Pentagon Concern About 'Toxic Leaders' by Anna Mulrine, Christian Science Monitor.
The latest bad behavior story coming out of the Air Force – involving the alleged boozy cavorting of the US general in charge of nuclear weapons in the hotel bars of Moscow, no less – has senior military officials again grappling with precisely how the Pentagon might prevent the rise of what it calls "toxic leaders.”
The cause has been taken up by the US military’s top leader, Gen. Martin Dempsey, in recent months.
The fact that the US military has been on a war footing for more than a decade, he told troops during a “town hall” meeting earlier this year, may have created some “bad habits, frankly.”…
Comments
G Martin:
"In others words- I think it is a bad assumption to think those in charge are really aiming for a competent force during warfare." said G Martin.
Exactly! Exactly! Exactly!
People don't act illogically. Often when they seem to they are just lying about what they actually want.
The big problem is that the mass of the Americans have respect for and trust the uniformed military. Unfortunately that trust extends to the multi-star officer corps. They don't know that they are lying and they believe General Forstar or Admiral Treystar when they say the latest fad will make us more able to prevail in war. They don't know. And the multi-stars are failing them and failing their duty in order to further their own fortune. That will get a lot of sons of flyover people killed. No multi-stars though. They will be at a golf tournament in Vail or doing a gig on ABC as an expert consultant.
Just two comments:
1- I agree with the others on the character versus competence comment. I would submit that our personnel system hasn't figured out how to identify competence above the E-7, W-3, and O-3 levels- and that if we figured that out, character would be part of the package (how can you be a competent leader and not have any character?? I don't think we define competence correctly). And I also don't buy the idea that character means one is a monk. Plenty of our own- not to mention the rest of the world's- history shows that is not true.
2- The real issue in my opinion is that our military is a reflection of our society- not in the individualistic sense one normally thinks of- but in the institutional sense. Our institutions have evolved into something probably very different than what our Founding Fathers thought they should. Does anyone really think the TSA protects us from terrorists more than just annoys us? Does anyone really think the DEA has made progress on the use of illegal drugs in this country? And do most politicians/voters think the U.S. military- as an institution- has done anything to make us more secure in the past decade+? Our personnel system- and our military- exists for arguably different reasons than we commonly assume. They exist for many as a reflection of what we would like to have: war without blood, easily-measured victories, equality of outcome, fairness, gender/sexual orientation blindness, progressive culture enabler, social justice, a continuation of money flow, etc. Once one looks through those frames- and they are frames that many interest groups that are actively seeking change in the military openly admit to aiming for- many of our problems and our so-called solutions- start to make sense, at least to me.
In others words- I think it is a bad assumption to think those in charge are really aiming for a competent force during warfare.
I have served under some. However the rules over common sense, one size fits all leader is just as damaging and far more common. As is the General who wants to be a company commander and the blind follower. You can't have it both ways. The "my career guy" will follow the rules, and never assume risk. This is where the brass grows. You are never going to field a unit of Airborne Ranger Chaplains, to who cut down droves of enemy, don't partake of wine, woman or song, smoke or dip, are nice to small animals and never do wrong. It's just never gonna happen. Kick out the worst, smoke the rest and stop thinking human behavior has moved past the basic level or improved in the last 4000 years. When someone has "authority" over someone else, the opportunity for misuse it exists and has and as has corruption.
Start busting some Generals & Admirals to E-1 with full loss of benefits and see if that doesn't correct some of the behavior. But remember, the death penalty hasn't stopped killers. And no creed, program, rule, law or training is going to prevent them from entering service and getting promoted either.
That remark of Dempsey's about the balance between competence and character worries me more than anything else in the article and is emblematic of the severe, maybe fatal problems we have with the multi-star officer corps. That the no. 1 soldier in the whole military can think that you can have good combat leader lacking character is unbelievable. You can probably have a characterless guy who produces good stats, especially in the low threat level wars we have be fighting lately. But that isn't a good leader, that's Courtney Massengale. In the pre-WWII German squad manual the thing they emphasize foremost is that the effectiveness of the squad depends most upon the character of the squad leader. Character was prime.
And the no. 1 soldier in the whole US military doesn't see that. God save us.
Sparapet,
After I posted my response I was concerned we would end up talking past one another, but you actually very articulately captured by thoughts on the topic, when you wrote, "good discipline is reflected well in garrison. But it is also true that it is easy to fake good discipline by just trying to look good." Good NCOs and Officers know the difference, and I do agree I never saw a unit that was crap in garrison perform well in the field. My fear is we'll once again promote a generation of toxic Sergeants Major who can focus on nothing else but the illusion of discipline (haircuts, uniforms, etc.), which are one indicator, but it runs much deeper. I recall senior NCOs and officers that tied everything to combat readiness in way that made soldiers wanted to look sharp in garrison and perform to their max in the field. I don't know if that happens now are not, all these articles tend to focus on General officers who are largely irrelevant in the day to day fight. How is leadership at the tactical level?
I think if you are going to ask a question using the Iliad, it should be 'What would Hector do?'.
I don't see that character should have to be trumpeted, in fact that there can be confusion on the importance of character is a manifestation of the the problem. (And I don't mean in you Sparapet, I mean in general, or generals.) There should be no question at all that good character in leaders is essential, it should be so obvious that people never think to bring it up. But, given the comment of the no. 1 military man in the whole country, it's not a given. That is a problem and when it comes to the next big war and it may be a fatal problem. The relatives of all those young people who go in take it that good character is given. I don't think they would be impressed by Gen. Dempsey's comment.
In the movie Hearts of the West, Andy Griffith's character tells Jeff Bridge's character that calling yourself a writer doesn't make you a writer; somebody else calling you a writer makes you a writer. If as you say, people in the Army are doing the "I demonstrated loyalty when..." bit, they are calling themselves writers. It only means something when somebody else says that about you. Come to think of it, that is another problem, that they think telling stories about themselves their good character traits means anything. What self-absorbed jerks.
Heroic archetypes abound in history, as do their opposite numbers. That's one of the reasons study of military history is so valuable and should be encouraged. There all right there.
I suppose my easy answer is that "garrison discipline" is a by-product of general discipline. The problem is when garrison discipline is done for its own sake, especially at the expense of field-craft/technical proficiency and war-craft in general. It is hard to imagine how a poorly disciplined unit could be good at its job (i.e. unable to keep itself together even when it is taxed by nothing more than a regular work day). But it's not hard to imagine a good unit looking raggedy in the field, so long as the rank and file act in a way that is clearly disciplined; e.g. I may not have showered in three weeks, and haven't bothered shaving for three days on account of lack of water, but my rifle is ready to fire and I take my commands without question and execute them admirably. In other words, yes, good discipline is reflected well in garrison. But it is also true that it is easy to fake good discipline by just trying to look good.
I have to admit confusion on the Character bit. To put my reaction simply, I think if you are going to trumpet Character then you need to find an archetype for people to model. That is the point of heroic myths after all, to demonstrate the meaning of a trait. Instead we have lots of hollow words. And I do truly think that, at least in the Army, LDRSHIP falls on deaf ears more often than not. Using personal anecdotes (i.e. I demonstrated Loyalty when...) is overdone and almost comic to the listeners who are not already admirers of the speaker. Maybe the CJCS should start saying "What Would Achilles Do?" in his talks. :)
My counter to your argument is garrison discipline doesn't build character, it frequently enforces worthless rules under the illusion this instills a practical form of discipline. It doesn't, and it surely doesn't develop character.
I still think overall implication that leaders have lost the bubble on discipline is right, and my very weak theory on that is our media and our own leaders excessively hype the everyone in uniform is a hero crap, and that comes with an entitlement mentality that often translates into soldiers acting like they're cool for school. Holding Officers and NCOs to standard to maintain discipline (not wear safety belts, and no sun glasses on the FOB, or you can't drive your vehicle over 10mph on the FOB crap), but respect for rank and the principles of good behavior. This should even address soldiers cussing like sailors in front civilians. It is especially disappointing to see female soldiers get away with talking like tramps in public work spaces because leaders fail to discipline them. Overtime this among many other things has a corrosive impact on the force. On the other hand, soldiers need venues where they can let their hair down and let out some stress, and these have for the most part disappeared. I am not sure what the right answer is, but I seen soldiers good in garrison (basically following mindless rules and looking sharp in uniform) that were not competent in the field, and others who were. The take away is garrison discipline shouldn't slip, but it won't fix the problems we're experiencing today.
Character is a more complex issue, but it is provides the basis for good self-discipline. I think there is some merit to the saying that character determines what a man does when he thinks others are not watching. I suspect society shapes our soldiers' character more than military service, and with the relatively recent surge in mindless reality programs, media stars that are completely void of character, and video games that further promote ill advised behavior, I can't help but suspect this impacts the overall character of our force, which ultimately impacts its degree of real discipline. This isn't an excuse for a three star General who should be in my age group, but it is all relevant. Why senior officers think they can away with this probably relates more to an inflated ego and self before mission more than anything else, and I agree with the comment we have always had these types in our ranks. I see no indication that there are more toxic senior leaders now than before, perhaps, but I suspect it is more a matter of media focus that creates that perception.
My point is that it has become fashionable to be a bit raggedy as if evoking some primal warfighting characteristics. Submariners on long patrols in tin diesel cans, units doing ridiculously hard duty isolated and under constant stress, those are the things that made them look raggedy, but their survival was testament to their success, not the other way around. I keep hearing Soldiers in theater and state-side invoke the "garrison discipline is BS" without actually having been in terribly stellar performing units. Its the worst when it comes out of support Soldiers.
Sparapet:
Just to be contrary on this sleepy Sunday morn; with regard to your comment "The silly implication that a ragtag unit is just as good as a sharp one needs to die as well.", what about the Army of the Tennessee, the Raven FACs, WWII submariners of just about any navy while on patrol? Those guys were extremely good and quite raggedy looking.
I think the silly fantasy of the "hard-fighting no nonsense scrapper" Soldier has run its course straight into absurdsville. I never understood the idea that garrison discipline didn't belong on deployment. If anything, it belonged there more. The silly implication that a ragtag unit is just as good as a sharp one needs to die as well. There is a fair bit of garrison silliness that has tarnished the image of discipline (e.g. PT belts and the like), and we must always guard against the parade field starlets, but the leadership has lost the reins on this one, especially in the Army. If it does exist untarnished in the maneuver Army (which I doubt, but for the sake of argument...) discipline has certainly suffered in the rest of the Army. The problem is, the majority of the Army is non-maneuver, which means their behavior and standards become cultural norms when leadership gets off message.
Agreed completely on your competence and character comment. It's such a ludicrous juxtaposition. I do want to say that though Maj Gen Carey may have gone overboard, we shouldn't see his excesses as a call to some warrior-monk like Crusader mentality that seems to be growing in the military. The polar opposite of the "hard-fighting no nonsense scrapper" as a teetotalling upright man of God who is kind to critters and deadly to enemies is equally ludicrous.
There have always been toxic leaders, and there most likely always will be, I saw more than my share during the no defects military of the 80’s and 90’s. What we have today however, might be something different that affects all personnel to varying degrees.
I was at a large Joint Base on the West Coast this past week to speak with a senior medical provider (former enlisted and retired field grade officer) concerning indicators of destructive behavior in current service members on his/her installation. He described the problems on post (alcohol related incidents, “hot” drug tests, general lack of military bearing, other indiscipline) as “a lack of the grounding in the general rules of civility”.
As an example, he said that his posted parking space was continually hijacked by other personnel and went on to state that it was something that he never would have thought of doing while he was a private or officer. Not because it was an order, but because it was discourteous and disrespectful. He went on to say that he experience the cure to this problem in the 70’s and 80’s Army, it takes enforcement of standards and leaders leading by example. What it doesn’t take is some fancy named formal program, to get the train back on the railroad tracks. As the Latin motto says, “Non Vox Sed Votum”, not words but deeds.
As an aside, who is the CJCS’s speech writer who has Dempsey talk about balance between competence and character? It’s not like it’s a trade-off between one or the other, they are absolutes that are both demanded. If over the last decade of combat we sacrificed character for competence, had we already taken the first steps towards failing to accomplish what the nation asks of us?