Disaster happens when soldiers don’t act ethically. We can provide better training to support them

Recently, the government responded to the Royal Commission into Veteran Suicide. It adopted most of the recommendations designed to better support defence personnel.

It comes four years after other defence news hit the headlines. The Afghanistan Inquiry Report (most commonly known as the Brereton report) detailed credible evidence of 39 murders of Afghan civilians and prisoners by (or at the instigation of) Australian Special Forces members.

The inquiry’s findings rightly sent shockwaves through Australia’s military and Australian society as a whole. Such actions are clearly at odds with the expectations of the Australian Defence Force and the vast majority of Australians.

Understandably, most of the public focus since then has been on the question of accountability.

The report, however, also looked at how soldiers can be supported to make better decisions. One way the report proposed was to strengthen military ethics training and education.

This could not only lead to sound actions, but has the knock-on effect of contributing to protecting soldier’s mental health, the focus of the royal commission. This training has been improved in recent years, but we can do better.

Read more:
The government’s response to the royal commission into veteran suicide gets a lot right – but makes a couple of missteps

What did training look like?

Military ethics should be regarded as a core skill that requires regular updates and reinforcement to remain effective.

The Brereton report noted examining the training and education Australian Defence Force personnel receive was key to understanding how soldiers operate.

In the case of Special Forces units, they operate with a very flat structure. Life-and-death decisions in extreme and ambiguous situations are often made by the most junior people in the unit.

Despite this, ethics education aimed at dealing with complexity and ambiguity was focused almost exclusively on leaders with rank, known as officers. They were largely absent from the events focused on in the report.

For everyone else, including soldiers, training was largely limited to very specific legal guidance.

This training was roundly criticised by those on the receiving end in the Brereton report. They said it was confusing and didn’t reflect real operational experience.

The report recommended military ethics training should draw on the experiences of military personnel “from the same services and country as themselves” so they understand how and why the “good guys” can also do bad things.

But to make this effective, it needs to be taken outside of the traditional classroom environment to make it both realistic and relevant. Genuine educational opportunities must be available to everyone so they can explore situations that are not black and white or do not easily lend themselves to straightforward answers.

What improvements have been made?

As detailed in the recent report of the Afghanistan Inquiry Implementation Oversight Panel, the Australian Defence Force has made important changes in response to the recommendations of the Brereton report.

It published an ethics doctrine for all members of the ADF.

There’s also been extensive development and implementation of a coherent and consistent ADF-wide ethics education and training curriculum, which reflects the content of the ethics doctrine.

Some of this learning takes place in small groups dealing with different scenarios. Other content is taught in modules, explaining ethics theory with case studies.

This replaces the earlier ad hoc measures that were in place.

In many respects, the ADF now reflects international best practice in this regard.

But this training can be made more practical. It can also be better incorporated so considering ethical implications becomes second nature. It can be, and should be, embedded into the very bloodstream of the ADF.

Ethics through simulation

The ADF is one of the largest users of simulation-based training in Australia.

This can be relatively simple, like simulators for infantry shooting training. It can also be highly sophisticated, including simulating operating advanced weapons systems, like the F35 Joint Strike Fighter.

There is potential to leverage this for ethics education and training in a way that avoids it becoming another form of “add-on” mandatory training.

For example, virtual reality (VR) and augmented reality (AR) can simulate high-stakes scenarios, allowing personnel to practice applying ethical principles in realistic, pressure-filled situations.

Research has shown the effectiveness of immersive simulation training in saving lives and reducing injury in the mining sector by a remarkable 65%. These techniques are now being employed for firefighter training.

It’s also been trialled in medicine with promising results.

Interactive decision-making tools can generate adaptive scenarios that change and evolve based on a trainee’s choices. This enhances personalised learning.

Gamified ethics training, through serious games, engages learners while providing real-time feedback and analytics to track decision-making patterns.

These technologies can simulate diverse locations and cultures. The cost of procuring them has also steadily declined in recent years, making them more accessible.

Of course it will be necessary to proceed in a responsible way and build a comprehensive evidence base. Considerations in the use of these tools, such as avoiding psychological harm, must be properly managed and be backed by careful and thorough research.

But this is an investment well worth making. The Brereton report made it uncomfortably clear just how painful military ethical failure can be.