As exemplified by Commander Scott Waddle, who voluntarily retired after the 2001 collision of the USS Greeneville (SSN-772) with the Japanese fishing boat Ehime Maru, officers' heightened accountability for the actions of subordinates holds them to a higher standard.
What is the true meaning of responsibility? Is there a special notion or sense of responsibility for the military officer? In the 1950 edition of the Armed Forces Officer, S. L. A. Marshall notes the deference a nation gives to military officers because of the responsibility they accept when commissioned:
Other than the officer corps, there is no group within our society toward which the obligation of the nation is more fully expressed. . . . Americans . . . accept the principle that some unusual advantage should attend the exceptional and unremitting responsibility. . . . Though little is known of the officer's intrinsic merit, the officer will be given the respect of fellow citizens, unless that officer proves to be utterly undeserving.1
The phrase "exceptional and unremitting responsibility" captures the essence of personal commitment and the willingness to sacrifice. The demands on an officer are exceptional not only in terms of individual commitment, but also because officers may have to give orders to their subordinates to kill another human being, or to risk being killed themselves. This is the essence of the "exceptional" nature of the commission, and is the unique province of an officer. The demands on an officer are great, and the weight of this responsibility compounds with rank. The commission is, then, unremitting, and it demands a moral and spiritual endurance uncommonly found among the citizenry. The demands of leadership will exact a high price from officers. An officer must continue to develop morally as he or she progresses through the ranks to handle the increasing demands of responsibility that come with each promotion.2
Each officer has an intuitive sense of the meaning of responsibility. In the English language, however, that term has several meanings, and an officer must thoroughly understand each of them. Consider the following story, which is drawn from a young rifle company commander's experience with responsibility.
On being assigned as a rifle company commander, First lieutenant Jones was responsible for all the Marines, equipment, and missions under his command. Some of the lieutenant's peers felt he did not responsibly execute his duties. On a training exercise, one of his Marines was left in the desert. The lieutenant's subordinate, delegated with the task of accounting for the Marines, reported that all Marines were accounted for. After a full day, it was learned that one Marine was missing, and a search ensued. The Marine's body was found several hundred yards from where he last was seen. The desert heat apparently was responsible for his death. An investigation ensued and charges were filed against the lieutenant. lieutenant Jones was determined to be mentally responsible for his actions and capable of standing a court martial, which found him responsible for the death of the Marine, sentenced him to four months in the brig, and dismissed him from the Marine Corps.3
This story uses the word responsible in some form five times. Each time it has a different meaning. The first use ("First lieutenant Jones was responsible") denotes the lieutenant's duties and obligations in his role as an officer and company commander; this is his role responsibility. In the second use ("did not responsibly execute"), "responsibly" refers to conscientiously carrying out his duties. The third use of the word ("the desert heat apparently was responsible for his death") indicates a causal connection to the consequences, meaning that the desert heat caused the death. The fourth use ("to be mentally responsible") means lieutenant Jones had sufficient mental capacity or self-control to stand trial. The fifth occurrence ("a court martial . . . found him responsible for the death of the Marine") implies that lieutenant Jones is accountable, i.e., answerable and culpable, for the event. He was found blameworthy and subject to punishment for the Marine's death.
It is important to understand fully each of the meanings of responsibility and their connection to being an officer. Because the fourth (mental capacity) has a limited and specific meaning in this story, it requires no further elaboration.4
Role Responsibility
The first meaning-duty and obligation-is the most all-encompassing, and the others are best seen in relation to it. The duties and obligations that go with an individual's role make up their role responsibility. An officer's role responsibility is for all under his command. One voluntarily commits to the duties and obligations of being an officer as stated in the oath: "I take this obligation freely without any mental reservations and purpose of evasion." For lieutenant Jones, "being responsible for all under his command" defined the broad scope of the duties and obligations expected of him.5
Role responsibility is the "exceptional and unremitting responsibility" that captures the essence of being an officer and makes the calling to this profession so profound. An officer voluntarily takes on the duties and is not relieved of them until leaving the service. The duties and obligations of an officer are at times very specific and given in great detail, and at times are implied and require interpretation and initiative to fulfill. Whatever the specific duties are, they require selfless commitment to serving others.
Conscientousness
The second meaning, conscientiousness, refers to the manner in which a duty is performed. An officer's every action must be performed with attention to detail and with outcomes clearly in mind. Whether in training or in combat, in public or in private, an officer's thoughts and actions must reflect the duty called for in an officer. Officers build patterns of behavior that will affect themselves, their unit, their service, and ultimately the country. The event described is a true story. Did this officer's attitude toward some of his duties (responsibilities) cost the life of one of his Marines? Did the officers in his unit who watched him behave irresponsibly execute their duties properly? No one involved in this incident thought his actions would harm anyone, yet the family of the lost Marine, the local community, and entire Marine Corps felt the ramifications of this tragedy.
Causal Connection
The third meaning is to cause or have a causal connection. In the legal context, this is called causal responsibility and can be a physical or personal event. The lightning caused the forest fire (physical). The driver's inattention caused the accident (personal).6 Who or what was responsible for the death of this Marine and who was held responsible? This sentence could be rewritten as, Who or what caused the death of this Marine and who was held accountable? The desert heat is clearly the direct physical cause of this Marine's death. However, the action or inaction (personal cause) of members of lieutenant Jones's company caused him to be left in the desert, and thus indirectly caused his death.
Accountability
The last meaning is accountable, in the sense of being answerable or liable. Being held responsible means answering for the event and being liable for punishment or reward.7 The relationships of role responsibility and causal responsibility to accountability are the most important links for an officer to understand. It is very easy to see that an individual will be held accountable for something they cause. If lieutenant Jones ordered the Marine to remain overnight in the desert without food, water, or shelter, his actions clearly caused the death of the Marine. Because he was the cause, he should be held accountable.
But can an officer be held accountable for something he did not directly cause but falls under his role responsibility? Absolutely, and that is the "exceptional and unremitting responsibility" that comes with being an officer. An officer's duty and obligation (role responsibility) is to the mission of the unit. That is all-encompassing and includes caring for and training troops, maintaining equipment, and accomplishing the mission. If anything under that command falls short, the officer in command is accountable (answerable) for the shortcoming, whether he was personally the cause of the shortcoming or not.
Following the exercise, lieutenant Jones was told by one of his subordinates that all his Marines were accounted for. Yet at a court martial he was held accountable (held responsible) for the actions of his subordinates and punished for the death of this Marine. His company's failure to execute their responsibilities (duties and obligations) fell under his role responsibility as an officer and company commander. He was accountable (answerable or culpable) for the tragedy and thus was punished.
Delegation of Responsibility
Many civilians may ask why this lieutenant paid the price for the death of the Marine, when he delegated the responsibility (duty) of ensuring all were present? In delegating, he did not relinquish his responsibility (role). The subordinate was given only the authority to act on behalf of his superior and share that responsibility (duty). Delegation of responsibility (duty) never absolves the officer of that responsibility. An officer always has absolute responsibility (duty) for everything under his care, particularly the safety and well being of his sailors and Marines. Therefore, he must be held accountable and must pay the price for a failure of his unit to execute a duty.
When taking the oath, officers swear to take on the obligations and duties of being an officer, to conscientiously execute their duties, and to honorably serve those entrusted to their care. The officer expects and accepts the consequences of personally not fulfilling those obligations, or of his unit not fulfilling those obligations. If subordinates are to trust their officers, the subordinates must know their officers are ready to be held accountable for not only every duty and obligation assigned to the officer, but every duty and obligation assigned to them as well.
1 The Armed Forces Officer (U.S. Department of Defense, 1950), p. 2.
2 Col. John R. Alien, U.S. Naval Academy Commandant of Midshipmen, "Commander's Intent," 14 February 2002, p. 2,
3 Associated Press, 'Officer Guilty in Death of Abandoned Marine," Bergen County Record, 26 February 1989, p. A12.
4 Hart, H. L. A., "Postscript: Responsibility and Retribution," in Punishment and Responsibility Essays in the Philosophy of Law (New York: Oxford University Press 1968), p. 212.
5 "Postscript: Responsibility and Retribution," pp. 212-14.
6"Postscript: Responsibility and Retribution," pp. 214-15.
7 "Postscript: Responsibility and Retribution," pp. 225-27.
Lieutenant Colonel Slyman retired from the Marine Corps in July 2004 from the position of associate director of the Center for the Study of Professional Military Ethics at the U.S. Naval Academy. He has logged more than 2,600 hours in the EA-6B, and served as commanding officer of VMAQ-4.