Compass Points - Leaders of Integrity
The importance of intangible things.
Compass Points - Leaders of Integrity
The importance of intangible things.
May 9, 2024
.
If the US military is missing ships, planes, and tanks, that is trouble, but if the US military is missing senior officer integrity that is much more serious. In far too many ways today -- from the tangible to the intangible -- the US military does not have what it must have. For example, to sustain the US military requires many things including shipyards, munitions factories, military manufacturing facilities, and more. Without this foundational sustainment, the military cannot do its job.
.
By one report, the construction of every type of Navy ship is years behind schedule.
.
============
.
All of the US Navy's highly anticipated shipbuilding projects face years long delays, the service said earlier this month.
The delayed ships include a new fleet of Virginia-class attack submarines, guided-missile destroyers, and a new Gerald R. Ford-class aircraft carrier.
The announcement came after a 45-day review ordered by Secretary of the Navy Carlos Del Toro in January. The review identified the "shortfalls" that caused the delays, including labor shortages and supply chain issues.
--Business Insider
.
============
.
It is not just ships that are missing, not just shortages of planes, tanks, munitions, and all manner of necessary equipment and supplies, but even the size of the military is at a low point. The number of uniformed US military is at the lowest point since World War II.
.
============
.
The United States military will have the smallest force in over 80 years as it prepares for the start of 2024. The Pentagon recently informed Congress that the U.S. military faces one of its “greatest challenges” as it navigates the “difficult recruiting environment” that resulted in multiple military branches missing recruitment targets in 2023.
According to the $886 billion National Defense Authorization Bill that was passed by Congress last week and is expected to be signed into law by President Joe Biden, the number of active-duty U.S. troops will drop to 1,284,500 in 2024.
-- American Military News
.
============
.
The military runs not just on ships, planes, and tanks or even on uniform service members trained, ready, and assembled in ranks. The military is sustained by a host of intangible qualities. The military runs on courage, perseverance, professionalism, selfless service, and integrity, always integrity. Why are parents not trusting the military with their children? Why are even military veterans not recommending military service as they once did? Perhaps parents, relatives, veterans, and family advisors somehow sense that something is wrong in the military, something seriously wrong. It may be a decline in the integrity of military leaders.
.
Brigadier General Keith T. Holcomb, writing for Real Clear Defense, has provided a powerful article about the importance of integrity: "Decline of Senior Officer Integrity and Civilian Control of the Military."
.
============
.
Public confidence in the military has slipped. One major reason is the politicization of senior military officers, who show an increasing propensity to compromise their integrity to gain influence and achieve both budgetary and policy goals. Their willingness to spin carefully parsed and knowingly misleading testimony and advice compromises civilian control of the military. Simply stated, these generals and admirals are not providing full and complete representations of plans, concepts, and assessments to senior civilians in the executive and legislative branches, thereby depriving them of the unbiased information they require to make decisions required by the Constitution.
In an era of increasing complexity, cleverly constructed narratives that present simplified, politicized positions to the general population have taken on out-sized importance. Senior officers increasingly are attempting to manipulate policy making by intentionally reducing complex reality to simple narratives designed to appeal to partisan audiences.
. . . The decline of senior officer integrity increasingly impacts civilian decision makers. Not long ago, overbooked national leaders could confidently “repose special trust and confidence” in the senior officers providing assessments and recommendations to them. The disciplined and honorable behaviors of past generations of generals and admirals certainly validated this special trust and confidence. But, with a rise in manipulative narratives, civilian leaders and their staffs are more likely to feel compelled to dig into the details of complex military matters to gain the full and complete picture they need to discharge their responsibilities.
In short, it is past time for senior officers to forego their increasing addiction to the power opiate of clever narratives and work to present full and balanced representations of the issues at hand.
--Keith Holcomb
.
============
.
When Marines are advanced to positions of senior leadership, it is an opportunity to help Country and Corps. It is also a supreme test of character. Lincoln said:
.
============
.
Nearly all men can stand adversity, but if you want to test a man's character, give him power.
--Abraham Lincoln
.
============
.
In a similar way, throughout his career, Eisenhower emphasized integrity.
.
============
.
The supreme quality for leadership is unquestionably integrity. Without it, no real success is possible, no matter whether it is on a section gang, a football field, in an army, or in an office.
--Dwight D. Eisenhower
.
============
.
If the military builds all the ships, planes, tanks, munitions, and equipment that are needed, and if the military finds all the service members that are needed, it will still all be for nothing without leaders of integrity. Compass Points salutes author and Marine Keith Holcomb for his fine article on the importance of senior officer integrity.
.
The military must have senior leaders of integrity. Can Marine Corps General Officers with integrity be found today? Yes, all Marines still value integrity. Unfortunately, while Marine Generals still value integrity, there has been too much sworn testimony, long on pastel platitudes, and short on plain facts.
.
The Marine Corps should be teeming with General Officers who are strong, skilled, and filled with integrity. Perhaps, in a different way, there are some new General Officers of integrity. How can we spot these new General Officers of integrity? Simple. These new, special, integrity filled, General Officers are located throughout the Corps. These special officers are rare and valuable, but they are not wearing stars -- not yet -- they are wearing Captains' bars and Majors' oak leaves.
.
- - - - -
.
Business Insider
See the 10 types of new US Navy warships plagued by shipbuilding delays
By Lauren Frias
https://www.businessinsider.com/new-us-navy-warships-delayed-photos-2024-4?op=1
.
- - - - -
.
American Military News - 12/25/2023
US military force at 80-year low, Pentagon urges ‘national call to service’
.
- - - - -
.
Real Clear Defense - 05/08/2024
Decline of Senior Officer Integrity and Civilian Control of the Military
By Keith T. Holcomb
Brigadier General Keith T. Holcomb, (U.S. Marine Corps, ret.), is a former USMC Fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies. His last assignment was as Director of the Training and Education Division, U.S. Marine Corps Combat Development Command.
BGen Holcomb’s article is exactly on point. It prompted a couple things. First, it prompted a review of my mental rolodex to identify those senior officers I know, or know of, on active duty that should be lauded for their integrity and encouraged to maintain their guard against the danger of compromise. Second, it jump-started a theme that I have been wrestling with for several years; an overdue philosophical and academic examination of how senior officer integrity is often compromised in this modern era. This post is my not-ready-for-prime-time academic endeavor, which may turn into another article someday.
This paragraph in BGen Holcomb’s piece especially caught my attention:
"Preparation for and experience in combat develops strong wills. Senior officers motivated by the desire to get the biggest possible piece of the pie for their services are tempted to dissemble to win the internecine budget and policy fights that are the lifeblood of official Washington. When these wills are not properly constrained by higher commitments to integrity and respect for the decision-making province of civilian authorities, generals and admirals can succumb to the temptation to deceive.
These deceptions can take many forms."
When one has a leadership discussion of senior officer integrity, it usually veers into the familiar territory of personal misconduct. “The Bathsheba Syndrome” is go-to PME material. The danger of ethical violations for personal enrichment, witting or unwitting, is a central theme of any commander’s course or general officer orientation.
The deceptions that BGen Holcomb references, however, are much more insidious, and because they have been defined as ethically acceptable and even desirable, are widely practiced among senior officers that are otherwise on guard against appearances of personal misconduct or self-enrichment. These officers were once Lieutenants, Captains and Majors who practiced the selfless leadership they learned at TBS, and understood that the culture within their platoons and companies defined their ability to accomplish the mission. Some of these officers were battalion commanders that demonstrated clear-headed judgment in the most arduous of conditions. What changed from those heady days?
The first factor we must acknowledge is rooted in fundamental leadership values. The Corps has always valued combat-hardened senior officers who could make the cold-blooded decisions to send hundreds of Marines to their certain death, guarding the success of the institution and the mission first. Generals Barrett and Vogel, circa Guadalcanal-1943 come to mind as officers who were reportedly relieved because they couldn’t see the big picture; they valued the welfare of their Marines over the bloody necessities of the mission. The best senior officers (Puller, Wilson, Gray) were able to balance hard combat decisions with genuine down-and-in troop welfare focus and the cultural integrity of their units. Senior officers today, however, seem to be taught to guard the institution at all costs, and to perpetuate any legal and ethical action or order to protect it.
The second factor is now taught in our senior schools, and compounds the idea that we abandon the fundamental tenets of leadership in favor of institutional preservation. The War Colleges repeat a phrase with the attending student Colonels: “What got you here, won’t get you there.” This phrase usually accompanies a discussion of Pentagon programmatic issues and service budgetary interests. The context is that the tactical leadership practices that made you successful up to battalion command will not help you in your new role as a strategic thinker in the halls of the Pentagon.
The above factors are neutral. Neither of these factors should be blamed for integrity compromises in our senior officers. They are both real issues that officers must grapple with as they refine their leadership techniques and move up through the ranks. Again, there are historical examples of general officers that did so masterfully.
Other factors, however, are not neutral. They combine to specifically incentivize the loss of integrity of officers who have been re-educated in these upward-focused values.
Messaging and Information Operations: During a past tumultuous time in our Corps, the Marine Corps chief of strategic communications repeatedly made it clear that public perception of the institution and its favored issues trumps reality and truth-telling. Period. Commstrat advice demonstrably supplanted the judgment of senior leaders of that time. This was 20 years ago, and this ethos has come to full flower of late. Messaging as a leadership ethic has insinuated its way into the otherwise common-sense calculus of our senior leaders’ judgment. When BGen Holcomb writes of obfuscation, half-truths, and ad-hominem attacks, CommStrat is the institutional root of these deceptions.
Service Interests and Tribal approval: “What got you here, won’t get you there.” The National Capital Region has specific values, language, and tribal customs. Those that learn to exhibit those values and speak the language are granted entry into the political tribe. Officers that measure the success of the Corps in budget dollars and NCR prestige are incentivized to gain entry into that tribe. Therefore, those that can speak in CommStrat generated one-liners and present a facade of authority are valued. Many gain their position and promotions based on these facades, whether they have the operational leadership experience to buttress their authority or not.
For those that once selflessly led Marines through combat from Lt through LtCol, the above factors contribute to a break from that TBS ethos in later years. Senior officers charged to guard the institution at all costs can make many personal rationalizations about the legal and ethical orders one carries out on behalf of that institution. The decisions become easier to rationalize when the legal and ethical framework has been redefined to permit falsehoods in support of CommStrat, and fealty to NCR values to maintain service equity in front of Congress. A leader might be able to sleep at night because he hasn’t engaged in personal misconduct, and any untruth he told is protected by the legal and ethical framework of the institution.
To be sure, some deceptions plaguing our modern Corps are practiced by senior officers who lack significant operational leadership experience since TBS and don’t know any better. Like Courtney Massengale, some careers are built on staff work and the ability to present well. Alarmingly, though, is when the deceptions are practiced by combat-proven officers who have been conditioned with the idea that their place is no longer to lead, but to advocate. In either case, these factors have combined to produce habits of deception that compromise our institutional integrity, abandon the intrusive leadership our Marines require, and threaten the ethos and existence of the Corps.
General Gray was famous for many things simultaneously. Stories of his intrusive leadership abound, his unrelenting demands upon subordinate leaders to intimately supervise everything from chow to barracks, his ability to obtain critical equipment for the Corps’ mission, his plain-speaking in the halls of Congress and the Pentagon, and his ability to make hard decisions that preserved the institution, its mission, and its unique place among the service branches.
Like Brute Krulak, he understood that America doesn’t need its Corps to do what the other services can already do, but it wants it--for its ethos, its unfailing alchemy, its integrity.
In my mental rolodex of those who refuse to compromise their integrity in the face of modern-era institutional advocacy are many who have recently left our active ranks. I hope some of their caliber remain. Anyone who thinks that guarding the institution includes becoming like everyone else in the NCR, following the “first-truth wins” messaging fallacy, and forgetting what the leadership culture of the Corps demands, is actually destroying it. America will one day decide it doesn’t want that kind of Marine Corps.
Well done to BGen Holcomb for not accusing anyone by name. Those who obfuscate and deceive know who they are - - and so does everyone else