I Cogitate
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |
Onward soldiers for we have your backs
Joe Klein is not one of my particular faves but he included an item in a recent column that was quite interesting. But then he didn't carry it out to a full conclusion. Here's a cut-n-paste from Klein's column:
"...Of course, uniformed military leaders have been suggesting more troops were needed ever since the war began. But they've been saying it privately--in an abdication of military responsibility--for fear that they would suffer the same fate as that of General Eric Shinseki, who told a congressional committee that 'several hundred thousand' troops would be needed in Iraq and was, in effect, fired by Rumsfeld. 'We had a responsibility to speak up," said a general who served in Iraq."Is the relationship of responsibility simply broken between our nation's top-ranking generals and the office of the Secretary of Defense, or just the now former SecODef and his generals? That is a critical question, one obviously of many, that new Secretary of Defense Robert Gates needs to determine quickly
How should an abnegation of duty--actual derelection of duty--involving these parties constituting management be dealt with? The Secretary of Defense and his generals owe it especially to their troops but also to the American people to exhibit and extend frankness and honesty when putting individuals in risk. Yes-men need not apply. Granted, all parties at such a level need to view matters through a 'big picture' prism but still owe allegiance to the grunts, the bottom of the ladder--the ones forced to implement and bear the true brunt of top management's decisions.
My goal is certainly not bind the hands of anyone involved in such critical decision-making but simply to endorse that the scrupulous and conscientious path is the sole one.
It is inherent that any Secretary of Defense listen to his generals and not eliminate honest disagreement. It is also inherent that any general offer unvarnished input. That has to be the foundation, if there is to even be one, of solid analysis and decision-making. Dysfunction is unacceptable in matters of life and death.
Donald Rumsfeld failed the American people, failed those under his command. and failed his president.
President Bush is guilty of not acting upon this readily apparent no-man's-land between Rumsfeld and his generals, between reality and ideology, but even more so in contributing to its birth and growth. Bush's unverbalized 'only good news' edict began this cancer.
Curiously, the military cadet honor code, considered a traditional bedrock of behavior for those in uniform, is fairly straightforward:
"In professions such as the military where life is endangered by virtue of the institution's purpose, trust becomes sacred and integrity becomes a requisite quality for each professional. An officer who is not trustworthy cannot be tolerated; in some professions the cost of dishonesty is measured in dollars in the Army, the cost is measured in human lives. The ability of West Point to educate, train and inspire outstanding leaders of character for our Army is predicated upon the functional necessity of honesty. In short, USMA expects its graduates and cadets to commit to a lifetime of honorable living.Granted, this does not bound any Secretary of Defense nor his generals--but it should. Again, it's the dis-connect between what are behavioral guidelines for the lower levels of an organization and how such a code of conduct doesn't apply further up the chain of command. This same miasma led to the 'graying' of the definition of torture where, again, frontliners paid the sole price for supposed 'incorrect interpretations' and 'bad behavior' while the gernerals and such got off untouched by selling out their charges.
In order to foster a genuine commitment to honorable living, USMA maintains Honor as a fundamental value. This value is operationalized through the Cadet Honor Code, the Honor Investigative and Hearing System, and the Honor Education System. Although the Honor Code & System "belongs" to West Point graduates, staff and faculty members, and cadets, the special charter of maintaining the Honor Code & System resides with the Corps of Cadets. Since 1922, the elected members of the Cadet Honor Committee have represented the Corps on all matters pertaining to honor and are the stewards of the Code.
The Cadet Honor Code is defined as "A cadet will not lie, cheat, steal, or tolerate those who do." The Honor Code expresses four succinct prohibitions. On a behavioral level, the Code represents a simple standard for all cadets. On a developmental plane, West Point expects that all cadets will strive to live far above the minimum standard of behavior and develop a commitment to ethical principles guiding moral actions.
West Point's core mission is develop leaders of character for our Army. A leader of character knows what is right, and possesses the moral courage to act on that knowledge. The principles of truthfulness, fairness, respect for others, and a personal commitment to maintaining values constitute that fundamental ideal known as the Spirit of the Code. A leader of character will apply the Spirit of the Code when making decisions involving ethical dilemmas."
But what Oregon Senator Gordon Smith recently said in Congress is applicable to all of those in charge:
"...I, for one, am at the end of my rope when it comes to supporting a policy that has our soldiers patrolling the same streets in the same way, being blown up by the same bombs day after day. That is absurd. It may even be criminal..."top
RSS feed
| Recent Posts | My Best Blogs | Archives | Favorite Quotes | Links | Contact |