Moral Injury – Confronting the U.S. Military’s Greatest Strategic Problem

There’s an interesting historical anecdote that comes from the 1787 Philadelphia Convention that resulted in the Constitution for the United States. The story involves Benjamin Franklin’s contemplations upon the sun engraved in the back of the chair (pictured above) used by George Washington as he presided over the Convention. Franklin stated that he:

“…often and often in the course of the Session, and the vicissitudes of my hopes and fears as to its issue, looked at that behind the President without being able to tell whether it was rising or setting: But now at length I have the happiness to know that it is a rising and not a setting Sun.”

It is interesting to note Franklin’s reflections on what the sun might have portended at that time for the fledgling United States. While Franklin’s interpretation of the engraved sun’s symbolism might have been correct in 1787, I do not harbor the same enthusiasm in 2023. If I am being honest, I must state that the sun seems to be setting. With each passing minute, the light of the republic seems to fade, leaving darkness to fill the void. [1]

One of the greatest examples of this encroaching darkness is the current moral state of our military.

I want to write about a topic that I think is of the utmost importance right now for our Armed Forces and the country. It’s an issue that continues to cause untold woe within our military. By extension, it’s causing the same impacts on our whole country.

This issue is known as moral injury.

Before I go further, it may be useful for readers to understand some of what I have previously stated in terms of my thoughts on those who have participated without resistance in the covid-19 operation. I have explained here extensively why I believe the Department of Defense’s role has been so nefarious. Additionally, here is a reference that provides a quick summary as to why so many people (myself included) mention that the covid-19 injection mandate was based on fraud and that therefore the implementation of the mandate was unlawful.

Moral Injury

Before I describe what it is, let me quickly explain how I came across the term, at least within the context I use it here. Recently, I have participated in several events of public discourse with individuals seeking to inform others about the true effects of the Department of Defense’s (DoD) covid-19 injection mandate.

A few weeks ago, I was given a few minutes to share my perspective on the current situation, and in doing so, I spoke about the feelings of resentment permeating the military. I explained how currently serving and recently separated or resigned troops feel great disgust towards their leaders. These weren’t just my opinions; I’ve heard this openly discussed by troops still in uniform or those who have recently left service.

When I finished my comments, a prominent member of the group whom I have come to greatly respect, Dr. Crisanna Shackelford, spoke up and mentioned that the phenomenon I was speaking about had a name: moral injury.

I had certainly heard of moral injury before and was well aware of the concept but I had not yet made the connection between the term within this specific context of the covid-19 injection mandate and its impacts on individuals, on the military as a whole, and even on society. In hindsight, of course, the connection was obvious, totally valid, and extremely significant.

More recently, we have had subsequent public discussions in which we have spoken more clearly and deeply about this particular phenomenon and what it means for the institution charged with supporting and defending the Constitution and our country.

What exactly is moral injury?

We can consult the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs entry for the topic. To understand moral injury, we must acknowledge that when under “traumatic or unusually stressful circumstances, people may perpetrate, fail to prevent, or witness events that contradict deeply held moral beliefs and expectations.” This can then lead to moral injury: the “distressing psychological, behavioral, social, and sometimes spiritual aftermath of exposure to such events.”

The nature of the covid-19 policies, to include the injection mandate, have undoubtedly caused immeasurable moral injury.

To truly see this, we must understand that there is a large portion of the currently serving military population, as well as many veterans who have recently departed from service, who are surely suffering moral injury in some capacity that falls within the definition provided above from the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs. The website explains that these suffering individuals likely fall into the following groups:

1. Those who participated in some action that goes against their own moral code. These would be those individuals who were uncomfortable with the policies implemented by DoD but went along with them, perhaps to save their careers. This group could also include those who were initially “true believers” in the injection policies, but have since learned the reality of the objectives behind the mandates and now find it difficult to reconcile their own previous actions with what they now know.
2. Those who witnessed an action that violates their own personal moral code. These are the individuals that did not directly participate in the harmful actions that were part of the covid-19 policies. They may have even openly opposed them and perhaps were even harmed in some way by the policies (such as loss of promotion, loss of desired duty assignments, or loss of one’s career entirely). This can be difficult for individuals to accept because they likely feel a strong sense of identity and professional kinship with an organization (the military) that has betrayed their trust and has instead turned against what it purportedly stands for (such as the Constitution).
3. Often individuals can fall into both of the above categories. One can participate in bad actions as part of a group or organization that also pushes the bad action. In this type of case, the participating individual perhaps feels they they were trapped and coerced into doing what they did. In turn, they feel both like a perpetrator and a victim.

How does this moral injury manifest itself?

Again, we will consult the Department of Veterans Affairs website for their entry on the topic of moral injury. First, for those who committed acts that violate their own moral code (Group #1 above), they will feel guilt. This guilt is act-oriented, which means that the person’s guilt is directly tied to whatever action is deemed to be in direct opposition to the person’s moral code. The feelings of guilt will manifest themselves as something like: “I committed a bad act and I feel guilty about the act.”

Specifically, there are leaders all across the military that feel guilty for pushing the covid shots on their subordinates when now it is abundantly clear that the shots were harmful. They may also feel guilty about marginalizing the individuals who resisted the injections. Whether or not these individuals have the courage to admit their guilt and do anything about it remains to be seen, but the guilt is undoubtedly there.

Another way in which moral injury affects those in Group #1 is through shame. The shame goes further than guilt. Rather than being about what one has done (the act), shame is about who one is (the actor). This shame is expressed in terms such as: “I am a bad person because of what I did.” It is immediately clear how destructive this type of shame could be. It can be prejudicial to one’s self esteem, professional output, and relationships with others in both a personal and professional setting.

There are leaders across our Armed Forces who feel uncomfortable with themselves as a result of the policies they carried out. They are having a hard time looking themselves in the mirror. Some of them have a hard time wearing the uniform because they question whether or not they deserve to wear it. They are now unsure of their own character. They question whether or not they are the type of person who should be serving in the military or whether or not they should be serving in a leadership or command capacity. Again, perhaps they lack the courage to speak up but that does not mean that they are not internally conflicted.

It doesn’t end there. The entry on the Veterans Affairs page tells us that disgust is another potential effect of moral injury. Disgust primarily affects the moral injury victims in Group #2. This is a massive problem. This means that there are currently serving troops who feel disgusted with their leaders and with their organizations. They may actively resent both their local leaders at the unit level (these would be the leaders they interact with daily) and also the senior level leaders in the Pentagon that service members see as holding overall responsibility for the harmful policies.

Truthfully, we must admit that many individuals will feel more than one of these sentiments, particularly if they see themselves as both a perpetrator and victim of the harmful covid-19 injection policies.

Let’s think about the nature of the military and how this might impact the ability of our Armed Forces to perform their crucial role of national defense.

As I mentioned above, there are thousands of service members right now in uniform, going to work every day that not only do not trust their leadership but actively resent them. Further, there are service members that resent themselves. Most dangerously, there are service members who resent themselves and their leadership.

Let’s also not assume that many of DoD’s leaders aren’t themselves suffering from moral injury. They are. In many cases, they may be the objects of contempt from their subordinates while also harboring resentment against themselves. Do we really think these individuals can effectively lead their units? First, their character is suspect. On top of that—and with respect to moral injury—they are the objects of derision from their subordinates while also castigating themselves for their moral failings. This is a leadership disaster.

How many people are suffering from moral injury? The number of those who have suffered and continue to suffer moral injury is larger than the number of those who have suffered and continued to suffer physical injury. I would argue that all service members who are physically injured from the injections, provided that they acknowledge the injection is in fact the cause, are also suffering moral injury because they feel victimized by the military and their leaders. They may also resent themselves for consenting to take the shots which ended up physically injuring them.

However, there are plenty of others who are not physically injured from the injections but are morally injured from them. One group would be those who took the shots and as of now have suffered no ill effects. Despite having escaped physical harm (thus far), many of these service members feel that they were lied to, coerced, and even threatened to make them take the shots. Others took the shots more freely without much coercion, but now feel lied to about the supposed necessity or benefits which turned out to be completely untrue.

Another group of morally injured are those who resisted the injections entirely. They were subjected to ostracization within the unit as well as extreme detriment to their careers. In fact, many of them lost their careers entirely and some of these were within a short window of earning their retirement pensions. Others lost out on promotions or on duty assignments for which they were otherwise completely eligible. Many of those who were affected in this way feel betrayed by the institution they faithfully served in that prides itself on the character of its leaders.

Lastly, there are many other individuals that have never worn a military uniform and yet have still been heavily impacted by the military’s harmful policies and therefore are also victims of moral injury. How many military spouses have watched in horror at the way DoD treated the service members to whom they are married? How many children have witnessed what was done to their parents? (How many of these children might have wanted to join the military one day but now will never do so?) How many parents watched the way in which their sons and daughters in the military were treated? How many other Americans watched in disgust at the way their military relatives or friends were treated? How many of these individuals, who perhaps have never served in the Armed Forces personally, once revered the military but now feel disgusted by the organization charged with protecting our freedoms? All of these individuals are also suffering moral injury by witnessing the extreme dysfunction that now permeates what had long been one of the most trusted institutions in the country.

A Strategic Problem

This widespread moral injury has real, discernible effects. It constitutes a significant strategic problem. Indeed, it may in fact be the greatest strategic problem our military currently faces because of the impacts on overall readiness. I have been emphatically clear about my beliefs on the entire covid operation. I have written about it here. I believe it was intentionally designed to destroy our own military both through the direct adverse effects (physical injury) as well as the corresponding moral injury that would assuredly occur on a massive scale.

Warfighting is a complex endeavor. It is more than just strategy and tactics. It’s also more than just the total numbers of soldiers, guns, tanks, and bombs. These are all certainly important and very smart people spend endless hours drawing up detailed plans of action, considering many of these quantitative factors, to achieve certain desired end states.

However, there are always other factors at play that are also immensely important. Warfare is, after all, a human endeavor and morality is a significant component of that human dimension.

To demonstrate why, let me refer to the branch of service with which I am the most familiar: the Army. While the intricacies of doctrine differ between the various services, the fundamental concepts behind those doctrinal specifics will apply across the board. I am going to cite a few examples from Army manuals, but please understand that the problems affect the entire military. In doing so, I will describe a few of the key factors, caused by moral injury, that now contribute to this massive strategic problem that DoD plans to ignore.

Trust

All organizations operate on trust. In some organizations, trust may be more important than in others. In the military, due to the nature of its charter, trust is of paramount importance. An erosion of trust can have severe effects on the ability of a unit to carry out its assigned missions. Trust must be operative in both directions. A leader must trust that his subordinates will act within his (the leader’s) stated intent. The subordinates must trust the leader’s character enough to feel that he is doing his best to maintain the optimal balance between mission accomplishment and their (the subordinates’) well-being.

The complexity of today’s operations coupled with the vastness of the modern battlefield require enormous levels of mutual trust. Nothing is more corrosive to trust than moral injury.

Leadership Disaster

Without trust, leadership can never be effective.

Leadership is the most important facet in determining success in war and militaries around the world have known this for a long time. The American military is no different. In Field Manual 3-0 Operations on page 2-4, the Army has this to say: “Leadership is the most essential dynamic of combat power.” The same manual goes on to explain that leadership “is the multiplying and unifying dynamic of combat power, and it represents the qualitative difference between units.”

Above I mentioned that warfare is not so simple as to be entirely decided in quantitative terms. There are many other intangible qualities that are vitally important and leadership has long been recognized as the most supreme. Why exactly is leadership so deterministic in unit success? The Operations field manual mentioned above explains that leadership is crucial because it “inspires individuals to push past their perceived breaking point, and to fight for their unit and fellow Soldiers under the most difficult circumstances.”

The Army even has its own specific leadership manual which goes into more detail on this integral component of success. In providing some contextual background to the Army’s philosophy on leadership, Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 , Army Leadership and the Profession, on page 1-6 provides the following description of the Army ethic:

“The Army ethic is the set of enduring moral principles, values, beliefs, and laws that guide the Army profession and create the culture of trust essential to Army professionals in the conduct of missions, performance of duty, and all aspects of life.”

On page 1-8 of the same manual, several “Expectations of the Army Profession” are found. Several of these are listed below:

• “Honorable service in defense of the Constitution and the interests of the American people”
• “Bonds of trust with the American people”

If leadership is so important within the American military, and if true leadership is so heavily predicated upon character, ethics, and culture, then why in the past two years have we witnessed perhaps the single largest leadership failure in the history of our military? We have observed virtually all uniformed leaders shirk their duties and shun the truth by going along with these deliberately harmful policies rather than risk harm to their reputations, careers, or livelihood. While I acknowledge the challenges inherent in standing up against tyranny, it is excruciatingly painful to watch the military destroy itself. This pain we feel in observing this destruction is moral injury.

How come virtually every leader across our military still refuses to stand up and speak out against the injustices continuing to occur? How can these leaders convince themselves that they are supporting and defending the Constitution as they continue to permit the injustices caused by the mandate to persist? How can these leaders convince themselves that they are acting in the best interest of the American public?

Regardless of the mental gymnastics performed by these individuals, many of them have to be internally conflicted about the situation they have found themselves in. What they need to realize is that while they are also victims of moral injury, many of them are also perpetrators and that continuing to deny the realities of the harm caused will not fix the situation.

We expect much more from our leaders. The Army itself states unequivocally that leaders are responsible for understanding the context in which orders are given. Leaders don’t receive a pass for merely passing down orders from higher without questioning those that may be potentially unsound. Leaders don’t get a pass because they think they are too busy to actively weigh the overall validity of orders they receive with the intent of passing them down.

Army Doctrine Publication 6-22 explains on page 2-7 that the Army expects that its leaders understand they “have a responsibility to research relevant orders, rules, and regulations and to demand clarification of orders that lead to criminal misinterpretation or abuse.” With the huge question marks and red flags surrounding the covid-19 injection mandate, leaders have zero excuses for failing to speak out in the twenty months since its implementation. Ignorance is no excuse. Additionally, the fact that the mandate has been officially repealed does not obviate the responsibility for these leaders to speak out. After all, the physical and moral effects of the mandate continue to be felt and will be for far into the future. At this point, every single leader across DoD that has gone along with the mandates and their aftermath without resisting is complicit in the ongoing destruction of the military. This means that they are complicit in the moral injury that continues to be perpetrated against service members and the public.

Leadership is considered to be so important that leadership training begins very early on in the candidacy of any prospective officer regardless of commissioning source. In my case, it was the primary focus of my four years at the United States Military Academy (West Point). Everything centered around leadership development. West Point states that its mission is “to educate, train, and inspire the Corps of Cadets so that each graduate is a commissioned leader of character committed to the values of Duty, Honor, Country and prepared for a career of professional excellence and service to the Nation as an officer in the United States Army.”

The entire Army prides itself on its dedication and adherence to its overarching organizational standard known as the Army Values. Those values are listed below with a select portion of each of the corresponding descriptions offered on the Army Values website. Added to each, I have included my own commentary as it relates directly to a violation of that specific Value and its corresponding strategic impact.

Loyalty: “Bear true faith and allegiance to the U.S. Constitution, the Army, your unit and other Soldiers.”

What I like about the way this definition begins is that I agree with the order of precedence established. I appreciate that they list the Constitution as the first object of “true faith and allegiance.” I completely agree with that. The problem is that leaders across the board chose disloyalty to the Constitution. The covid-19 operation explicitly placed the country and the military in direct tension with one another. This created a de facto loyalty test that nearly all leaders in the Army (and other services) failed. They chose to be loyal to their organizations, which under normal circumstances would be admirable, but not when doing so requires they turn their backs on the Constitution and the country to do so.

Duty: “Fulfill your obligations….You fulfill your obligations as part of your unit every time you resist the temptation to take ‘shortcuts’ that might undermine the integrity of the final product.”

This is an interesting definition. Certainly, leaders have an obligation to not lie to their subordinates. Could lying about the potential harmful effects of the covid shots be considered a “shortcut?” What about lying about the unlawful nature of the mandate’s implementation due to the misrepresentation of an unlicensed product as a fully FDA-approved product?

Respect: “Treat people as they should be treated.”

Again, how is lying about the potential effects of these shots, or going along with the collusion between the FDA and DoD alluded to above, considered to be respectful?

Selfless Service: “Put the welfare of the nation, the Army, and your subordinates before your own…In serving your country you are doing your duty loyally without thought of recognition or gain.”

How many leaders thought only of themselves these past two years? How many coerced their subordinates to take the injections before the mandate was even implemented? How many did so to receive the accolades of their superiors? I know of multiple commanders who sought personal recognition, before and after the mandate, for their efforts in achieving high injection rates. How many leaders cared only about their careers and went along with the unlawful implementation of the mandate because they cared more about their careers than the truth or the well-being of their subordinates? How many continue to do so? How many worried more about their reputations, the next promotion, their careers, or their retirement pensions than they did about the potential effects of the shots? How many are currently covering up adverse effects in their units rather than admit that they took part in a strategically destructive campaign specifically designed to destroy military readiness through physical and moral injury?

Honor: “Live up to Army Values.”

As I have stated with the other values, our leaders have demonstrated a widespread colossal failure of every Army Value.

Integrity: “Do what’s right, legally and morally. Integrity is a quality you develop by adhering to moral principles.”

It’s hard to tell which of the Army Values has been violated to the greatest extent through the intentional harmful effects of the injection mandate. Is it this one? Or is it ‘Selfless Service?’ Or is it ‘Personal Courage?’ Who can justify pushing the injections on healthy service members based on a mandate that itself was predicated upon lies, fraud, and the willful destruction of our military?

Personal Courage: “Face fear, danger or adversity (physical or moral)…Facing moral fear or adversity may be a long, slow process of continuing forward on the right path, especially if taking those actions is not popular with others.”

Every single one of these leaders that continues to tout the lie that the implementation of the mandate was lawful, or the lie that the shots are safe, or the lie that no one has been injured, is an absolute coward unworthy to wear the uniform. Unfortunately, they’re the ones still running the military at all levels. Virtually all of the ones who resisted are either out of the military, or are currently being marginalized by shadow policies that remain in effect despite official policies. [2]

What we have witnessed the past two years has been more than a leadership failure. It has been a leadership disaster.

This moral vacuum renders our military completely ineffective. Anyone who says differently is either lying or downplays the importance of the human dimension of warfare. As more of the truth about the objectives behind the covid-19 injection mandate come to light, this leadership disaster will become ever more apparent.

Crisis of Command

The most severe type of leadership failure we have witnessed all across the military at all echelons has been the extreme cowardice of commanders.

Command billets are the most important positions across the military. Simply stated, commanders are responsible for what their units accomplish or fail to accomplish. They can appropriately be commended when their unit exceeds expectations and can appropriately bear the brunt of criticism when their unit fails to perform to standard.

Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, explains what it means to command on page 2:

“Command is exercised by office and the special assignment of members…who are eligible to exercise command. A commander…exercises command authority over a military organization or a prescribed territorial area.” The manual then explains that a “commander is responsible for all aspects of unit readiness.”

The military takes selection of its commanders extremely seriously because of the responsibility inherent to the position, regardless of the level of command. This is evident in the Army’s recent decision to radically alter its process for selecting its battalion commanders. I happened to be in the first year group of eligible command candidates to participate in the new Battalion Commander Assessment Program and found it a worthwhile experience. I genuinely believed that the Army was striving to improve its mechanism for placing the right individuals in one of its most important positions: battalion commanders.

However, having witnessed the total command failure in the wake of the covid-19 injection mandate, I believe the character deficit within our pool of eligible commanders was so great that even BCAP could not correct it.

Having been a commander in the Army, I expect a lot of out of the officers that bear the highest responsibility out of anyone in uniform. No commander is perfect. No commander gets everything right. There are many types of mistakes that even for commanders are completely tolerable. Even commanders learn and improve during the time in which they are in command.

However, there are also actions that for a commander are entirely intolerable. If putting oneself above the unit and the mission is intolerable, putting oneself above the Constitution and the country is unconscionable.

No one is more responsible for the implementation of the shot mandate and its impact than commanders. Not the military doctors. Not the military lawyers. Not the military chaplains. All three of those groups bear responsibility as well and the overwhelming majority of them shirked their duties too. There’s plenty of cowardice to go around. But no group bears more responsibility for the current state of moral injury across DoD and the nation than the commanders.

Commanders who are unwilling to challenge their superiors on potentially unsound orders are unworthy of the title “commander.” It is true that in the military one must follow orders. One may not willfully disobey an order merely because one disagrees with it. One is free to openly discuss misgivings of the order with the issuing authority (assuming time and circumstances permit), but one may not simply disregard an order due to a disagreement with its operational soundness or because it seems like a “bad idea.” The Army Regulation 600-20, Army Command Policy, makes that clear on page 27: “All personnel in the Army are required to strictly obey and promptly execute the legal orders of their lawful seniors.”

However, this expectation, which is entirely appropriate given the military’s nature, has one significant qualifier. The Army Doctrine Publication 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, includes an exceptionally important section called Ethical Orders on page 2-8. These few paragraphs are some of the most crucial contained in any doctrinal manual of any type. Here we learn that the Army fully recognizes that there may be times when “the situation requires a leader to stand firm and disagree with a supervisor on ethical grounds. These occasions test one’s character and moral courage. Situations in which any Army member thinks an order is unlawful can be the most difficult.” The manual goes on to explain that “[u]nlawful orders are the exception—a leader has a duty to question such orders and refuse to obey them if clarification of the order’s intent fails to resolve objections.”

I fully acknowledge here that many leaders were perhaps true believers in the mandate policy when it came out. Their poor decision making at that time could be attributed more to naivete than cowardice. That deficit in critical thinking has had disastrous strategic effects, and commanders don’t get off the hook by merely being considered naïve (itself a massive indictment of their abilities though perhaps not of their character.) Regardless of their possible beliefs or intentions in August 2021 when the mandate was implemented, it is impossible for commanders to remain naïve now. Too much information has come out in the past twenty months for these individuals to continue to claim ignorance. Any ignorance at this point is willful and willful ignorance stems from cowardice. At this point, commanders should be thoroughly investigating what they were a part of the past two years.

Feeling internally conflicted isn’t enough. Being a victim of moral injury isn’t sufficient justification for also being a perpetrator.

No commander should expect command to be easy. Candidates are not selected for command because of their ability to make the right decision when it’s obvious what to do. Commanders are necessary because it’s not always obvious what the right answer is. Commanders are expected to weigh competing requirements and make decisions amid limited resources. Commanders are expected to fully understand risk and balance that against opportunity. Commanders are expected to operate under time constraints and with incomplete information. They are expected to exercise sound judgment.

A commander who is only capable of making the right decision when it’s easy to do so is no commander at all.

There is a grand paradox of command at play here. Those few who truly understood the mantle of command had to have the courage to stand up for truth and the Constitution and thus be willing to lose their command whereas the cowards who sought to protect their positions (and the title of commander) at all costs demonstrated that they have no right to command America’s sons and daughters.

As a commander who was relieved for refusing to go along with the mandate, I feel well within my rights to call out my own. I also feel that my peer group (battalion commanders) could have stopped the mandate. Had more brigade and battalion commanders stepped up and resisted the unlawful and willfully destructive mandate, there is no way it could have remained in effect. Even if all of our generals and admirals across the entire military have lost their way—and they may have— colonels and lieutenant colonels (or the corresponding ranks of captain and commander in the Navy) that are in command billets could have stopped this in its tracks. Sadly, the overwhelming majority of colonels and lieutenant colonels have also lost their way.

We are surely suffering from a leadership disaster, but part of that disaster is total crisis of command. To understand who bears the largest burden for this moral injury and the corresponding strategic destruction, look no further than those who proudly display the signs outside their offices designating themselves as “Commander.”

Atonement

I stated at the beginning of this piece that I’m not sure I can agree in 2023 with Benjamin Franklin’s 1787 assessment of the republic. The Constitution drafted in Philadelphia that summer is now virtually dead. Our military, whose members swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, has largely turned against it.

I don’t know that our military can be salvaged. I’m not ready to declare that it can’t be, but if it is to be saved, it can only happen with massive changes. These changes must be so sweeping as to be nearly (though perhaps not totally) impossible. Anyone who thinks otherwise is deluded. It might be possible, but it will be incredibly difficult.

Having said that, there’s always hope. There’s no reason to give up and allow our country to collapse, as will surely happen if we continue along the present trajectory. To save the country, we will need to save the military. The current military is a threat to Americans rather than their defenders. That’s obvious to anyone who has looked at what DoD’s leaders have done the last few years.

We have a massive strategic problem that must be fixed. The primary reason to fix it is because it’s the right thing to do. However, it’s also necessary. Whatever our shortcomings may be in terms of military technology, hardware, intelligence capabilities, etc., we remain morally incapable of defending ourselves. Advantages in other areas will not outweigh the strategic obstacles caused by our current moral void.

How do we even attempt to fix this?

There must be some sense of atonement.

When I make the claim that we have massive numbers of disenchanted service members and their families, I am merely suggesting that they feel massively wronged. My point here is not to proclaim that we have some sort of widespread insider threat phenomenon. However, I am emphatically declaring that we have a significant rift in the ranks. This rift is better envisioned as a deep moral chasm. How can we bridge that moral gap? How can the military atone for what it has perpetrated on its own troops? Absent that atonement, how can restitution occur? How can the military fix itself? Is it even possible?

While I might concede that the military may still be fixable, I don’t think that it can fix itself.

Many of the senior DoD leaders need to leave the service immediately. As for possible criminal prosecution for some of their actions, let the competent authorities (where they even exist) figure that out.

The vast majority of currently serving commanders need to also be removed from their posts. Many of them need to be removed from the military as well.

The next thing that needs to happen is DoD’s acknowledgement of covid-19 injection injuries. DoD must admit that the injections have injured service members. Some have been so injured that they can no longer serve. Adequate care and compensation must be allocated. This is not negotiable. All Americans can assist in this endeavor by doing everything possible to get Congress to assist. The majority of members of Congress are even bigger cowards than military officers so this will not be easy. However, we owe it to ourselves to pressure Congress to acknowledge what can no longer be hidden.

Next, if there remains any shred of character in the military at all, leaders need to recognize that those who resisted this tyranny are the true heroes. They never violated their oath to the Constitution. They stood firm when nearly everyone else faltered. These individuals must be commended and made whole in terms of the harms that were inflicted to their careers.

Additionally, we need a wholesale reevaluation of our Professional Military Education programs. It has clearly failed. Significant time and resources are invested into the education of leaders at all levels all across the military. A portion of this education is centered on character, values, ethics, and morals. Clearly, this has been insufficient to provide the necessary framework for sound decision making.

Many of these steps will be difficult. I’m not entirely sure they can be achieved but we must try. If they are not achieved, then the moral injury will continue to deepen rather than heal, and along with it the strategic damage will continue to grow.

-Notes:

[1]. Whenever I use any reference to light as a symbol, I am very specific in the way in which I use it. As I have written about here, I believe that light is ontologically superior to darkness and therefore do not believe that they are exactly opposites. While we speak of them as opposites in everyday parlance, the distinction isn’t just important scientifically, but also theologically and philosophically. For me, I do not think of light and darkness in a dualistic sense and therefore reject the logical conclusions that a dualistic view would lead to.

[2]. Countless service members have come forward to explain that despite the official rescission of the covid-19 mandate, units still required the injections, punished unvaccinated troops, or otherwise sought to impede the career progression of the unvaccinated for several months afterwards. As of this writing, some of these shadow policies probably remain in effect.

Your Tax Free Donations Are Appreciated and Help Fund our Volunteer Website

Disclaimer: We at Prepare for Change (PFC) bring you information that is not offered by the mainstream news, and therefore may seem controversial. The opinions, views, statements, and/or information we present are not necessarily promoted, endorsed, espoused, or agreed to by Prepare for Change, its leadership Council, members, those who work with PFC, or those who read its content. However, they are hopefully provocative. Please use discernment! Use logical thinking, your own intuition and your own connection with Source, Spirit and Natural Laws to help you determine what is true and what is not. By sharing information and seeding dialogue, it is our goal to raise consciousness and awareness of higher truths to free us from enslavement of the matrix in this material realm.