The Truth of Lying by Eric Swanson

            Evidence is continuing to grow that National Guard units around America are undermanned and are faking this fact to the Department of Defense to maintain funding levels and to hide their lack of success of retaining troops.  The ethical dilemma with this situation is to determine if the misreporting, or lying, of their muster sheets is justifiable.  This can be found by looking at the standards of ethics found by Kant, Augustine, and others.  When this evaluation has been done, it will be determined that these units are in violation of ethical standards. 

      In Indiana, a military court was presented with an admission from a top level officer to the fact that their guard unit was falsifying troop levels to the Department of Defense.  As much as 700 soldiers out of the 12,000 member Indiana Guard were still being reported on their rolls, some even for over 2 years.[i]  These “ghosts” as they called it were aiding the units in securing their federal government funding.  Though the units report to the governor, the units receive 95% of their funding through federal sources.[ii]  Those units that do not maintain their troop numbers through recruiting or retention receive fewer funds from the federal government.  This is supposed to encourage unit commanders to make an emphasis on retaining troops. 

However, many units have not been able to market themselves, especially since some unit commanders say, due to the events of September 11^th.  Since September 11^th, the National Guard has been tasked with many jobs outside their normal capacity from airport security to active duty troop replacements.  This tasking by the American government has given rise to the problem of misreporting.  Now that National Guard has been called upon, many officials are finding out that readiness of the National Guard to be inadequate.[iii]  The National Guard, since September 11^th, is extremely undermanned, overworked, and over-tasked.  The only avenue that many unit commanders have seen was to continue falsifying troop reports so that units will retain their money flow and be able help motivate the troops that are working hard for America with better equipment and supplies.  This extra money that was being received for the extra “ghost” troops was being used for mission related activities. 

Now this falsification was not just happening in Indiana, but many other units in other states are being investigated as well.  Units in Illinois, South Carolina, California, Arizona, Texas, Virginia, and Wyoming are being investigated for “ghost” soldiers.[iv]  In some units, 20% of the troops only exist on paper.[v]  In Wyoming, Guard officials would periodically instruct soldiers to mark drill absentees to appear as if the soldier was attending some training somewhere.[vi]  In Virginia, a personnel clerk has come forward to testify that in his 16 year career as a National Guardsmen he would regularly assign soldiers that were not apart of their battalion to their unit so that the unit would not fail a readiness report.[vii]  He said that his unit had a history of presenting false troop data.[viii]  Also John Wilt, Special Forces Officer in the Virginia National Guard, is reporting that as much 20% - 30% of his troops in his battalion were ghost soldiers during his 1998 – 1999 command.[ix]  In addition Frank Dillon, a senior enlisted soldier in Wilt’s unit, confirms his account.[x]  Dillion says that during this time his unit was so successful at doctoring the muster sheets that the officials in Washington complemented the unit for keeping the unit so well staffed.[xi]

All these units have one thing in common, and that is that they are falsifying their reports.  However, is this justifiable?  Should unit commanders lie to get the mission accomplished?  Is there a general rule to know if a lie is justifiable or not?

Originally, it was believed that any lie was wrong.  This was based upon the religious beliefs of the day, being from Psalms 5:7 stating, “Thou hatest all the workers of iniquity; thou wilt destroy all that speak a lie.”[xii]  This verse helped many to believe that lying was wrong based on two assumptions: that God declared it wrong, and the He would punish those who decided to lie.[xiii] 

The great philosopher Immanuel Kant realized a spiritual force called the “highest good” that helped him form his philosophies about lying.  Kant believed that besides the spiritual incorrectness of the lying, a man that lied threw away “and, as it were, annihilates his dignity as a man.”[xiv]  Kant was the absolutist in belief towards lying.  He dismissed all external situations and claimed that truth had to be told no matter the consequences.

This absolute belief came under much fire from critics.  Samuel Johnson stated, “The General Rule is, that truth should never be violated; there must, however, be some exceptions.  If, for instance, a murderer should ask you which way a man has gone.”[xv]  This question became the standard by which people discussed the value of an absolute position.  Kant would hold that no matter the circumstances, a person had a duty to uphold their dignity by telling the truth.  However, many people could not agree with him.  The reason being that the costs related to lying were small while the costs to telling the truth were catastrophic.[xvi]  People noticed that a world where it is improper to “tell a lie to a murderer pursuing an innocent victim is not a world that many would find safe to inhabit”.[xvii]  This led to the realization that the absolute belief would not hold up in real life.

Without the absolute belief, many people turned to other ways to explain the justifiability of lying.  Even in the Bible, many people noticed the discrepancy with “Thou shalt not lie.”, and other passages within the Bible that allowed lying.[xviii]  This misunderstanding was made clear by St. Augustine.  He was a devout Christian, so his basis of his philosophy of lying was based on his experiences and understanding of the Bible.  “He defined lying as having one thing in one’s heart and uttering another with the intention to deceive, thereby subverting the God-given purposes of human speech.”[xix]  The key to his understanding of lying was the intention behind the uttering.  Thomas Aquinas took Augustine’s beliefs of the intention of the lie and found three distinguishable types of lies being: “the officious, or helpful lies; the jocose lies, told in jest; and the mischievous, or malicious, lies, told to harm someone.”[xx]  Aquinas believed that the malicious lie was the only lie that could be considered a sin.  These two men helped shaped the standard by which we can judge which lie that is ethically wrong and which lie is ethically right.  This also helped answer the original question of what to do if a murderer asks which direction a man went.  By this explanation, this would give the person the right to lie to the murderer.  The reason being if “innocent lives at are at stake, lies are morally justifiable”.[xxi]  The key here to understand this principle is knowing the intention of the person that told the lie.  In this situation, it is clear that the intention was to save lives and not to be malicious or mischievous.

      However, to determine the intention of a person’s lie is a very difficult thing to do, because what one says and does might not always match.  In these situations, Sissela Bok gives a good set of rules to be able to determine the intention of a person.  She recommends that first one must ask what alternatives are available to resolve the issue without telling a lie.[xxii]  Secondly, one must ask the arguments to excuse the lie and then ask for the counter arguments.[xxiii]  Then thirdly one must ask a public of rational people to find out what they think about the lie.[xxiv]  The answers to these questions can easily give a good reliable signal towards to true intention of the lie.  These principles can be used on the issue of the National Guard as to determine the intention of the unit commanders.

      The alternatives to resolving the issue of undermanned units without lying would be to recruit better or change the policy.  One alternative for unit commanders to help the situation of soldiers leaving is to make it their goal to make an environment where they enjoy what their soldiers doing.  When the unit commander realizes the problem, instead of hiding the problem, he should have the confidence to tackle the problem head on.  Another alternative for unit commanders to help the situation of soldiers leaving is to try to tell their superiors their troubles so they would be inclined to change the policy from their end.  One of the jobs of superiors is help solve problems of those under him.  If the unit commander tells the superior what the situation, he might be able to change policies to retain more people.  These alternatives to lying show that the unit commander was not limited to just lying and that he could have done many more proactive things besides doctoring the reports.

      The arguments for and against the lie is heavily leaning toward the "against" side.  The unit commander’s justification for lying was that he was trying to accomplish the mission tasked him.  Commanders were feeling like their hands were tied because of the policies in practice at the time.  They felt they were only looking out for those soldiers still working hard, so the soldiers did not have to work without the equipment they need due to a lack of funds from the federal government.  So, to make sure their unit would accomplish the mission and have proper troop welfare, commanders felt it was only proper to lie about the muster sheets.  However, the counter argument engages the commanders in a real look at himself.  By doctoring the reports, the unit commander will be able to hide his deficiency in retaining soldiers and his lack of military readiness.  These negative events would look terrible on a fitness report for future promotion.  The lesson here shows the true intention of the individual unit commander was not totally selfless, but could be considered malicious to the Pentagon.

      Since this issue is being discussed in the Indiana military court it is being considered by a public rational group of people.  As of right now, one person has been court–martialed for doctoring documents.  This shows that the public would not agree with the actions of the unit commander.  Lying to the Pentagon about troop totals is considered wrong and will not be tolerated to the general public.

      This issue has brought much discredit to the National Guard, because many officers and enlisted personnel are coming forth stating that lying to the Pentagon to hide inabilities to retain soldiers and to maintain funding was common practice.  This is considered wrong because the intent of the lie was ethically wrong, there were other alternatives, the individuals were not acting out of a selfless spirit, and it is not considered right to a jury of their peers.  This tells the truth about lying.  To determine if one can lie, the intention must be pure.

Bibliography

Bok, Sissela. “Lying, Excuses, and the Burden of Proof.” in Ethics for

Military Leaders, ed. George R. Lucas, 241 – 247. Boston: Pearson

Custom Publishing, 2001.

Bok, Sissela. “The Absolute Prohibition of Lying,” in Ethics for

Military Leaders, ed. George R. Lucas, 233 – 239. Boston: Pearson

Custom Publishing, 2001.

Moniz, David and Jim Drinkard. “E-mail detail Ind. Guard ‘Ghosts.’” USA

Today, 21 February 2002, 6(A).

								Search this site: search tips sitemap
Who is Eric?	Economics	English	Ethics	History	Interests	Leadership	Psychology	Politics	Links

Date this page was last updated: 12/06/2002