Command Climate and the Moral High Ground

The phrase “tone at the top” has become something of a corporate cliché, but in military command it carries life-and-death weight. When I served in Iraq, I learned that command climate isn’t established through policy memoranda or training slides—it’s communicated through every word a leader speaks, every decision they make, and every behavior they tolerate.

My recent Boston Globe piece examined the reported directive from Secretary Hegseth that a mission “was to kill everybody” aboard an alleged drug vessel—allegations he has characterized as “fake news,” though The Washington Post stands by its reporting based on two sources with direct knowledge of the operation. What struck me wasn’t just the potential legal implications, but what such language—if accurate—would communicate to every echelon below. When senior leaders establish expectations—explicitly or implicitly—subordinates calibrate their behavior accordingly. This is how command authority functions. This is also how command climate can deteriorate.

The Cascade of Intent

Our research into leadership development reveals a consistent pattern: what leaders say matters less than what they do, and what they tolerate matters most of all. Military sociologists call this the “theory-in-use” gap—the distance between espoused values and actual behavior. When a commander says “follow the rules of engagement” but celebrates those who stretch them, troops receive a clear message about what’s actually valued.

This cascade effect operates with particular force in high-stress environments. Under pressure, soldiers don’t consult policy manuals; they default to whatever behaviors have been reinforced by the command climate. If the climate says “results matter more than methods,” that’s the standard that governs split-second decisions. Research on organizational behavior consistently shows that cultural norms—not formal policies—predict behavior under stress.

General James Mattis understands this dynamic intuitively. His emphasis on discipline isn’t about constraint for its own sake; it’s recognition that undisciplined forces become indistinguishable from the threats they’re meant to counter. As he has noted, “The most important six inches on the battlefield is between your ears.” What fills that space is shaped by the command climate.

Thanks for reading Lead from the Front. This post is public; please feel free to share it.

Why the Moral High Ground Matters Operationally

Some dismiss concerns about the laws of armed conflict as legal technicalities or humanitarian sentimentality. This misunderstands their operational purpose. The moral high ground isn’t a luxury we maintain when convenient—it’s a strategic asset that shapes everything from coalition partnerships to local population support to enemy surrender rates.

During counterinsurgency operations in Iraq, we learned that our conduct today determined whether tomorrow’s potential informant would approach us or avoid us. Every interaction communicated something about American forces. When we treated detainees in accordance with Geneva Convention standards, we weren’t being soft—we were investing in operational effectiveness. When Abu Ghraib photos circulated, they were used extensively for terrorist recruitment and propaganda. As RAND documented, “the uncensored photographs appeared on jihadist websites and were used for recruitment purposes.” General David Petraeus put it plainly on Meet the Press in 2010: “Abu Ghraib and other situations like that are non-biodegradables. They don’t go away. The enemy continues to beat you with them like a stick.”

The Bottom Line

Command climate shapes subordinate execution more reliably than any training program or policy directive. The tone leaders set—through their words, decisions, and what they tolerate—communicates expectations that soldiers carry into the moments when decisions happen too fast for deliberation.

Maintaining the moral high ground isn’t weakness. It’s the foundation of professional military service and the distinction between disciplined forces and armed mobs. We can disagree about specific rules of engagement while agreeing that some standards must remain inviolate.

What keeps me up at night is this: young soldiers, sailors, marines, airmen—and now Space Force guardians—are watching how senior leaders handle these questions. The command climate we establish today shapes the force we’ll have tomorrow.

Brzychcy, Ed. “A Veteran’s Warning: Hegseth’s Disdain for the Laws of War Endangers Our Troops.” The Boston Globe, 6 Dec. 2025, www.bostonglobe.com/2025/12/06/opinion/hegseth-rules-of-engagement-war-crimes/.