.
How can the military adjust to keep pace in a changing world? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
People may debate the pitfalls of the personal becoming the political—of self-interest and identity spilling over into law and policy. But there is no denying that some issues transcend the private-public divide. One such issue is the need for an alignment of investments and mission. Whether for governments, the private sector, or individuals; whether applied to transnational challenges, global prosperity, individual fulfillment, expenditure of resources, or even the sacrifice of lives in war, effort and investment supporting a valid end state is generally central to our sense of justice and morality. Sacrifice in pursuit of objectives that do not support a righteous mission—anything from poor individual expenditures of money to the loss of human life for a questionable cause—strikes us as wasteful, as wrong, as unjust.
To take an example, nongovernmental organizations often provide aid to developing countries, intending to alleviate poverty and overcome other challenges. Time and again, though, these efforts provide, at best, only temporary relief. The root causes remain unaddressed or, in the worst cases, are strengthened by NGO support. Though such activity is most often well-intentioned, a lack of clarity, or want of a candid assessment, or programmatic inertia prevent an organization from meeting its mission or justifying the resources expended. The resulting disappointment seems all the worse for the fact that so much goodwill, time, funding, and supplies have been wasted when a good cause notionally stood to benefit.
The military realm is full of endeavors that demand analysis of this same kind. Obviously, such a consequential undertaking as war must be informed by an alignment of mission and means. While the wisdom of setting unconditional surrender as the Allies’ objective in World War II may be debated, for instance, there is no doubt that it provided clarity of mission. Commanders knew the value and purposes of expending resources.
Many are familiar with a prominent contemporary example of the problems that can occur when an individual’s extant resources lack a coherent purpose: that of military veterans reentering society. Service members benefit from the strong sense of purpose and mission instilled in them from the first day they enter the military. When they leave active duty, many retain their purpose. Marines, notably, identify as such for life. But the military mission itself does not carry over to civilian life. And so, many veterans embark on a long journey without knowing what they want to accomplish. The result for too many is a struggle to meet the necessities of life, and years of wasted potential.
At the extreme end, in the foreign and historical context, such rootlessness on the part of combat veterans has become extremely destructive when individuals seek meaning in life through association with criminal and terrorist groups. Indeed, the success that such illicit organizations have often had in recruiting members has lain, in part, in their ability to provide a purpose for people leading purposeless lives. That their mission causes destruction and death can be perversely justified by individual members’ experiences of finding purpose and identity.
In the heart of every person, company, organization, and government, there beats the need for meaning. As traditional sources of meaning and guidance fade into the past, though, many find themselves morally bankrupt. Without that seemingly philosophical foundation, the practical matter of successfully applying skills and resources to a purpose becomes all the more difficult. And even when that sense of meaning is there, the rigor of professionalism and effective practice are equally required to ensure that the efforts we make are actually worthwhile. Now, as ever, aligning our missions and activities with our values lies at the center of our efficacy.
About the author: Rabbi Kevin Bemel is a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Chaplain Corps and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Navy, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
a global affairs media network
Military Service and After: Aligning Mission and Meaning
September 2, 2018
How can the military adjust to keep pace in a changing world? Serving military officers answer here in a new series of features in collaboration with Military Leadership Circle (MLC).
People may debate the pitfalls of the personal becoming the political—of self-interest and identity spilling over into law and policy. But there is no denying that some issues transcend the private-public divide. One such issue is the need for an alignment of investments and mission. Whether for governments, the private sector, or individuals; whether applied to transnational challenges, global prosperity, individual fulfillment, expenditure of resources, or even the sacrifice of lives in war, effort and investment supporting a valid end state is generally central to our sense of justice and morality. Sacrifice in pursuit of objectives that do not support a righteous mission—anything from poor individual expenditures of money to the loss of human life for a questionable cause—strikes us as wasteful, as wrong, as unjust.
To take an example, nongovernmental organizations often provide aid to developing countries, intending to alleviate poverty and overcome other challenges. Time and again, though, these efforts provide, at best, only temporary relief. The root causes remain unaddressed or, in the worst cases, are strengthened by NGO support. Though such activity is most often well-intentioned, a lack of clarity, or want of a candid assessment, or programmatic inertia prevent an organization from meeting its mission or justifying the resources expended. The resulting disappointment seems all the worse for the fact that so much goodwill, time, funding, and supplies have been wasted when a good cause notionally stood to benefit.
The military realm is full of endeavors that demand analysis of this same kind. Obviously, such a consequential undertaking as war must be informed by an alignment of mission and means. While the wisdom of setting unconditional surrender as the Allies’ objective in World War II may be debated, for instance, there is no doubt that it provided clarity of mission. Commanders knew the value and purposes of expending resources.
Many are familiar with a prominent contemporary example of the problems that can occur when an individual’s extant resources lack a coherent purpose: that of military veterans reentering society. Service members benefit from the strong sense of purpose and mission instilled in them from the first day they enter the military. When they leave active duty, many retain their purpose. Marines, notably, identify as such for life. But the military mission itself does not carry over to civilian life. And so, many veterans embark on a long journey without knowing what they want to accomplish. The result for too many is a struggle to meet the necessities of life, and years of wasted potential.
At the extreme end, in the foreign and historical context, such rootlessness on the part of combat veterans has become extremely destructive when individuals seek meaning in life through association with criminal and terrorist groups. Indeed, the success that such illicit organizations have often had in recruiting members has lain, in part, in their ability to provide a purpose for people leading purposeless lives. That their mission causes destruction and death can be perversely justified by individual members’ experiences of finding purpose and identity.
In the heart of every person, company, organization, and government, there beats the need for meaning. As traditional sources of meaning and guidance fade into the past, though, many find themselves morally bankrupt. Without that seemingly philosophical foundation, the practical matter of successfully applying skills and resources to a purpose becomes all the more difficult. And even when that sense of meaning is there, the rigor of professionalism and effective practice are equally required to ensure that the efforts we make are actually worthwhile. Now, as ever, aligning our missions and activities with our values lies at the center of our efficacy.
About the author: Rabbi Kevin Bemel is a Lieutenant Commander in the United States Navy Chaplain Corps and a member of the Military Leadership Circle. The views expressed here are the author’s own and do not represent the positions of the Department of Defense, United States Navy, or any government agency. More information on the Military Leadership Circle can be found at https://militaryleadershipcircle.com.
The views presented in this article are the author’s own and do not necessarily represent the views of any other organization.
