I think this observation is correct. What are your thoughts?

COL Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 22:53:10 -0400

https://medium.com/@JamesWWeirick/the-eroding-ethics-of-senior-military-officers-john-r-allen-184d17f7e058

The Eroding Ethics Of Senior Military Officers: John R. Allen

Ethics are “moral principles that govern a person’s or group’s behavior.” In the Marine Corps we are guided by our core …

Response by LTC Kevin B. made Oct 15 at 2015 11:05 PM

LTC Kevin B. — Thu, 15 Oct 2015 23:05:00 -0400

One retired O-5 bashes a retired General, and then generalizes his opinion on that General to other seniors officers? I don't think so. That's flimsy and insufficient evidence. He goes even less deep into the others. How does this compare to previous generations? He left that untouched.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Oct 16 at 2015 2:36 AM

Capt Seid Waddell — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 02:36:14 -0400

"Over the past few years, senior military officials, both active and retired have abandoned a principled adherence to honesty." – O.P.

I believe that this is an occupational hazard when military leaders take orders from corrupt civilians that are in power at the moment; a choice must be made between one's integrity and the imperative of following lawful orders. Man cannot serve two masters.

An honest leader cannot enforce PC policies and still be an effective leader defending the nation's security. Being forced into the position of either compromising one's integrity by following orders known to be destructive to the mission and the force, or disobeying lawful orders, will over time corrupt the conscience of any that remain in their positions of command.

I think that too many today have compromised their ethics by trying to serve both masters at the same time. I hardly recognize the military today from some of the decisions I see made at all levels.

Major Nidal Hasan is a case in point. He had given plenty of warnings over the year or two leading up to his shooting of fellow soldiers that his loyalties were suspect, and fellow officers were aware of his disloyalties.

"An Army major behind the murders of 13 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, expressed sympathy for suicide bombers and support for terrorists waging war against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Hasan also was vocal in his opposition to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and praised Muslims who attacked US troops in the US, according to Colonel Terry Lee (Retired), a former coworker who served with Hasan at the Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, DC."

Was he allowed to remain in the military out of PC considerations? In my day I saw officers discharged for far less than what Maj. Hasan said and did. What kind of integrity did his command structure show?

We don't even need to get into the fact of those that went along with declaring the incident to be an act of "workplace violence" in order to avoid calling it a terrorist attack on this administration's watch.

http://www.longwarjournal.org/archives/2009/11/muslim_army_major_be.php

US Army major behind Fort Hood murders expressed sympathy for Islamic terrorists | The Long War...

Major Nidal Malik Hasan. An Army major behind the murders of 13 US soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, expressed sympathy for suicide bombers and support for terrorists waging war against US forces in Iraq and Afghanistan. Police shot and wounded Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a psychiatrist, after he went on a killing spree outside a readiness center for troops preparing to deploy to Iraq. Hasan, a Muslim American, opened fire with handguns on soldiers...

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 3:34 AM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 03:34:26 -0400

Why do men who have served with distinction lose their way?
There is an old proverb that power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
I think that in many cases, an air of invincibility settles in. These men are confident, they have achieved at every level, and they are in charge of vast amounts of firepower and manpower. Who is going to question them?
In my mind, the traditional check is the Command Sergeant Major, who among other things serves as the conscience of the command team. Where are they in all this? Notably silent.

Response by LCDR Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 16 at 2015 8:32 AM

LCDR Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 16 Oct 2015 08:32:26 -0400

Sir-I cannot imagine the gravity of decisions made at the general officer level-but I can assume from my own limited experiences that "getting things done" and "being a person of integrity" likely often conflict.

We don't live in the 18th century any longer when society rigidly espoused these higher principles-Our Soldiers, Airmen, Sailors and Marines are being asked to do their jobs in an ambiguous soup of denial, lack-luster commitment, and politically driven negligence. No wonder from O-1 to four stars, officers find it difficult to serve both the national command authority and their personnel.

Personally, I find it revolting that society has a skewed sense of morality-An entertainer or athlete can be debauched, abuse substances, show extreme promiscuity...and make a fortune; meanwhile, someone who is responsible for the lives of service-members, and national defense falls under immense moral scrutiny. Infidelity and dishonesty repulse me-but we all know what military culture is about, and the pit-falls presented.

An RP member posted a great story today about a WWII aircrew's exploits-Imagine what would happen to that aircraft commander in "today's Air Force"? Instead of receiving honors, he would've been charged with dereliction of duty for risking his plane and crew. Instead of being called a hero, he would've been denigrated for allowing a subordinate to show "lack of cultural sensitivity" after ripping an enemy officer's rank off his sleeve. Are we really so naive as to believe that the sort of officers and men who could take a B-24 and turn it into a four-engine fighter over the Atlantic aren't the sort who drink hard, fight, curse and probably chase skirts?

Don't misunderstand me-An officer enjoys great status and benefit which should accompany exceedingly high moral standards. However, a quick study of history will show that the most successful military commanders were, at the very least, not above "bending" the rules to win. I'll never forget the opening speech presented by a senior officer...He asked how many of us new officers had illegal radar detection devices in our vehicles (illegal in that state at the time). Most of us who did, raised our hands, figuring that was "it". Instead of taking names and assigning penalty, that officer said, "Good! Evading State Troopers is good training for future NFOs and Aviators!".

Silly, even irresponsible...right?

I don't recall anyone in that class getting a DUI or a speeding ticket. The gravity of the responsibility and personal accountability in being given that "Special Trust and Confidence" compelled us to act in accordance with principle...not fear of retribution.

Perhaps we don't apply an economy of scale when it comes to ethics...at the senior OR subordinate level. Is a general officer who divulges classified information to "spice up" a story on the same level as a special operations commander who gets romantically involved with a reporter in a combat zone while going through a divorce? Is an NCO who doesn't fall in line with "EO" policy as guilty as a regimental commander who fails to report his boss's substance abuse? How can we ask young officers who are ordered to abandon LN allies if contact is made to value "integrity" when applied to the personal level? If we espouse "Zero Tolerance"...aren't we sending the message that "all sins are equal", and therefore equally "excusable" if you don't get caught?