Joining the military is an act of faith in one’s country—an act of faith that the country will use your life well. This profound statement by Phil Klay sets the stage for a contentious debate unfolding within the U.S. military. Recently, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced a comprehensive review of military norms concerning toxic leadership, bullying, and hazing. The proposed changes aim to "liberate" commanders, allowing more stringent enforcement of standards without the fear of repercussion. However, this move has sparked concerns about the potential rollback of key protections and the re-introduction of controversial practices such as "shark attacks" during basic training.

The review is not an isolated issue but part of a broader shift towards redefining the "warrior ethos" to emphasize physical toughness and unquestioning obedience, potentially at the expense of ethical and legal restraints. This shift highlights a troubling inclination towards the kind of brutal leadership immortalized by Colonel Jessup in "A Few Good Men," rather than a balanced approach that respects both authority and the dignity of personnel.

Hazing, a deeply ingrained issue within the armed forces, serves as a focal point for these proposed changes. The historical context of military hazing reveals its ubiquity and the severe impacts it can have on individuals, including extreme cases like the forced initiation killings by Australian Defence force members in Afghanistan. The military's own past includes practices like blood-pinning and physical assaults, often justified under the guise of building team spirit or enforcing discipline. Secretary Hegseth's stance, while promising to avoid "nasty" bullying or hazing, seems to lean towards a more permissive attitude towards such practices.

The potential relaxation of current standards and oversight mechanisms, like the Inspector General and Military Equal Opportunity processes, raises significant concerns. These changes could dilute the effectiveness of the Uniform Code of Military Justice, particularly Article 93, which deals with the maltreatment of subordinates. Critics argue that focusing solely on Article 93 without the support of specific anti-hazing directives and instructions might weaken the military’s ability to manage and prosecute less severe, yet still harmful, cases of misconduct.

Suggestions for a careful review process include a thorough examination of empirical evidence to understand the best practices for military training that foster unit cohesion and readiness without resorting to abusive behaviors. Additionally, the review should consider the moral and operational costs of increased tolerance for hazing, including its impact on mental health and the potential for moral injury among service members.

As the military stands at this crossroads, the decisions made now could redefine its culture and values for years to come. The challenge lies in balancing the need for a disciplined, resilient fighting force with the imperative to uphold the highest standards of conduct and respect for human dignity. The outcome of this review will not only affect those in uniform but will also reflect broader societal values regarding authority, obedience, and the treatment of individuals under stress.