The year is 2007. The Iraq war wages on. My father has just returned from his first tour of duty with the Marine Corps. I didn’t know what exactly he’d done or seen, but what I did know is he came out of Iraq a different person. He doesn’t talk much about what happened in the war, and I never investigated it much. Whether that was out of fear of what I would find or respect for those involved, I don’t know. Probably a little bit of both. When I watched Manning’s footage of US troops gunning down innocent civilians from a helicopter as if it were a videogame, I understood why I didn’t research the war and why I was not told about it. Fear. The fear of coming to terms with what war meant. Of course, I have known for a long time what war entails and what it does to people, but I’d never connected with something as close as my own father. The topic of this paper is not my father or the war. However, I hope that anecdote provides some context for my views on the subject at hand. The question I seek to answer is whether the whistleblower responsible leaked that footage out of loyalty to the United States and if the action itself was moral. In short, no, I do not think she acted out of loyalty to the United States as an organization, but I do think she acted out of loyalty to the people of the United States. I also believe that when applying the concept of ubuntu to the actions taken by both her and the military, we can conclude that her actions were at least morally good.

Ubuntu is the idea rights are given by the community and cannot be truly secured without the existence of a community to recognize and uphold them. For those rights to be considered true rights, they must also be afforded to all members of the community. Take the right to freedom for example: if one member of the community loses their freedom, then by extension—under the principle of ubuntu—everyone else has lost their freedom as well. Only by recognizing the freedom of others can we ourselves truly be free. With that freedom we can become fully realized individuals. While this seems like a solid ground to base my argument off, I will also be relying on two external sources—one written by Wim Vandekerckhove and M.S. Ronald Commers, and the other written by Julinna Oxly and D.E. Wittkower. Starting with the writing of Oxly and Wittkower, we find within the text the idea that loyalty “is the expression of partiality towards those one cares for, in which care and concern is shown..” followed by an explanation of how this definition of loyalty applies to organizations (I.E. The U.S. Government): “[loyalty] must not be a merely dependent and fiduciary relation-i.e. that the employee is of necessity in the position of caring for the corporation—but must extend this caring-for into caring-about, in which care is shown for the interests of the corporation for its own sake rather than out of contractual obligation” (Oxly & Wittkower, 2011). From this, we can understand that true loyalty is reliant on the “loyal” party having a vested interest in the preservation of the object they are loyal to beyond their own self-interest. If your loyalty to an organization is only out of a contractual or financial obligation due to your employment, then you cannot be considered truly loyal. Regarding Manning, we do not know much about who she is or what her motivations were. However, we can surmise based on the nature of the information leaked and the context provided by the case study that Manning is a U.S. citizen with a vested interest in exposing U.S. wrongdoing in the Iraq War. Further research reveals that Manning—first name Chelsea—is a former member of the U.S. Army who was involved in the Iraq War as an intelligence analyst. So, we know that 1), Manning was employed the U.S. military during the time of the leak, and 2) the leak was made to expose the wrongdoings of the U.S. military. Using this information, it is easy to see how one could conclude that Manning was committing a disloyal act; she was an employee of an organization and released information that actively tarnished its reputation worldwide. In addition, she also displays open dislike for that organization. So, for now, we can assume that Manning’s actions were not fueled by what Oxly or Wittkower would consider loyalty to her organization. But this is the conclusion reached when only considering half of the evidence. By looking at further information a different conclusion can be reached entirely. This evidence comes from the second writing I mentioned before: a journal article by Wim Vandekerckhove and Ronald Commers, also on the topic of whistleblowing.

However, Vanderkerckhove and Commers provide an explanation for how whistleblowing could be considered a necessary aspect of employee loyalty: “the first is that, as more people have larger decision-making authority, organizations should know as soon as possible, when someone is taking decisions harmful to the organization” followed by “the second reason is that as the responsibility of private companies or organization increases, the public certainly has a case when danger or wrongdoing is occurring which might affect them” (Oxly &Wittkower, 2011). First, we will examine how the first of these justifications for whistleblowing can be applied to Manning. The decision to fire upon the unarmed civilians in the video was made by the pilot and gunners in the helicopter, however, the authorization for that decision came from their superior officers. These superior officers made decisions that ultimately ended the lives of nearly a dozen people and caused to severe injury to several others. In my opinion, decisions that can result in loss of life or severe harm qualify as “larger decision-making authority”. The second of these justifications involves public safety and the responsibility of organizations and companies. The U.S. military has the largest potential out of any other organization domestic or international to affect the safety of the public. This means that it has the massive responsibility of managing that power to ensure it does not adversely do so. Based on this information, I can comfortably say that Manning’s actions did indeed fall within the parameters for loyalty to an organization. She saw that the U.S. government was acting in a way that she deemed unethical and notified them of it in a way that would force them to act. Now, a counterargument to be made would be that the Iraqi public isn’t the same as the United States public, but I hope that in my application of ubuntu to this case you will see why that simply is not true. As stated before, ubuntu is the idea that freedoms are derived from and reliant upon the existence of a community to uphold them and recognize them for all. Whether people want to admit it or not, we all exist as part of a worldwide community. Everything is interconnected in some way, and the freedoms of different peoples are no different. We can see this concept in action when looking at the previous case study involving the E.U.’s GDPR bill, which technically only applies to European Union citizens but still affects U.S. citizens. The same can be said for human rights. The killing of those unarmed civilians violated their rights to life and safety. If it is so easy for the U.S. military to forego the rights of even unarmed civilians, would it be so easy for them to forego the rights of their own citizens? If history is any indicator, the answer is no. Therefore, I think it is clear that Manning’s actions in this case were ethical and taken out of loyalty to the United States as a whole, rather than the specific organization within it that she was employed by. We derive our freedoms from our global community which recognizes and upholds them (at least, that is how it should be if we truly applied ubuntu). The second we stop doing that for people outside of our immediate community is the second that it becomes easy to do that to each other. In bringing the airstrike to international attention, Manning sought to prevent this very thing. We can see this in the video provided for analysis. Both commentators indicate that this footage has made the public very angry and has led to harsh criticism of the military and the actions it has taken in Iraq. Also, while the connection is not directly made, it is mentioned that rules of engagement in Afghanistan are much less aggressive now than those followed in the Iraqi conflict. It stands to reason that this could be a result of the exposure provided by Manning. Slowly but surely, the public is becoming more and more aware of human rights abuses by U.S. organizations abroad and actions are being taken to prevent them. This only serves to our benefit, as the harder it becomes for the military to strip those abroad of their rights, the harder it will be for them to do the same to us.

My findings indicate that while Manning’s actions were not explicitly loyal to the United States government as per the writings of Oxly and Wittkower, they were loyal to the people of the United States a whole. Manning’s actions served to shine a bright light upon egregious human rights violations taken by the U.S. military, and in doing so she not only notified her employer of the problem in an immediate way that forced them to acknowledge it, but she also made the rest of the world aware to further encourage action. In this way, her actions promoted the idea that we all belong to community, and our freedoms are heavily dependent on that community. In order to protect our individual freedoms we must protect the freedoms of everyone. She seems to have achieved that goal. While there are counter arguments to be made concerning her loyalty—specifically the idea that in exposing U.S. military failings she put her colleagues at risk—I say that perhaps in rectifying the issues that her leaks exposed the U.S. military will have solved the problems that put them in harm’s way in the first place. However, this is something that can only be determined once the conflict has been studied at length. Another counter to be made is that the U.S. government always acts in the best interest of its citizens (as that is its intended purpose) and therefore being disloyal to it would make one disloyal to the United States, but I would counter this by pointing out the many, many historical examples of the United States government doing just the opposite. I would also point out that many seem to conflate the term “United States” with the term “United States government”, seeing the two as inseparable when in reality the citizens of the United States often have very different priorities than the government. Nonetheless, I hope that my analysis of this case has shown that Manning was indeed acting out of loyalty to the United States and that her actions were moral.