The Inspector General

During twenty-seven years of military service, I periodically ran into the Inspector General, better known as the IG. As a young, enlisted soldier my primary interaction with the IG centered around preparing for and enduring periodic IG inspections. Of course, we were always told that you could go to the IG as a final recourse if we were being abused somehow by our chain of command or the Army in general. I never felt the need to turn to the IG for help. As an officer, my interactions with IG were more…challenging. The IG came and inspected my units periodically. These inspections normally included a “sensing-session,” in which my subordinates had the opportunity voice their complaints and concerns without repercussion. I survived all of the out-briefs without serious problems. Then there were the individual IG Complaints. As any active duty officer will tell you, these complaints come our way occasionally. Again, I survived these without much issue. Once I was told that I did not talk to civilians very well. But other than that, I do not remember anything which negatively impacted my ability to complete my mission or hampered my career progression. The IG exists to ensure that Army leaders comply with appropriate law and regulations. It also exists to ensure that Army leaders, men and women entrusted with significant power and authority, do not abuse their soldiers through capricious or inappropriate application of that authority. The Army IG traces its history all the way back to 1777. It has served to help soldiers and commanders alike better serve our nation for over two centuries. Despite the angst it causes leaders sometimes, the IG is a necessary brake on unbridled power.

On the evening of twenty-four January, President Trump authorized the firing on between twelve and seventeen Inspectors General of the government. The government is a relative late-comer to the need for and role of the IG. Congress set up governmental IGs in the turbulent period after the Watergate Scandal of the Nixon administration. They serve the same purpose as the Army IG, they work to ensure that leaders follow the law and do not abuse their power. Though the president has the authority to fire and replace IGs, the president must show cause and give thirty days notice to congress before termination. There are over seventy IGs in the Executive Branch, with over thirty requiring Senate confirmation. Though they are generally considered as nonpartisan, Presidents may remove and replace them. However, the firing of such a number while apparently circumventing the law is concerning. The IGs serve as a legal and regulatory watchdog as well as brake on unconstrained power.

As an officer, I enjoyed extensive powers which expanded as I was promoted. An inappropriate application or use of those powers could have seriously impeded the careers and personal lives of my subordinates. Later in my career my decisions and actions could have serious consequences in regard to the conduct of war and national policy and image. The IG is a necessary component of the military and government. Senior leaders may not like the IG; but, they need the IG. As a law-abiding nation we need an independent and strong IG to ensure that those entrusted with wielding great power do so in a way that not only complies with the law but also best serves the public interest. This applies to the President and Executive Branch. 

For a sitting President to circumvent the law by firing IGs without cause and replacing them with men and women more compliant to their wishes does not engender confidence. Rather, it raises unnecessary questions and exerts a corrosive effect on public confidence. As annoying as it may be, the President should comply with the law and let the IGs do their jobs in an unconstrained fashion.