Higher level of responsibility

The news carries a report that the Secretary of Defense has ordered a review to "find out why so many generals and admirals have become embroiled in legal and ethical problems."  Reports include allegations of sexual assault, misuse of public funds, gross leadership failure, and "creating a toxic work environment."

Those at the highest levels of military leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility.  The uniqueness of the military demands it.  On this, there is virtually no disagreement.  However, as practiced, lingering questions exist.

While not purporting to be an expert on the subject, during my military career I found some situations involving senior officers to be dealt with in strangely inconsistent ways, when compared to the discipline of the junior enlisted personnel.  A commanding officer who falsified travel claims and plans was removed, but then allowed to retire, without being disciplined.  A high ranking general involved in a physical relationship with an enlisted woman was allowed to retire, without being disciplined.  Allowing one to retire rather than face legal discipline is an option not offered/available to the Private First Class who violated the UCMJ.  Frankly, I don't accept the offered explanation that permitting senior officers to retire is in the interest of good order and discipline, and is "punishment enough."  Personally, I was part of the Board that dismissed a field grade officer due to adultery (fired...no retirement, no benefits).  Haven't heard of a general officer disciplined in the same manner. 

Putting together the review ordered by the Secretary of Defense and other occurrences leads me to wonder about the process for selecting flag officers (generals and admirals).  The exceptionally small population of flag officers is responsible for selecting the new members of the small club.  Are the best being selected?

Certainly politics play a large part in this selection process.  Those favorably  connected in political ways to those in "the club" -- current flag officers --  stand a much better chance of selection for flag rank than do those who are not similarly connected.  This connection extends to other aspects of the military career, such as selection for certain assignments.  In the Marine Corps, certain assignments are critical in the grooming of officers for competition for selection to general, most notably command.  With fewer command opportunities than aspirants, selection for command is highly competitive and limiting at the same time.  Without command at the lieutenant colonel and colonel levels, selection for promotion to brigadier general is almost nil.  And who controls the selection and assignment process?  The current crop of general officers.  So, by extension, those in "the club" are controlling who will compete to join "the club."  Likewise, it is the membership of the "the club" that selects those for entry.  Sounds like fraternity/sorority rush doesn't it?

How does the above fit together and relate to the news article?  If senior officers are not held to higher standards, why?  If the number of generals and admirals facing legal and ethical issues is a concern (and it is), are we selecting the right officers?  Are the rumored issues involving flag officers being swept under the rug true?  Is the "club" protecting its own?

Certainly, during my career there were officers selected for flag rank that didn't rate it in my opinion, just as well deserving officers were passed over.  Incompetence trumped war fighting capability, integrity, military skills, and proven leadership.  Politics over substance.  Again, in my opinion.  And it should not be forgotten that the precepts for the selection boards are approved, if not directed, by the civilian leadership, those appointed by POTUS.  Thus, depending on the way the political winds are blowing, certain categories of officers are placed at the head of the line for flag rank.  These, of course, are just my opinions.

If, however, the recent news is an indication of a problem (and it is), then the military and its civilian leadership must be held to a higher level of responsibility.  First, vigorous prosecution of those accused of crimes under the UCMJ  (Uniform Code of Military Justice), unfettered or restrained by political concerns - a crime is a crime.  Second, internal review of the selection process within each service.  Only those best qualified must be accorded the unique recognition of future capability that is provided by selection for flag rank.  And once selected, all flag officers must be held to the highest possible standards and levels of responsibility.  And not in word only.

The men and women in uniform and our nation deserve nothing less.