规则：遵守vs打破《美国陆军军官手册》（1）

      《美国陆军军官手册》（第48版）（美）凯瑟-博恩 著，军事科学院外国军事研究部翻译，解放军出版社，2003年1月第一次出版。从下面这篇“我们立下的誓言”中，可以学习一下，如何处理规则的遵守与打破之间的关系。（后附序言，麦克阿瑟将军演讲一部分，及英文原文）

“我们立下的誓言”-p6

      人类现存的文化丰富多彩,其中大多数都很看重誓言,而陆军文化也相当重视誓言。这其中有两个方面的原因。第一,指挥官立下的誓言往往决定军人的生死;即使是在和平时期,即使是在驻地,指挥官的行动都会给士兵留下印象,或给他们以示范,这种印象或示范最终会对未来的战场产生重大影响,而这种影响既可能是积极的,也可能是消极的。指挥官许下的诺言必须无懈可击,而誓言又是所有诺言中最神圣的。事实的确如此。军人服役或者再次服役时,必须发出如下誓言:

       “我庄重地宣誓,我将支持并捍卫美利坚合众国宪法,使其免遭国内外一切敌人的侵害;我将信守并忠于宪法;我将遵守美利坚合众国总统的命令和上级指挥官的命令,执行规章和军事审判统一法典。愿上帝保佑我。”

以下是陆军军官的誓言：

        “我(你的姓名)已被任命为美国陆军军官(军衔),我庄严宣誓支持并捍卫美利坚合众国宪法,反对一切国内外敌人;我保证对美国宪法忠贞不渝;自愿接受这一职责,内心毫无隐讳,也无意逃避;我将彻底而忠实地履行我将担负的职责。愿上帝为我作证。”

        二者之间的区别很明显,但区别的意义或许不太明显。首先,让我们找出所有美国军人的共同之处。所有美国军人必须支持并捍卫宪法,第一章传统、习俗和礼仪防止其遭到敌人的侵害,忠于宪法及其相应的治国方式与生活方式这就需要所有军人都必须具有勇敢、执着、守纪、无私和关心其他公民的品质,而宪法自共和国诞生之日起就一直这样要求。这些价值观激励美国军人去做出常人难以想象的行为,而这些行为正是我军今日的传统这些与军人誓言相伴的价值观同那些实践这些价值观的行为一起,成为陆军绝大多数习俗和礼仪的底蕴——尽管不是全部。

       上述军官誓言与士兵誓词的差异是否承诺遵守命令——界定了陆军军官与士兵之间的差别。按照《军事司法统一法典》的要求,军官同所有士兵一样,有遵守命令的法定义务,但依照他们所发的誓言,他们没有盲从命令的道德义务。尽管这听起来像奥威尔①的(同时接受两种互相矛盾观念的)双重思想,但实际上绝非如此。美国人民(包括士兵)通过国会代表批准军官的委任来委托军官,使其肩负巨大的道德责任,即知道何时不遵守命令。任何制度,不论其多么严密,也无论其多么完美,都不能制订出适用于所有情况所有时间的规章。陆军的条例、命令、条令等等,几乎都是正确的,但要制订出某种法规,它的逻辑与理性无论何时何地都不需变通,这是不可能的。这时就需要军官来发挥作用了。

        军官应当运用合理的判断,这在有时候(这种情况很少,但不是没有)就需要他们打破常规,或对其进行变通;需要他们不执行那些当时不符合陆军最高利益的指令、规章与命令。这是军官承受的最为巨大的责任。这种道德使命绝不能用来获取个人利益与其他罪恶目的。而且,尽管军官从道德上而言拥有不执行命令的权力,但仍然要为自己的行为承担道义与法律上的责任。某一位军官在例外情况下做出了打破常规的判断,他的主官有权决定是否行使自己的裁决权来对他进行起诉。

       这听起来显得有些冒险,事实上确实如此。绝对不要轻易做出不执行的决定,对于每一项命令、指令、标准作战规定和规章,正确的态度是迅速愉快地服从。但是,知道什么时候不执行,并且不去执行,这正是美国陆军的军官与士兵的本质区别。誓词的性质决定了军官的所有其他责任军官受委派担任职位,是因为那些职位离不开这种责任心与判断力。美国人民不会愿意把自己儿女的生命和大量财产托付给那些为了自己的私利而抱着条条框框不放的军官。

        这种道德权威与相应的更大责任之间所存在的这些差别也正是军官的薪水高于军士的主要原因。如果有人认为军官的薪水高于军士的原因是军官天生就比军士智商高,比军士有学问,或者在其他方面比军士有优势,那就请他再好好想想。有许多士兵的智商足以让许多军官瞠乎其目?而且许多士兵受到过更好的教育。的确,许多军官确实比大多数士兵受到过更好的教育,但这是因为美国陆军认为一定的教育水平对于培养军官的性格与眼界,提高其平时与战时的指挥能力是必不可

少的。

        由于军官必须达到如此苛刻的特殊道德标准与威信,他们的日常行为与职业表现必须始终无可挑剔。这对于我们如何培养、评估和提升军官提出了严格的要求。尽管整个陆军都存在这种要求,但军官与军士之间的这种差别要求我们的军官阶层必须成为严格意义上的精英领导集团。在这一集团中,只有那些最能干、最谨

慎、最成熟、最敬业、最勇敢的人通过筛选得以晋升,这一点极其重要。如果通过其他手段确定人选,例如,根据社会等级或世袭特权,或是否属于正统政治派别,或其他许多国家的军队注重的其他因素(这些因素与军官的工作表现无关)来确定人选,这样会造成灾难后果。这样做不仅会危害美国人民,而且会失去下属、特别是会失

去士兵对我们的信赖。他们通过立下神圣的誓言,从法律上和道义上必须遵守命令,因而必须坚信自己的长官“不会做错事”。

       话说昔日奥匈帝国的军队,国王或王后往往准备一枚勋章,专门褒奖那些由于拒不执行命令,从而力挽狂澜,赢得重大战役胜利的军官。美国军队自然不存在这种勋章,但是这种审时度势,准确判断战场决策会在法律与道德上造成何种影响的能力,却是求之不得的。这正是美国陆军军官队伍的精髓。

===

本书序言是麦克阿瑟将军在西点军校的一篇演讲。

麦克阿瑟将军在演讲的最后说：

       “ 这并不意味着你们是战争贩子。恰恰相反,军人比任何人都渴望和平,因为他们饱受战争的创伤,留下累累伤痕。然而,我们的耳边总是响起最英明的哲学家柏拉图的教诲:“只有死者才能看到战争的结束。”

       我已老朽,黄昏将至。昔日的气质和风采均已黯淡。辉煌的往事,已在梦中消逝

。回忆往事真是美妙无比,有泪水的滋润,也有昔日微笑的抚慰。耳畔再也听不见军号隐约吹奏出迷人的起床号,以及遥远的阅兵鼓声。而在梦中,我又听到了隆隆炮声,哒哒枪声和战场上忧伤的低语。

        但是,在我回忆时,我时常在傍晚回到西点,耳边始终回响着：责任—荣誉——国家。今天是我最后一次检阅你们。但我想让你们知道:当我渡越此河时,我最后思念的,仍是同学们,同学们,同学们。

       我向你们珍重道别。”

     This does not mean that you are warmongers. On the contrary, the soldier,above all other people, prays for peace, for he must suffer and bear the deepest wounds and scars of war. But always in our ears ring the ominous words of Plato, that wisest of all philosophers, "Only the dead have seen the end of war."

      The shadows are lengthening for me. The twilight is here. My days of oldhave vanished tone and tint; they have gone glimmering through the dreams ofthings that were. Their memory is one of wondrous beauty, watered by tearsand coaxed and caressed by the smiles of yesterday. I listen vainly for the witching melody of faint bugles blowing reveille, of far drums beating the long roll. In my dreams I hear again the crash of guns, the rattle of musketry, thestrange, mournful mutter of the battlefield.

      But in the evening of my memory, always I come back to West Point.Always there echoes and re-echoes Duty—Honor—Country.

     Today marks my final roll call with you, but I want you to know that when I cross the river my last conscious thoughts will be of The Corps, and The Corps, and The Corps.

I bid you farewell.

----

      对比他另一篇著名告别演说最后的话：

“老兵永远不死，他们只是悄然隐去。”  

     “像那首歌中的老兵一样，我作为一名在上帝的光辉下尽心尽职的老兵，现在结束我的军事生涯，悄然隐去。  再见。 ”

"old soldiers never die; they just fade away." 

       “And like the old soldier of that ballad, I now close my military career and just fade away, an old soldier who tried to do his duty as God gave him the light to see that duty. Good Bye. ”

（这是他1951年被美国总统杜鲁门解职，回到美国之后在国会所作的告别演说。）

===

注：①

乔治·奥威尔[1903-1950],英国小说家、新闻记者,原名埃里克·阿瑟·布莱尔,曾一度信仰马克思主义,后鼓吹社会民主主义,主要作品有反乌托邦政治讽刺小说《动物庄园》和《一九八四》——译者注。

===

以上仅供参考，谢谢！

===

阅读：

===

教学：

===

案例：

===

活动：

活动咨询：助邦《罗伯特议事规则》z15600351810 微信号

===

推荐：

微信公众号：保守主义评论   baoshouzhuyi2016

===

《罗伯特议事规则》相关资源：

美国议事专家协会National Association of Parliamentarians（NAP）

http://www.parliamentarians.org

---

公众号资源参考：

1.罗规学堂2-luoguixt；

2.萝卜规则；

3.议事规则公众学习-yishicx；

4.罗伯特议事规则V-RobertRules。

===

“我们立下的誓言”英文原文：

THE OATHS WE TAKE-(p4)

Most human cultures take oaths seriously, and the Army culture is one in whichthey are taken quite seriously indeed. There are two reasons for this. First, 

livesfrequently depend on leaders' given words; even in peacetime, even in 

garrison,the actions of leaders leave impressions or convey lessons that may have theirultimate impact--for better or worse -on some future battlefield. Leadersgiven words must be unimpeachable, and oaths must be the most sacredpromises of all. And so they are. When they enlist or reenlist, here is the oaththat American enlisted soldiers take:

I do so lemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of 

the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true 

faith and allegiance to the same, and that I will obey the orders of the President of  the United States andthe orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regula-tions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God.

And here is the Army officer's oath:

I (your name), having been appointed a (rank) in the United StatesArmy, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defendthe Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreignand domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same;that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation orpurpose of evasion, and that I will well and faithfully discharge theduties of the office upon which I am about to enter. So help me God.

The difference is obvious, but its meaning may not be clear. First, though,let us 

recognize what all American soldiers have in common. All must supportand defend the Constitution against its enemies and remain loyal to it and itscorollary way of government and life. This requires courage, commitment, discipline, selflessness, and regard for fellow citizens on the part of all soldiers-as it has since the founding of the Republic. These values motivated American soldiers to the extraordinary acts that are now our heritage. These values, corollary to our oaths, combine with those fulfilling acts to constitute the reasons behind the vast majority of our customs and courtesies--but not quite all.

The key difference in the oaths—the omission of the promise to obey in the officer's oath—is what defines the differences between Army officers andenlisted soldiers. Officers are legaly bound by the same UCMJ requirement to obey as are all other soldiers, but by their oath, they are not morally bound. Although it at first sounds like Orwellian"doublethink, "it most assuredly isnot. Officers are trusted by the American people (including enlisted soldiers)through their congressional representatives who approve commissions, with the enormous moral responsibility of knowing when to not obey. No system, however well thought out, however seemingly perfect, can conjure rules that areappropriate for every situation, every day. Army regulations, orders, doctrine and so forth are almost always right, but it is impossible to build any code oflaw whose logic or good sense will not at some point require a variance. That's where the officer comes in.

Officers are expected to exercise sound judgment, which sometimes—rarely, but sometimes—requires them to bend or break rules; to not obey thoseinstructions, 

regulations, or orders that are not in the best interest of the Army at that moment. This is the single most formidable responsibility an officer can bear. This moral 

dispensation must neveer be used for personal gain or other corrupt ends. Further, although officers may be morally empowered to not obey,they are still legally and morally responsible for their actions, and it is up to the commanding officer to decide whether to exercise his or her judgment to pros-ecute an officer for exercising judgment in one of these exceptional situations.

If it sounds dicey, it is. The decision to not obey must never be takenlightly, and 

in the case of almost every order, directive, SOP, regulation, and thelike, swift, 

cheerful obedience is the appropriate response. But knowing when to do otherwise—and doing it—is the essence of what sets officers apart fromenlisted soldiers in the U.S. Army. From this single corollary of the oath, allother responsibilities flow. Officers are assigned to their duty positions becausethese positions require this kind of responsibility and judgment. The Americanpeople are not willing to entrust the lives of their sons and daughters—or vastquantities of their other treasure—to martinets who inflexibly follow rules fortheir own sake.

These differences in moral authority and their concomitantly higher responsibilities are also the main reasons why officers are paid more thanNCOs. If you think it's because of officers' innately higher intelligence or bet-ter education or some other superiority, think again. There are many enlistedoldiers with IQs that leave those of many officers in the dust, and many ofthem are better educated, too. Certainly, most officers are better educated thanmost enlisted soldiers, but that's because the Army believes that certain levelsof education are essential for developing the character and perspective requiredfor the proper exercise of the judgment and moral courage the Army expects ofits officers in peace and war.

Because of this extremely special moral expectation and authority, officerspersonal and professional conduct must remain above reproach. It is what dictates how we develop, evaluate, and promote officers. Although it is true for our whole Army, this difference makes it especially important that our officer corpsremain a strict meritocracy, a system in which only the most competent, mostprudent, most mature, most committed, most courageous officers are selected for advancement or promotion. To choose otherwise—for example, by caste or birthright, or political orthodoxy, or some other factors used in many otherarmies that are irrelevant to how officers exercise their commissions—is tocourt disaster. Such a process not only is a disservice to the American peoplebut it breaks faith with our subordinates, especially our enlisted soldiers, who-by their sacred oaths—are legally and morally bound to obey and therefore must trust their officers to"do the right thing."

In the army of the old Austro-Hungarian Empire, the emperor or empresshad a medal that was awarded to officers who, by disobeying orders, turned the tide and won important battles. In the U.S. Army, of course, there is no such medal;this sort of judgment, wrapped within a full, disciplined understanding of the legal and moral impact of decisions, is expected. It is the essence of the U.S. Army officer corps.