine and my team’s safety would more than likely be compromised.  
What legitimate arguments can you see for the other choice, and would you choose the same way if confronted with this or a similar dilemma again? 
Arguments that I could see being made for the other choice are the safety of myself and the rest of our team, along with the protection of the mission. If I were to be confronted with this situation again, or a similar one, I would again go down the same path choice. The reason I say this is because of my own moral beliefs and standards for myself. I, personally, would not be able to justify taking their lives. 
Sources:
Bond, J. (2007). In Katrina’s wake: Racial implications of the New Orleans disaster (Links to an external site.). Journal of Race & Policy, 7–14 (15-23 optional).
Module Notes: Ethical Failures in Leaders and Organizations
The Center for The Army Profession and Ethic. (nd). Ethical connections: Ethical reasoning – the patrol (Links to an external site.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for The Army Profession and Ethic (6:44 mins).
Waller, Douglas. (1991, June 17). Secret warriors (Links to an external site.). Newsweek, 117, 20-28 (Only the Segment: “Behind Enemy Lines”).
BRYAN ALEX ASHING replied:
Armenia,
Thank you for your post. I also chose to allow the girl and her father to stay alive – even if it compromised my mission. As trained special forces Soldiers, they take an oath to support and defend the constitution – at the risk of their own life. Non-combatants do not take an oath, nor did they sign up to give their lives for their country. In our previous 4.2 Module Notes (n.d.), it was stated that Service members who kill in battle are still moral beings; however, I believe killing (except for self-defense) civilians is immoral.
You stated that you chose not to kill the girl and her father, firstly, because of moral beliefs, but what if you were ordered to do it? Would you have killed them if it were an order?
In my post, I also stated that if I were to kill the girl and her father, a legitimate argument could be mission success and increased team safety. If you were presented with this choice again, would you temporarily apprehend the girl and her father?
References:
BNS301 Decision Tree. (n.d.). Excelsior College. https://excelsior.instructure.com/courses/23225/pa…
M4.2 Module Notes. (n.d.). Excelsior College. https://excelsior.instructure.com/courses/23225/pa…
M5.2 Module Notes. (n.d.). Excelsior College. https://excelsior.instructure.com/courses/23225/pa…
*********************END DISCUSSION 2********************
Here’s what I posted for you to review/reference:
I decided not to kill the girl and her father. I chose not to kill the girl and her father and abort the mission because I decided to adhere to the moral principles of the soldier ethic since I believe that the two individuals have dignity and their lives have value. According to the Center for the Army Profession and Ethic (2019), army professionals like soldiers are motivated and inspired to make the right decisions and take the right action in accordance with the moral principles of the Army Ethic. Even though I broke the rules of engagement (ROE), I followed the professional ethics of a soldier and the Geneva Convention. Moreover, if the leader of the force or an order from above told me not to kill the girl, I would obey the orders. After all, military officers from the lowest to highest ranks must follow orders (Dallek, 2010).
Upon reflection, I arrived at my decision by considering three aspects: virtues, rules, and outcomes. An ethical reasoning framework can help someone make the right decision and act on it (Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2019). Hence, the reason I decided not to kill the girl and his father because killing them in cold blood has a series of adverse outcomes, such as the press could use the death of the girl and her father as propaganda. Another aspect that I considered regarding my action is the thought that killing two innocent individuals is unfair and would violate the professional code of ethics, which is based on the virtues I hold. In addition, I also considered other rules like Geneva Convention and proportionality in my decision regarding the situation. The reflection of soldiers to normative ethics helps to foster understanding concerning roles and responsibilities (Ulrich, 2011).
On the other hand, one of the legitimate arguments that I could see if I decided to eliminate the girl and her father is obeying only the U.S. rules of engagement and military necessity. In point of fact, none of the terms of Geneva apply to U.S. conflict with an entity in any part of the world (Kakutani, 2008). Another legitimate argument would be proportionality; if the discovery of the girl and his father of our mission put numerous lives at risk or in danger, then I would take the other choice. The proportionality-based utilitarianism approach happens when one considers the best outcome for most people, and it is acceptable to sacrifice one life to save numerous lives (Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2019). Ultimately, I would take the same decision if confronted with this similar dilemma again as I put my moral principles first, among other aspects.
References:
Dallek, R. (2010, June 23). General uproar: The other Truman doctrine (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). New York Times.
Kakutani, M. (2008, May 14). How Abu Ghraib became the anything-goes prison (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). New York Times, E8.
The Center for The Army Profession and Ethic. (2019). Ethical connections: Ethical reasoning – the patrol (Links to an external site.) (Links to an external site.). Fort Leavenworth, KS: Center for The Army Profession and Ethic (6:44 mins).
Ulrich, M, P. (2011). The general Stanley McChrystal affair: A case study in civil-military relations (Links to an external site.). Parameters, 41(1), 86-100