https://www.strategypage.com/htmw/htlead/20141112.aspx



*Leadership: The Corrupt Atmosphere of Political Correctness And Zero
Tolerance*



November 12, 2014: The U.S. Navy is undergoing an embarrassing situation as
a growing number of senior officers are being investigated in a widespread
corruption scandal. This involves a civilian firm, GDMA (Glenn Defense
Marine Asia) which, for over a decade, used corrupt navy officers and
officials to obtain contracts (to supply and service navy ships in foreign
ports throughout the Pacific) and overcharge the navy for these services.
GDMA got away with this by getting officials involved with investigations
to alert GDMA if auditors were close to discovering a specific GDMA scam
and GDMA would clean up their records to survive the audit. This began to
fall apart in 2010 when investigators finally got hints that something was
going on. In late 2013 the investigation was revealed and indictments
began. At the same time more senior officers were identified as under
investigation. That, in turn, led to some strange side-effects. Two of
those identified as being investigated a year ago were the head of Naval
Intelligence and his deputy. These two are still “under investigation” but
not charged. When the navy was told these two were being looked at the
Justice Department said it would charge them or drop the investigation
within a few weeks. But now, a year later, the two officers are still
“under investigation” and still in their jobs. The problem is that when you
are “under investigation” your security clearance is suspended. For the
head of Naval Intelligence this is a serious problem, since most of the
materials the senior people in Naval Intelligence work with require a
security clearance to look at. The navy refuses to comment on the matter.
Thus there is no explanation as to why the two officers were not
temporarily reassigned until they got their security clearances back and
why the navy is allowing its intelligence branch to be crippled by the
inaction of senior navy commanders. Corruption like this has also been
showing up in the air force and army. That and the timid senior leadership
are both symptoms of a larger problem.

Since the end of the Cold War the American military has undergone a decline
in the quality of its senior leadership. This has manifested itself in many
ways. For example there were all those opinion surveys of lower and
mid-rank officers who said they were leaving the military because they had
no confidence in the character or ability of their superiors. Thus the
current GDMA scandal and gridlock inside Naval Intelligence does not
surprise many lower ranking sailors, or former navy officers who left
because of this sort of thing.

The primary manifestations of this decline in leadership has been the
spread of political correctness and the policy of “zero tolerance” among
officers. Many young officers feel the navy as a whole has become more
obsessed with political correctness and zero tolerance thinking than in
actually getting ready for combat and looking after their subordinates.
Senior leadership was dismayed to discover that this has been destroying
morale and team spirit in the lower officer and enlisted ranks. The senior
commanders imposed these morale-busting measures because of political
pressure from above and the politicians have no sympathy for commanders who
can’t order their unhappy subordinates to just carry on. All that just
feeds into another problem. The military, especially the navy, is very
picky about who its lets join and the average sailor and naval officer is
smarter, healthier and a better worker than their civilian counterparts.
Thus these navy personnel always have an easier time getting jobs,
especially when the economy is picking up. Sensing that the navy is all
about “efficient administration” rather than preparing for combat, a
growing number of the people the navy wants to keep are getting out and
taking a civilian job. This seems more and more appealing and the senior
leadership has been unable to deal with it. All this has created an
atmosphere of distrust among junior officers, who see senior navy
leadership as very flawed.

The "zero tolerance" atmosphere that has permeated the navy since the end
of the Cold War has led to some really harmful practices. For examples
officers are often directed to take direct control of supervisory duties
the chiefs (Chief Petty Officers) used to handle. This deprived the navy of
the experience and management skills of these senior NCOs while
demoralizing junior officers and chiefs alike.

Another big problem with the "zero tolerance" policy is that one mistake
can destroy a career. This was not the case in the past. Many of the
outstanding admirals of World War II would have never survived in today's
navy. For example, Bill "Bull" Halsey ran his destroyer aground during
World War I, but his career survived the incident. That is no longer the
case. It's also well to remember that, once World War II began, there was a
massive removal of peacetime commanders from ships. The peacetime
evaluation system selected officers who were well qualified to command
ships in peacetime but not in wartime. There was a similar pattern with
admirals. The latest mess with GDMA tells lots of sailors and officers that
not much progress has been made in dealing with the rot.

*Meanwhile the army, which has seen a lot more combat since 2001 than the
air force or navy, is also having problems with political correctness. This
was most obvious when army doctor Nidal Malik Hasan got away with
committing an act of Islamic terrorism because of political correctness.
Major Nidal Malik Hasan's murder of 13 people at Fort Hood on November 5th
2009 was the act of an Islamic terrorist. But the U.S. government initially
tried to explain it as just the act of a lone madman and call it workplace
violence, not Islamic terrorism. Of course this is what terrorist attacks
often are; acts of loners and carried out at work. Meanwhile the
investigation of Hasan revealed that he had not made a secret of his
beliefs and that many of his peers, subordinates and superiors had
complained about Hasan's Islamic radical beliefs. But nothing was done
because of political correctness. *

The army responded to all this by deciding to punish nine officers for not
doing anything about a terrorist in their midst. There was a problem with
this in that the army said it was going to hold accountable the officers
who were in a position to do something about Hasan, before he killed 13
people. But none of the nine officers targeted were generals, and those
punished received, at worst, a letter of reprimand. This hurt their chances
of promotion but not much else. The officers that created and tolerated the
atmosphere of political correctness that led to Hasan acting on his Islamic
terrorist attitudes were never even mentioned.

The army did little to change the atmosphere of political correctness that
underpinned most of the bad decisions that enabled Hasan to stay in
uniform, and even get promoted. In the army, as in any large organization,
all the rules are not written down. In the army, many of the unwritten
rules come in the form of "the commanders' intent." Sometimes this "intent"
is spelled out, but in many cases, subordinate commanders have to figure it
out. In the Hasan case, the commanders' intent was that Moslem officers,
especially doctors, are to be kept happy and in uniform. When in doubt,
look the other way, and hope for the best. In the case of Hasan, no one
expected the guy to turn into a mass murderer. But, then, Hasan's superiors
were encouraged to be optimistic about their Moslem problem child. So
Hasan's radical rants and abusive behavior towards non-Moslems was, if not
ignored, then played down.

After the murders Hasan was prosecuted. By mid-2013 Hasan was convicted of
murder and sentenced to death. But he will be around for a while as his
legal appeals make their way through the courts. Meanwhile Hasan has
praised ISIL (al Qaeda in Iraq and Syria) and has asked for ISIL to declare
him a citizen of their new Islamic State.

So the commanders who followed the commanders' intent regarding Hasan got
letters of reprimand for going along with the program, and being unlucky.
While raises the question. What about the other Hasans? Is Major Nidal
Malik Hasan the only Moslem who got a pass because of commanders’ intent?
Do you think chastising nine officers is going to solve the problem? To a
certain extent it is. Because of Hasan, the commanders’ intent regarding
Moslem officers has been modified. If there's a chance a Moslem officer
might be a mass murderer, there should at least be discussions about
possibly taking action.

What many in the military are seeing is the spread of corruption among
senior officers who use political correctness and zero tolerance has an
excuse for bad behavior and an excuse to avoid doing nothing about the
problem. It’s a toxic environment that benefits no one.




__._,_.___
 ------------------------------
Posted by: "beowulf" <[email protected]>
------------------------------


 Visit Your Group
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/grendelreport/info;_ylc=X3oDMTJmMzRjM2gyBF9TAzk3MzU5NzE0BGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDdnRsBHNsawN2Z2hwBHN0aW1lAzE0MTU5OTQ1NDQ->


 [image: Yahoo! Groups]
<https://groups.yahoo.com/neo;_ylc=X3oDMTJlYTdvYjJvBF9TAzk3NDc2NTkwBGdycElkAzIwMTk0ODA2BGdycHNwSWQDMTcwNTMyMzY2NwRzZWMDZnRyBHNsawNnZnAEc3RpbWUDMTQxNTk5NDU0NA-->
• Privacy <https://info.yahoo.com/privacy/us/yahoo/groups/details.html> •
Unsubscribe <[email protected]?subject=Unsubscribe>
• Terms of Use <https://info.yahoo.com/legal/us/yahoo/utos/terms/>

__,_._,___

-- 
-- 
Thanks for being part of "PoliticalForum" at Google Groups.
For options & help see http://groups.google.com/group/PoliticalForum

* Visit our other community at http://www.PoliticalForum.com/  
* It's active and moderated. Register and vote in our polls. 
* Read the latest breaking news, and more.

--- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"PoliticalForum" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

Reply via email to