Do Institutions Make a Difference?

In the MSNBC blog, the major in Iraq praised the captain who reported abuse of prisoners (Fishback?) as an exemplar of what's good in the Army. The major's fiance wrote questioning the praise, including this bit:

"Forgive me if I am being too cynical, but I b elieve the Army is only as good as the individuals that make it up. As with any institution - indeed any group of human beings. I think you'd agree. I know you believe the men and woman of our Army are the finest to have ever walked the earth as soldiers (I do not say that with sarcasm)... yet this belief brings us to the question:

Is it the individual natures of those men and women that make them the most humane (might we say?) Armed Force ever? Or is it the laws, guidelines, institutional infrastructure and ways of enforcing ethics that make them what they are?"

I'm sure she is an admirable person, but I have to come down on the side of laws and institutions. I remember reading in the late 50's in the National Review an article, perhaps by Buckley, who argued against the pending Civil Rights Act on the basis that laws could not change what's in human hearts. He made a good argument. But we learned different. Laws, and the Airborne's bayonets, could change human behavior and behavior changed human hearts. To maintain the opposite we'd have to say that Hitler was simply a representative German, reflecting the evil in the hearts of his countrymen.