Institutional Damage

 

            I served in the Army from 1981 to 2010. I entered as a private, going through basic training at Fort Leonard-Wood, earning my commission as a 2LT in 1988 and eventually retiring after twenty-plus years as a Lieutenant Colonel. During my career, I served at all levels of command, spent two tours in Germany, deployed to combat multiple times, worked with various allied armies, and engaged in operations on four different continents. This is not unusual. Anyone spending over twenty years of active-duty service will have enjoyed a similarly varied career path. I witnessed the deep cold war, the fall of the Berlin Wall and collapse of communism, the drug wars, and many other tumultuous events of those days. I also participated in the growth and restructuring of the Army.

            When I joined in 1981, the Army was struggling to throw off the chaos of the Vietnam Draftee Army, endemic racism, and the disorderly drug and alcohol drenched years that followed. At all levels with varying degrees of awareness and success, we sought to build an institution which lived up to our oath to protect and defend the constitution from all enemies, foreign and domestic. The changes in the Army were titanic, involving significant upheaval. These changes effected all ranks and all levels of command. As with any major change or restructuring, the changes came with periods of uncertainty and misunderstanding.

            Despite all of this, we built an institution that I was proud to serve in. Of course, it was not perfect. It was built and staffed by humans, so it was imperfect; however, we truly sought to do the right thing while always completing our mission. The Army that emerged from those years was an institution that embraced meritocracy.

            Promotion depended upon a demonstrated ability to operate at the next higher rank. In other words, as a lieutenant I was expected to act like and make the kind of decisions that a captain would make. Performance outweighed race and connections. As an institution, the Army remained apolitical during these years. Now, under the influence of the Secretary of Defense (SECDEF), Pete Hegseth, much of this hard work is being rapidly undone.

            The SECDEF has fired or put out to pasture many high-ranking officers simply because they do not fit his picture of what a modern warfighter looks like, believes, or endorses. While it has always been true that at the flag-officer ranks, political considerations held great sway; during my years of service, I never witnessed such a wholesale reordering, especially one done on such diaphanous grounds. Some appear to have simply been of the wrong race or gender. Others seem to have been guilty of supporting the previous administration’s stated goals with too much fervor. Whatever the case, this heavy-handed approach has had two deleterious effects.

            First of all, the departure of so many high-level officers deprives the Department of Defense of the wisdom gained through years of experience in combat and peacetime. Given the highly volatile nature of modern warfare and geopolitics, we can ill afford to discard such a large knowledge trust.

            Secondly, these mass firings change the promotion and assignment dynamic from one that is focused on mission accomplishment to one of political conformity. During my time in the Army, I never really cared about, knew, or investigated the political leanings of my fellow soldiers. Of course, I understood their general political leanings. You cannot spend so much time around each other and not know; but, dependability and professionalism mattered most, not political party. Suddenly this changes. Now, devotion to duty and competence take a backseat to political allegiance.

            Thirdly, this politicization of the military damages trust; trust between peers, trust of leaders, and trust of the system in general. Previously, the Army culture laser focused on professionalism and competence built trust in the person on your left or right flank. You knew that they were devoted to personal professionalism and mission accomplishment. Now with this new emphasis on conservative political correctness, one never knows. Now one must wonder if their command will extract some sort of punishment for pulling the wrong lever in the ballot box.

            These factors will exert a corrosive effect on the rank and file of the military. In years past one could generally trust the system to produce competent and motivated Officers and NCOs. Yes, there were exceptions to the rule; however, for the most part, the system produced excellent leaders at all levels. The system included various mechanisms that enabled a service member to seek redress should they encounter rank prejudice based on race or gender. While these levers often brought uncomfortable scrutiny, they ensured the institution as a whole remained one in which professional competence and mission accomplishment were the standard. Those unwilling to embrace those as the standard for evaluation were outliers and once identified swiftly delt with.

            The SECDEF’s efforts to cleanse the military of WOKEness will not result in a higher level of readiness. Instead, he has weakened the military, opening the door for a continuing cycle of political readjustment. The systems designed and refined during the latter years of the twentieth century produced an organization that promoted and assigned based on demonstrated ability to work at the next higher level and approached each day with an intense focus on completing the assigned mission. The Army, while not perfect, fully embraced the lofty goal of “protecting and defending the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.”

Bullies Need Not Apply

 

¹⁷ Repay no one evil for evil, but give thought to do what is honorable in the sight of all. 18 If possible, so far as it depends on you, live peaceably with all. Romans 12:17-18 English Standard Version

Marriam-Webster definition of Bully: to treat (someone) in a cruel, insulting, threatening, or aggressive fashion : to act like a bully toward or to cause (someone) to do something by means of force or coercion

            Everyone has faced the challenge of a bully. Most often it is in the school environment; but, sometimes one finds a bully in the work environment, and sadly there are bullies in marriages with often tragic results. No one likes a bully. We all find the swaggering and threatening offensive. Bullies thrive on intimidating the weak and vulnerable. Fortunately, many of us who are inclined to bully others get our comeuppance in the school environment, learning early that such behavior is anathema to any community. Those who fail to learn that lesson are destined to lurch through a life full of swagger, bluster, and occasional violence. Their arrogance and self-centeredness ensure that they miss out on many of the good things in life. It is the same with nations and their leaders.

            What our leaders say and do reflects our national spirit and moral values. This is why we should choose leaders based more on their character than on their policy pronouncements. Policy pronouncements are important; however, examining character reveals more about how they will lead and make decisions. Those who’ve embraced a life-long practice of bullying those around them to get their way do not pass muster. They’ve shown through their proclivities that they cannot be trusted to make decisions that are just and defensible.

            Some will say, however, that they get results or that the ends justify the means. Perhaps they do get results in the short term and over a weaker constituency or nation; but, sooner or later their behaviour will be truly challenged and their weakness and moral turpitude revealed…along with our own.

            Through our bringing them to power and silence about their actions, we join in their practice of bullying. In some ways the international community is much like a school playground, only with much more serious results. An elementary schoolyard confrontation normally ends with a bruised ego, perhaps a bloody nose, and maybe a black eye. An international confrontation brings much more grievous results; economic chaos or open war just to name two. One result that we’ve recently seen is other countries refusing to acquiesce to our desires. Our bluster and swagger, as displayed by our president, did not result in other nations rallying to our cause in Iran. Most simply shrugged and looked the other way. A few made public pronouncements condemning our actions. Unsurprisingly, it turns out the badgering and belittling your allies tends to generate non-support when you want it.

            Governments, made up by people and beholden to people, tend to react like people. We may be the largest economy on the globe and possess a powerful military; however, we still need friends and allies. You do not strengthen alliances by publicly threatening and demeaning your partners. Those are the actions of a bully and sooner or later will fail…probably sooner. Threats, intimidation, and humiliating people are the tactics of a tyrant and indicators of a small-minded soul that cannot think of any other alternative than the threat of violence.

            This modern world, with its vast web of interconnected countries, businesses, and institutions, requires and rewards creative solutions to seemingly intractable situations. Patient and careful application of “soft” power, while not exciting, produces sound long-term results with the best outcome for the most people. Threats and intimidation, in any form, generate short-term results with little staying power and normally provide a good outcome for a minority of people. This is why we need thoughtful, creative, and strong leaders. Leaders willing to take input from diverse sources show strength, not weakness. Bullies, however, do not show the character necessary to successfully lead others, especially in the context of positions of national and international significance.

Just a Meme?

 

Normally, I try not to respond to single utterances, or memes. After all, it is impossible to compress an important issue into a few words pasted on a picture. Yet, in this time when so many build their worldview from memes, I occasionally feel compelled to speak to a specific meme. It is almost trite to say, but images carry great weight and often move large numbers of people in a specific direction, politically and socially. Our President posted such a meme last night on his Truth-Social account. I have included a copy of his post in this essay for convenance sake.

 

                            This meme, apparently AI generated, presents President Trump in a messiah-like tableau. Wrapped in robes of white with a red sash, he bends over a man in a hospital bed while an adoring nurse and others look on. His hands are emitting glowing orbs. The background includes many national symbols, such as, the statue of liberty, the American flag, fighter jets, and other potent symbols. Such a blasphemous image demands comment.

                              Some will say, this image is a joke, tongue-in-cheek as it were, and that I am overreacting to something not intended to be taken seriously. Perhaps that is the case. I may be overreacting. I have been known to overreact at times, just ask my wife, children, close friends, former students, and soldiers under my command. But in this case, I do not think so.

                              President Trump is our duly elected Chief Executive. He leads the executive branch of the United States is responsible for implementing and carrying out the laws enacted by congress or the legislative branch. While this is a powerful and important position, it is one best served by someone possessed by an appropriate level of humility and propriety. To share a meme which presents himself as a powerful messianic figure replete with the power to heal at will breaks the barrier of pride, rushing into the realm of hubris. Overweening pride is corrosive to leadership.

               As someone who spent two careers in leadership positions, I know that such pride, such hubris, does not enable good leadership. Rather, it inhibits good leadership. Good leaders must be able to set aside their own pride and listen to others. Often others with more or differing experience provide input that leads to an excellent outcome. An unshakable conviction of one’s own ability leads to faulty decision making and tends to surrounding oneself with yes men. Prideful leaders often misshape their organizations.

               All organizations take on the characteristics of their leader, assuming their traits and their decision making processes. When led by an extremely prideful person, organizations become just as prideful and unwilling to listen to outside input. Sometimes, they become so blinded by pride they flail and fail without really understanding why. This malaise eventually effects the spirit of the organization, leaving it so turned inward as to be impotent.

               As a practicing Christian, I cannot allow such a display of pride driven blasphemy in our national leadership pass without comment. For the leader of my country to display such a disregard for the sanctity of my savior takes my breath away. Such a melding of national symbology into a pseudo-Christian image offends at the deepest levels. After all, Jesus said that His kingdom was not of this earth. Of course, we all make mistakes; but, such a mistake calls for comment and correction. As a nation, we must constantly work to keep our moral center, and when a powerful national leader starts leading us down the wrong path, away from an appropriate view of ourselves, we must raise the alarm and seek a better path.

So to my friends who would say that I need to calm down and not take this so seriously, I say that this level of pride and blasphemy requires a response. Failing to respond would lead to more egregious material and further degradation of our national spirit. In this turbulent time, we need leaders who while possessed of a strong will are also possessed of an appropriate understanding of who they are and their role in our unfolding shared history.

              

Wrong Words

 

“A whole civilization will die tonight, never to be brought back again.” President Trump on Truthsocial.com

               It is one thing to wage war. It is an entirely different thing to threaten the destruction of a civilization. To destroy a civilization is genocide. Even threatening geocide goes against everything we stand for as a nation. To have our president bandy about such a threat should make us question his fitness to serve.

               A leader must choose their words carefully. Words have discrete meanings and when used properly or improperly carry great weight. For our president to threaten such a despicable, unconscionable, act besmirches all of us and calls into question our place in the community of nations. Those that enjoy great power and authority must also enjoy and embrace the responsibility required. Reckless speech does not indicate strength or wisdom; rather, it shows the opposite, weakness and immaturity. Such a callous remark ought not to emanate from the seat of such great power, and those of us who he represents must not let such a remark pass.

               We must hold the president accountable for his utterances. He represents us and his remarks, even off-the-cuff social media postings, stand for our beliefs. This cannot pass without comment. We must call into question the thoughts and ideas behind such a remark. I know that I do not support the eradication of a civilization and seriously doubt that a majority of my fellow Americans do either.

               So, Mr. President to steal a few words from a long-ago U.S. Senator, “Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?” Senator Joseph N. Welch.

Civic Morality: Part I Introduction

 

“To suppose that any form of government will secure liberty or happiness without any virtue in the people is a chimerical idea." James Madison in the Virginia Convention.

            Our current post-post-modern culture eschews any discussions of morality, personal or civic. Yet the corrosion or weakening of civic morality produces grievous effects in our cultural and civil life, and I believe a return to or strengthening of civic-morality would address many of the problems our nation faces. As a practicing Christian, I have often avoided discussions of Civic Morality, thinking any such discussions tainted by a lack of emphasis on the Bible. I was quite wrong in my approach. When we abandon the concept of civic morality and instead embrace a more nihilistic or laissez-faire approach to societal interaction, we head down a road which leads away from a well-functioning society and good governance.

Our current struggles would be eased by the embrace of civic morality. But what exactly is civic morality? As defined by PhD Herzog Civic morality is the belief that engaging in social life is good coupled with acting in ways that are intended to benefit others beyond the self and ultimately to promote public good. Patricial Herzog PhD in “Handbook of the Sociology of Morality, Volume 2” Halman and Gelissen go on to further distinguish civic morality from personal morality by describing civic morality as having to do with activities such as public law compliance, respect for public order, and obedience to norms and rules, in “Values in Life Domains in a Cross-National Perspective.” While these are excellent starting points, I believe we should go on to lay out some of the foundational beliefs and activities that make up civic morality.

I would define civic morality in the following way: Civic morality is a constellation of beliefs and behaviors shared by a society or culture that shape and undergird acceptable norms of behavior within that society and that promote the good or betterment of all its members. I’m not talking about a moral code arising from  a specific religious practice or affiliation. Instead, I want to examine core values that a culture or society seeks to inculcate from one degree to another in all its members to better facilitate the smooth functioning of society and the overall betterment of all its members. While a society or culture will not always have full consensus regarding the exact definition of civic morality, a general consensus keeps a society or culture working together for the benefit of all its members. Over the next few weeks, I will post a series of essays discussing civic-morality. In these essays, we will examine truthfulness, courageousness,  faithfulness (personal and corporate), generosity, kindness, civility, cooperation, patience, and forgiveness. While there are many others, these nine virtues, when embraced, taught, and reinforced by a society or culture, help shape a state in which the most people benefit from and grow. Examining these traits as practiced by a culture helps us understand their importance and provides insight into how we might go about encouraging them.

As we head into the coming elections, thinking through the importance of civic morality and how various candidates embrace and represent these traits weighs heavily on my mind. Our current political process, so heavily influenced by party affiliation and well-heeled and often shadowy doners, gives little thought to the moral fitness of a candidate. This is a problem that afflicts both parties, exerting a pernicious and corrosive effect on public policy and governance. Too many of our office holders, untethered to any fixed societal moral code, make decisions that effect millions of people across the nation. Frequently these policy decisions benefit a small handful of political allies and are injurious to many others, sometimes even the majority of the electorate. We need to evaluate our candidates on the fitness of their civic morality. At its best, government in a representative republic requires compromise, the give and take of our political process. Even though for many citizens compromise is a dirty word, effective and good governance requires it. Those candidates who best exemplify our civic-morality possess the character needed to navigate the often-murky waters of government. We need to evaluate candidates on their character more than their pronouncements of party fidelity. This is why a return to character matters and civic-morality is so very important. Additionally, civic-morality undergirds the smooth function of our society, culture, business. All of the values listed above enable us to work together with some degree of confidence in our neighbors and business partners. Embracing them and encouraging their growth will improve all of our lives, daily and long term.

Please leave a comment, like, or dislike. 

Regime Change Anyone Part II

 

            Regime change. Coming from President Trump and his cabinet, it sounds nice and easy, kind of like changing my socks; or on a bad day like changing my cell service provider. Our recent forays into the muddy waters of regime change raise fundamental questions about our long-term goals and reliability as a member of the global community. Politicians and pundits toss around the phrase without explaining the specifics of what takes place during a regime change. During a regime change people die, sometimes very many innocent people. Often chaos comes in to rule after our “surgical strikes” that remove the leadership we find abhorrent. We may kill the immediate leadership which has crossed us one too many times; but, the societal forces and practices that led to the evil regime remain in place and usually propel a like individual or group into positions or power and authority. If we are lucky, the new regime will be more amenable to our geopolitical whims. But we rarely stay around long enough to effect any true cultural changes, and we may not be particularly good at inculcating good change. Why this change and why now?

            No one can reasonably say that Ayatollah Ali Khamenei was a good leader. Under his rule Iranians suffered and thousands of innocents across the region died. He and his cohorts engaged in state sponsored terrorism, using violence or the threat of violence to achieve power, influence, and wealth. Where was our moral outrage then? Was it simply because he and his fellow rulers refused to give up their goal of achieving a nuclear weapon? That is a legitimate concern. Such a powerful weapon in the hands of such a reckless ruler should concern all of us. But what comes next should concern us as much.

            Who will take their place? How will Iran rebuild, or will they become the next cauldron of pain, frustration, and anger simmering until it boils over once again? I see that our President and his various mouthpieces are seeking to distance our nation from any responsibility to restore Iran to some sort of normalcy. Having participated in nation building, I understand the desire to avoid entanglement in such a difficult and long-term task. But it seems to me that we have an interest in helping Iran shed its past and take its place among the community of nations as a prosperous country with responsible leadership charting its path. By abandoning Iran now, we risk turning loose an angry bully in an already tense portion of the globe.

            Here is the worst part for us. We are at risk becoming a global bully ourselves. Many world leaders must be wondering who is next on our President’s list? Is this a new form of “gunboat diplomacy?” Are we returning to a world order in which we simply pummel weaker nations with airpower until they submit to our desires? If we embrace this style of diplomacy, we risk abandoning the higher principles to which we have historically aspired. Obviously, we have often missed the mark; however, we have at least tried to listen to our “better angels.” We castigated Ayatollah Ali Khamenei and his henchmen for years, deriding their actions as state sponsored terrorism. When we so easily resort to violence to achieve our national goals, we are dangerously close to engaging in the same type of behavior ourselves. I understand that the Iranian leadership has a long history of obfuscation to avoid compliance; yet, does killing off the leadership of the country move us toward the goal of responsible behavior? In any military operation innocents perish simply due to proximity. Even in the most carefully targeted attack, innocent bystanders are wounded, often succumbing to their wounds. Families and friends carry those scars which frequently metastasize into the next generation of terrorists bent on revenge. We cannot forget them, or the deep wound we are inflicting upon our own national psyche or spirit.

            Every bomb we drop, every missile we fire, every target we obliterate further corrodes our national psyche. As a nation we become more brutish akin to those we claim are the aggressors. There are situations in which a nation must resort to force; however, we must do so only after thoughtful deliberation and with a cogent plan for what we will do once the rounds stop going back and forth in earnest. To use our military might to force out a regime which we do not like, or causes us problems, degrades our national spirit. We already suffer from the ills attendant to modern Western culture. We must stop and think very carefully about the path we have chosen. I say that we must return to a foreign policy which embraces diplomacy and is willing to work overtime to engage our fellow global inhabitants in the practices which lead to more civilized behavior. 

Allies: Condemnation or Cooperation

 

            I watched the Twin Towers collapse on a TV in the Operations (G-3)section of First Armored Division, 1AD Old Ironsides, in Wiesbaden, Germany. Like everyone else, the sight of the towering office buildings collapsing in dust and rubble horrified me. I knew that my world would never be the same…and it wasn’t. A few days later, I was among those invited to the German Army headquarters for a briefing by their division commander (please note that the German Army has restructured greatly since 2001 and I’m not sure if the Panzer Division headquarters is still near Wiesbaden.).

            The German Commanding General gave the opening remarks. Here is a summary of what he said, “For years, you stood between us and aggression by the Soviet Union. Your presence secured our safety. We owe you a significant debt. Now, we can in some small way repay a portion of that debt. We consider the recent attack on New York an attack on us. We understand that you will need help orchestrating your response. You have all my resources available to help in the upcoming operations. Please know that I am the only one who can say “no.” No one on my staff has the authority to say “no.” If they do, all you have to do is pick up your phone and call me. My phone number is…”

            While my work did not require much from the German Army. Some of my peers reported great support and assistance when they asked. What I did see was German soldiers replacing our MPs at checkpoints, base entry gates, and on patrol in on our bases and housing areas. I also witnessed the Bundesbhan (German Railroad), rearranging schedules to allow us the ability to quickly move material to the ports. If you’ve ever lived or traveled in Germany, you know what a sacrifice it is to disrupt train schedules. At the ports our ships were given priority. Our allies, the Germans, sacrificed greatly in support of our operations. This is something we should never forget.

            When I deployed to Iraq in the Spring of 2003, I fought alongside our NATO partners and several other nations who joined in the fray, supporting us with their lives and treasure. Later after 1AD redeployed to Germany, I served in Combined Joint Task Force 7, CJTF-7. I well remember the day when our Italian contingent suffered a significant attack, losing a significant number of men. We all mourned the loss together. I went outside the wire with Australian and British armies. I never felt like I was serving with second-rate soldiers. In a later deployment to Iraq, I served in Multi-National Corps Iraq, MNC-I. Again, I served alongside Canadians, Australians, British, and Samoans. All allies dedicated to supporting us with their lives and their treasure. I learned to depend upon them for their support and professionalism. This is something we should never forget.

            In a later assignment, I served in United States Army South, USARSO. In this assignment I served alongside our partners in South America. I went on counter-drug operations with various allies including, Panamanians, Nicaraguans, Hondurans, Colombians, Bolivians, Brazilians, and the French. Again, united to stem the flow of narcotics into our nation, all these allies sacrificed to help us. I remember standing in a forward base in Bolivia training their soldiers on anti-mine procedures. These men risked life and limb daily for almost no pay. Their uniforms were threadbare and their equipment ancient…but well maintained. They were our allies in the ongoing war on drugs. This is something we should never forget.

            Again in a later assignment, I served in United States Army North ARNORTH, a component of NORAD-NORTHCOM. I was privileged to serve alongside Canadians, protecting our nations against a possible aggression from across the North Pole. These professional men and women helped us guard our freedom. This is something we should never forget.

            Recently I’ve seen many postings denigrating our allies. They usually focus on two things: one a lack of commitment in the form of time, effort, and particularly money and two a lack of cultural commonality. I’d like to address both issues.

            While it is true that for years most NATO member nations did not reach the desired military spending level of 2% of Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in recent years their spending has increased. Currently all nations spend the desired 2% with six spending over 3%. The changing world situation and President Trump’s efforts have generated this increase. As a point of comparison, the U.S. spent about 3.2% of GDP in 2025. While our total expenditure dwarfs the rest in raw dollars, in percentage of GDP we’re not that far ahead of our fellow NATO allies. As the global situation increased in volatility, our allies have responded appropriately. We must remember that national interests, as perceived in the country, govern such decisions. Their culture may or may not be as willing to devote precious resources to military efforts.

            Many people seem suddenly concerned about cultural differences. Here, I’d like to share the Marrium-Webster definition of ally as a noun:

1.     a sovereign or state associated with another by treaty or league

2.     one that is associated with another as a helper : a person or group that provides assistance and support in an ongoing effort, activity, or struggle

You will note that neither definition includes discussion of shared cultural values. I can attest to the fact that when the bullets snapped past my ears, I never checked on the cultural mores of my allies. All I really cared about was did they have my flank and were they putting rounds downrange in earnest. Yes, it is easier to work with someone who shares my cultural ideas, but it is not required. One of the great lessons all soldiers learn is that mission focus is paramount and at the end of the day, you can successfully work with someone who views the world quite differently than you do. Once while working with the Canadians, I found that their field rations included a small bottle of wine! Serving with the Brits and Aussies, I had to make the difficult cultural adjustment to the daily beer ration. Some cultural sacrifices are greater than others. I have worked with people from all over the globe with quite divergent backgrounds and beliefs. Some even became my friends. I needed them and they needed me.

            Our world is vastly more complex and interconnected than most of us think. We cannot, and should not, seek to either go it alone or bully others into submitting to our desires. We need one another. Cooperation requires listening and sometimes sacrifice. We need to stop feeding our isolationist tendencies and instead broaden our view and roll up our sleeves and work with others toward our shared goals and missions.