A Reduction In Force

I enlisted in the Army in 1981. In 1988 I received my commission as a 2LT and shipped out to Germany. In 1989 the USSR called it quits and folded up shop. In 1989 the Army had eighteen active divisions. There were two full Corps in Germany. Once the Soviet Union evaporated, congress wanted to cash in on what was called, “The Peace Dividend.” In a few short years the Army shed over 300,000 active-duty positions. It was quite unlike the draw-down at the end of the Vietnam war. The draw-down at the end of the Vietnam conflict was chaotic and poorly thought out, leaving the Army dispirited, confused, and hollow. Army leadership determined to learn from those mistakes and did their best to conduct the Reduction In Force (RIF) without destroying our combat capability. In many ways they succeeded, in others not so much.

Shedding over 300,000 soldiers meant that many highly qualified personnel were cut loose in the prime of their careers. The Army employed a variety of strategies to ensure that those who did stay were the best qualified. For example, my year group of lieutenants went through a board just to determine if we would be allowed to compete for captain. The Army tightened up standards for promotion, raising the bar. They also offered a variety of financial inducements to leave the service. While not everything ran smoothly, for the most part the plans worked well and the draw-down took place with a minimum of disorder. As with any significant reduction in personnel, there were moments of tension while awaiting the results of a board. In the mid-nineties, the Army emerged from the process leaner and still combat ready. All of this to say that we may make serious reductions in personnel without undue chaos.

Reducing the size of the government workforce may be a laudable goal. But making important personnel and services decisions in great haste may not serve the needs of the nation well. Contrary to popular belief, the governmental workforce is not some bloated behemoth in which employees take home large paychecks without producing much. In my twenty-seven years of active service, the majority of people that I worked with, military and civilian, worked diligently at the tasks assigned. Of course there were exceptions. But they were exactly that exception. To simply pluck numbers out of the air, without thought, study, or planning will not leave us with a lean efficient workforce. It may well disrupt key functions on which many of us rely. 

Watching Mr. Musk and President Trump engage in reducing the numbers of federal employees makes me glad that I am no longer in the federal workforce. They have done nothing to prepare government employees for this process. They send out haphazard emails, which often do not make sense. They have ignored various legal requirements designed to protect workers. While their actions may satisfy some primal adolescent urge to display power, they do very little to reduce the personnel footprint while maintaining critical expertise and functions. Slapdash lay-offs and firings result in a dispirited workforce and often send the wrong people away. We may very well lose significant expertise in our haste. We will then find replacing the lost knowledge very difficult. After all, who wants to join a workforce where one is dismissed without cause.

One of the things that made the Army draw-down of the nineties work was that we were all in it together. I knew that those above me were facing the same sorts of challenges I faced. Congress tasked us with drastic reductions in force structure, and we girded up our loins and went to work. It was not fun. It was not easy, but we did it. What I see going on under the current administration, is two rich men going after a workforce with little knowledge or understanding of what their employees do. They seem to have no real plan and have given little thought to the repercussions of their actions. They will not suffer the consequences of their actions. At the end of the day, they will be able to go home to their mansions and live out lives of luxury and privilege with little thought to the lives they impeded through their ill-conceived actions. 

A Conflict of Interest

A conflict occurs when an individual’s personal life or professional life is such that it interferes with their ability to objectively view a situation and make a reasonable decision regarding it. Such is the case with Mr. Musk and his oversight role of the Department of Governmental Efficiency. Space-X, Mr. Musk’s privately held company has received tens of billions of dollars in governmental contracts for the military and NASA. Additionally, Tesla has enjoyed both low-interest loans and government tax credits which have helped keep its products low cost. It must be noted that Tesla paid back their loans early. But it must also be noted that according to economic experts without government help, Tesla would probably not have survived and definitely would not have enjoyed its current market share and associated profits. Space-X has made over nineteen billion dollars in government contracts over the past seventeen years, with three point eight billion dollars in fiscal year 2024 alone. In short, Mr. Musk has secured his place as the world's richest man via tax dollars from the U.S. government.

This constitutes a conflict of interest. How can a man who has made so much of his wealth from government contracts be expected to view government spending objectively? In the case of government employees, there are various mechanisms which sequester wealth and business interests providing a firewall between the individual concerned and their ability to profit from government. In fact, this is a procedure historically used for presidents, cabinet officials, and judges. But President Trump and his administration have eschewed such constraints, refusing to either sign disclosure documents or create the blind trusts needed to ensure transparency. They did develop their own agreements, which were evaluated by competent authorities and found insufficient. In addition, by listing Mr. Musk and many of his team as Special Government Employees a category created and used since 1962, the Trump administration has avoided many of the normal checks and restraints regarding employment by the government. The White House has said that Mr. Musk would identify any situations which might pose a conflict of interest; however, government regulations do not allow an individual to assume that role. Instead, an ethics official is required to make such a judgement. 

The cavalier attitude displayed by Mr. Musk and the Trump Administration towards the proper management of personnel and potential conflicts of interest does not inspire confidence in their objectivity and ability. It is hard to believe that with billions of dollars at stake Mr. Musk can objectively view his company and the myriad of governmental agencies it must deal with. While in the Army, I served as a Contracting Officer’s Representative, and we were prohibited from accepting anything worth more than the price of a baseball cap. Gifts, whether in actual items or services such as lunch or hotel visits, were prohibited because of potential conflicts of interest. Why is it acceptable for Mr. Musk who makes a significant portion of his personal fortune from the government to serve as the leader of a quasi-governmental agency tasked with rooting out and eliminating government waste?  

When Will Congress Act?

According to news reports Mr. Musk and members of his team were granted access to the automated systems that handle disbursements for the U.S. Government. As a citizen of the United States who receives disbursements from our government, I find this situation unacceptable. Mr. Musk and the members of his team do not have any right to these automated systems, which would include my personal data as well as the data of millions of other citizens. As an ad hoc team within the administration, Musk and his team have an ill-defined relationship with the government and no clear lines of authority or accountability. To grant them such broad access is reckless in the extreme. 

As part of the process which granted Mr. Musk this unparalleled access, President Trump again forced a career governmental employee to retire or be fired. The President has shown disregard for the ways in which our government works, especially in how it hires and fires employees. As the chief executive the President enjoys the privilege of managing the governmental workforce; but, he must act within the confines of law and published policy. This should include Mr. Musk and the other members of his team. Mr. Musk and his team represent a particularly thorny problem. 

Mr. Musk and his team members are not a part of the government. They are supposed to operate in an advisory capacity. But that is not how they are working. They are increasingly acting as de facto members of the President’s cabinet. This poses several problems.

Chief among them is accountability. President Trump has the right and responsibility to gather a team to help and advise. Normally these men and women are known collectively as the cabinet and require Senate consent and approval. President Trump as side-stepped this procedure by claiming Mr. Musk and his team are not part of the government; yet they now have access to the extremely sensitive automated systems which handle government disbursements. No one has examined them for competence or trustworthiness. Despite this, they enjoy access to the personal data of millions of Americans. Mr. Musk’s previous actions and statements reveal a mercurial personality given to rash actions. Though he has enjoyed unparalleled success in the business realm, his track record is not one of perfection or unblemished competence. His guidance from the President is vague, worrisomely so. We do not know what he plans on doing other than in the most broad sense. Then there is accountability.

As an officer in the Army, I once led a team with an extraordinarily large budget. At one point I had to respond to a request from Congress to justify our expenses. Though it was time consuming and difficult, we answered the legitimate congressional inquiry. Mr. Musk does not have to answer to anyone but the President. How can we justify giving a man such extraordinary power without a check or balance. One of the great successes of our constitution is the checks and balances system. Though we may chafe, as I did when it applied to me, the checks and balances provide a brake or constraint against abuse of power. Congress, which enjoys the power of the purse, must exercise their constitutional authority and require accountability. This accountability must extend to Mr. Musk, who is not a disinterested party.

Mr. Musk is a government contractor whose Space-X business made over three billion from governmental contracts last year alone. How can Mr. Musk remain disinterested when examining the government for fraud, waste, or abuse. Much of his staggering personal worth comes from our taxpayer dollars. This is not to say that Space-X does not give a good value for the investment. It just means that Mr. Musk is not impartial. Who will hold Mr. Musk accountable? The President. Then there are the practices and tactics of Mr. Musk.

Mr. Musk operates like a playground bully. He and his team have continually sent out threatening emails and made similarly belligerent comments in public forums. They use intimidation to disorient and discourage governmental employees. They disparage large swaths of professionals without evidence other than their personal animus. Our Civil Service grew out of the chaos of the spoils system during the Gilded Age. A revolving door of political appointees and other nonqualified individuals failed to meet the needs of our nation. Through hard work, we established a professional civil service system, which while not perfect, provides for the needs of our population. As someone who has traveled and lived widely overseas, our civil service professionals are among the best this world has to offer, and as someone who worked in government for twenty-seven years, I can attest to the fact that the vast majority of our civil servants are competent professionals who work hard each day to carry out their tasks responsibly. For someone born to wealth, to savage such a group without evidence is not acceptable. And for them to take these without congressional push back or protest is unimaginable.

I wonder where congress is in all of this. They have the constitutional authority to act, to demand answers to questions. Yet, they seem to have acquiesced. Are they so enthralled to President Trump as to not care? Or, are they so fearful of MAGA backlash that they willingly cower to such bully tactics? They have let Mr. Musk severely cripple or stop the good work of the USAID department. Mr. Musk, and other conservatives, clamor for the shuttering of the USAID department, claiming it represents a significant source of waste; yet, the total budget for USAID represents less than 1% of the total yearly national budget. Their swaggering has hurt millions across the globe and has undercut our attempts to help the weakest and improve our standing in the global community. It is the act of a bully to attack the weak and defenseless.

We need to rethink the authority and responsibility President Trump has given Mr. Musk and his coworkers. Saving tax dollars is always a laudable goal, but it ought to be done properly and with due deliberation and consultation. This unrestrained and unaccountable team ought to be brought into check. There is too much at steak here to give away such power.

A Relief For Cause…AKA Firing

“CPT, this is COL Johnston. If you have a minute or two, I’d like to talk to you about SSG Smithson,” began a semi-unexpected phone call when I was a Company Commander at Fort Cavazos, then Fort Hood. 

“Yessir, of course,” I replied, there being no other recourse. I wasn’t sure what COL Johnston wanted, but I had a good idea. I’d relieved SSG Smithson a month or so before. His final NCOER (Non-Commissioned Officer Evaluation Report) had been a relief for cause. SSG Smithson was my supply sergeant and had violated my direct order regarding to the disposal of some excess property. I’d collected a deuce-and-a-half load of various excess items from company Connexes and a rather strange storage bunker. Knowing my supply sergeant’s proclivity for cutting corners, I’d told him to dispose of the material properly. I’d also told him directly not to take it out to the training area and dump it, which is exactly what he did. Later another unit found the material and it was traced back to my company. As this was not the first time he’d done something like this, I issued him a “relief for cause” NCOER with the support of the Battalion Commander (BN CDR) and Battalion Command Sergeant Major (BN CSM). Admittedly, I wrote that NCOER with an acid pen. The BN CDR used the same inkwell. SSG Smithson was reassigned to a new installation and out of my life…at least that is what I thought.

SSG Smithson had filed a rebuttal, which was his right. The NCOER would end his career. He’d accumulated enough time to retire, but promotion to Sergeant First Class (SFC) was not possible. He claimed that I had never liked him, was prejudiced against him, and had sought to get rid of him. COL Johnston had been assigned to investigate his claims, and if needed have me write a new NCOER.

“So CPT, this is a pretty incendiary NCOER.”

“Yessir, it is; but, it is justified. I have counselings to back up every negative bullet.”

“Really. SSG Smithson says you did not provide him written counselings.”

“Well Sir, he would be mistake. In fact, I thought he might rebut the NCOER so I saved all the counselings.”

“Ah, well could you fax them to me?”

“Yessir, I can. How much paper is in your fax machine?”

“Huh?!”

“How much paper is in your fax machine, Sir? This is quite the packet.”

“Just a minute CPT. Let me check.” The phone went silent for a few moments. “It is full.”

“Thank you sir. I’ll send immediately.” Soon my fax machine hummed away. I never heard from the COL again. I prevailed in that incident because I had taken the time to follow the steps necessary to fire an NCO. He performed in a substandard fashion and refused to adjust his behavior. All along the way I had provided written instructions as to what I expected and what the appropriate military standards were. I’d warned him that continued failure to meet the standard would result in a relief for cause and the associated NCOER. At the end of the day, I prevailed and was able to fire my Supply Sergeant. The rules I followed were there for a purpose, they protected the SSG and me. They protected him from a capricious officer, and they protected me from having to endure an underperforming NCO in a critical position. That is how firing someone in the government works.

President Trump has shown a blatant disregard for the laws and regulations that are set up to protect government employees from capricious personnel actions. Of course, as the President, he can hire and fire as he pleases, just as I could. But one must follow the appropriate rules and regulations. They protect both the employer and the employee. It was a pain for me to fire SSG Smithson. It took a little time and a lot of paperwork. The rules are simplified for the President as he is more senior and responsible, but they still exist, and for good reason. We need professionals at all levels of government. Simply claiming that someone was a DEI hire or part of the “Deep-State” does not satisfy.

Just because I was angry at SSG Smithson was not sufficient. I needed to show that not only had he failed to perform acceptably, I also needed to show that he refused to alter his behavior. When I gave him the final direct order, I fully expected him to do what he did. He’d done it before and showed no inclination to do otherwise; but, I needed to make sure that I did the right thing. In the end, I fired the NCO. The President must follow the rules, procedures, and laws required by Congress when hiring and firing. It can be a pain, but it must be done properly. The President should set the example as he handles his workforce.

The Oath

 

I, Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice so help me God.

That is the oath of enlistment. I first said those words in February of 1981, shortly before I shipped out to Fort Leonard Wood for basic training. I would repeat them during a reenlistment ceremony and as the reenlisting official for many of my subordinates over the years. Later I would say the following words upon receiving my commission as an officer in the Army:

I, Matthew E. Robinson, do solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.

In both cases, I swore allegiance to the Constitution, to the body of ideals which frame our national government. As an enlisted man, I swore to obey the orders of the President as long as they were lawful. Interestingly, the oath for officers omits the reference to the president. In both cases, our oath is to support and defend the constitution. As an officer, there were several times in which I had to confront a superior officer, once a two-star general, over issues that violated our constitution. Fortunately for me, those higher up agreed with my understanding of our constitution and my career survived. I wonder if it would today.

Our president seems to have forgotten that those who serve in our government take an oath to protect and defend the constitution, not an oath of fealty to the president. The backbone, the strength of our government lies in the fact that those who serve, do not blindly serve a man or woman. No, they serve the nation by their devotion to a body of ideals encapsulated by the Constitution. This is often difficult.

I remember the fear and trepidation that I felt as I told a two-star general, “No sir. We cannot do that it is illegal and immoral.” Deployed to combat in Iraq, I felt quite alone and without support. Fortunately for me, the three-star general above both of us agreed with my interpretation of the situation and the matter was dropped. But it was not fun. 

I hope that someone will educate our President, reminding him that the government is not his personal fiefdom and governmental officials serve a higher purpose. It is not fun to hear the words no, that is unconstitutional or illegal; however, those in power need to feel that check when they want to go outside the law. Given our Presidents proclivity for revenge and retribution over any perceived slight, real or imagined, I hope that they have the courage needed and our support as necessary.

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. 

All My Troops

 

As an officer in the Army, I served in a variety of leadership positions at numerous levels. I learned very quickly that the Army did not let me choose my soldiers. Oh, there were times in which I was allowed influence in certain key positions; but, normally expected me to lead and train whatever troops they sent me. It was up to me to lead them to success. I also found out that most of my soldiers did not share my worldview. Some of them embraced a radically different lifestyle. That is not a criticism of them. We just looked at things differently. The Army required that I evaluate their character on the Army values of: Loyalty, Duty, Respect, Selfless Service, Honor, Integrity, and Personal Courage. I was also obliged to evaluate their ability to conform to Army standards and perform their duties as assigned. As long as their personal proclivities or tastes did not impact on their ability to serve, I could not denigrate them. We embraced the idea that it said, “US Army” on our uniforms. Of course, this diversity led to interesting late-night conversations in the barracks, command posts, foxholes, and during long convoys. But in a secular multi-cultural Army, you must embrace this style of leadership.

As a leader of troops, I needed to take care of all the soldiers assigned to me. I was responsible for setting the conditions for their success. I was also responsible for defending them no matter what their personal beliefs were. I was especially cognizant that the weakest members of my soldiers, those of the lowest ranks and various minorities of all types, were especially vulnerable to predatory behaviors of others, especially those senior in rank. It was up to me to create a command environment that fostered the success of all my soldiers, not just the ones that looked and thought like me. As long as they did their duties, lived up to the Army values, and did not get into some sort of legal trouble, they would enjoy my encouragement, support, training, and protection…yes protection. As a leader, I needed to make sure that not only did I create a command climate that was fair towards all my soldiers, but I also had to make sure that I protected all of my soldiers, regardless of their personal worldview. When I did that my soldiers prospered and my organization functioned well.

Our politicians need to embrace this mental paradigm. Like it or not, we are a secular multi-cultural nation. We started down this road long ago, long before we even considered revolution. An interesting letter from the home office in Amsterdam to Peter Stuyvesant, the governor of New Amsterdam in the mid 1600s, instructed him to let those of differing beliefs alone as long as they were peaceable and abided by the laws. This decision set our nation on a course of letting those of differing worldview alone. It also means that I must learn to live next to and respect the rights of those whose worldview differs from mine…perhaps even drastically. Our politicians need to remember that they represent all the members of their constituency, not just the ones who elected them. This is especially important for the president.

Our president serves as the only nationally elected official. Every other elected official serves a smaller constituency. It is incumbent upon the president to remember that they must keep the needs of all the nation in mind as they make decisions, not just those who elected them. Those weakest members of our society look to the White House for support and protection. As a commander of troops, I had to keep all my soldiers in mind. In a like fashion, the president needs to keep all the citizens of the nation in mind as he leads. This does not mean that he makes decisions that everyone likes. Indeed, a president is elected based on what they say they will do in office, and they need to fulfill those promises. But he needs to remember that even those with differing worldviews look to him for protection. Success at the ballot box does not justify policy abuse. 

In Ezekiel 47:21-23 we find an interesting and instructive passage. Through the prophet, God provided the Jews instructions for reoccupying the Promised Land. He told them that they would find “sojourners” there, people who were not Israelites. They were not to drive them out. Instead, they were to treat them as native-born children of Israel and give them an inheritance alongside the returning Jews. While the situation is not the same, the instructions to those in power are very relevant.

Those in power must remember to take care of those who are weak and vulnerable. Power does not grant license to abuse or trample the weak. Those in power must wield it in ways that not only fulfills the desires of those who elected them but also protects the weakest and marginalized members of society. To do otherwise is to abuse power.