Posted on Mar 20, 2016
Why are Army leaders failing so abysmally to implement a successful SHARP?
41K
177
75
29
29
0
The bottom line is that a very small percentage of victims trust their chain-of-command enough to report a SHARP violation. Furthermore, when victims actually do report an incident, they are further victimized by the reprisal they experience by their chain-of-command, as 62% of victims report receiving reprisal from their chain-of-command after they file a report. Why are we failing our Soldiers?
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 41
CPT (Join to see) In 1973, I arrived at Fort Hood having just finished basic and AIT. Those were troubled times racially, but we always seemed to have MORE trouble right after one of the interminable race relations briefings.
There's almost nothing that can't be screwed up, once people are involved. Simple example is the Communist slogan, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." It's great, until people get in the way, and NO ONE produces according to their ability without something extra from themselves, and EVERYONE wants more than they need.
And we can get more modern with Hillary saying that in the case of assault, the woman should be believed. And yet that doesn't apply to Paula Jones and the other women molested by Slick Willie.
Some women want to be fully integrated into the military; treated so that their sex is immaterial. And that's not a bad thing to hope for. But two people go out drinking. They wake up the next morning in bed. Suddenly the stories are different. The woman was taken advantage of. The guy thought she was making a play for him. Who is right and who is at fault?
Our sexual harassment briefings often show a woman falling down drunk, and put the onus on a man to see she gets safely to bed. Are women so weak and unintelligent that they need a minder when they go out drinking?
There's also the "sexual revolution" that has been going on since the 60's, so long that almost no servicemembers today were alive when it started. The basic premise is that going to bed is no different that shaking hands. "If it feels good, do it!" (And no, I'm not claiming to have been perfect. I have been falling down drunk, and I've had one night stands. The thing is, if that's the NORM, and gender doesn't matter, then it's the NORM for women too.)
The simple truth is that going out and getting falling down drunk is a really STUPID thing to do, regardless of your sex. But that's what many of our servicemembers choose to do with their off time. And drunk servicemembers do really stupid things that cause them to spend a night in jail and spend the next few months on extra duty. How did this situation become something different just because women wanted to get in on the fun?
We have a strange culture. On St Patrick's Day, you can wear funny clothes, stick a leprechaun's pipe in your mouth, get falling down drunk, and everyone laughs. If you try that on Cinco de Mayo, wearing a Frito Bandito moustache, you are a racist. There are people who are convinced that the Stars and Bars means the holder favors slavery, and others who think it mourns the loss of State's Rights and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. We tell Aggie jokes, and dead baby jokes, and Polack jokes, and Ethiopian jokes - at what point does that cease to be fun and become racist? NCOs say, " Don't call me Sir! I work for a living!", and officers say, "Don't call me Sergeant! I have a college education!" Are those discriminatory or just good, clean fun?
I don't think reprisals are a good response, but I can't help wondering as the commander must wonder, if this is a case of rape or buyer's remorse. There's an old saying, "No one was ever raped on an upper bunk." What that means is that unless their is bruising or some other damage, its hard to determine which story is the true one. One thing I am sure of. Equality must come with thicker skins, or it isn't about equality.
I do not have a solution. But I don't think we can say, "boys will be boys", when it's the guys going out and getting stupid, and then make it a federal crime when a girl goes along. I think women are smart enough to have a dedicated driver, and to make sure a trustworthy female friend goes with them when they are going to drink. And I think we need swift investigation of allegations, and investigators who know when to say, "I cannot judge between the two stories. Both are at least partially at fault."
There's almost nothing that can't be screwed up, once people are involved. Simple example is the Communist slogan, "From each according to his ability; to each according to his need." It's great, until people get in the way, and NO ONE produces according to their ability without something extra from themselves, and EVERYONE wants more than they need.
And we can get more modern with Hillary saying that in the case of assault, the woman should be believed. And yet that doesn't apply to Paula Jones and the other women molested by Slick Willie.
Some women want to be fully integrated into the military; treated so that their sex is immaterial. And that's not a bad thing to hope for. But two people go out drinking. They wake up the next morning in bed. Suddenly the stories are different. The woman was taken advantage of. The guy thought she was making a play for him. Who is right and who is at fault?
Our sexual harassment briefings often show a woman falling down drunk, and put the onus on a man to see she gets safely to bed. Are women so weak and unintelligent that they need a minder when they go out drinking?
There's also the "sexual revolution" that has been going on since the 60's, so long that almost no servicemembers today were alive when it started. The basic premise is that going to bed is no different that shaking hands. "If it feels good, do it!" (And no, I'm not claiming to have been perfect. I have been falling down drunk, and I've had one night stands. The thing is, if that's the NORM, and gender doesn't matter, then it's the NORM for women too.)
The simple truth is that going out and getting falling down drunk is a really STUPID thing to do, regardless of your sex. But that's what many of our servicemembers choose to do with their off time. And drunk servicemembers do really stupid things that cause them to spend a night in jail and spend the next few months on extra duty. How did this situation become something different just because women wanted to get in on the fun?
We have a strange culture. On St Patrick's Day, you can wear funny clothes, stick a leprechaun's pipe in your mouth, get falling down drunk, and everyone laughs. If you try that on Cinco de Mayo, wearing a Frito Bandito moustache, you are a racist. There are people who are convinced that the Stars and Bars means the holder favors slavery, and others who think it mourns the loss of State's Rights and the 10th Amendment to the Constitution. We tell Aggie jokes, and dead baby jokes, and Polack jokes, and Ethiopian jokes - at what point does that cease to be fun and become racist? NCOs say, " Don't call me Sir! I work for a living!", and officers say, "Don't call me Sergeant! I have a college education!" Are those discriminatory or just good, clean fun?
I don't think reprisals are a good response, but I can't help wondering as the commander must wonder, if this is a case of rape or buyer's remorse. There's an old saying, "No one was ever raped on an upper bunk." What that means is that unless their is bruising or some other damage, its hard to determine which story is the true one. One thing I am sure of. Equality must come with thicker skins, or it isn't about equality.
I do not have a solution. But I don't think we can say, "boys will be boys", when it's the guys going out and getting stupid, and then make it a federal crime when a girl goes along. I think women are smart enough to have a dedicated driver, and to make sure a trustworthy female friend goes with them when they are going to drink. And I think we need swift investigation of allegations, and investigators who know when to say, "I cannot judge between the two stories. Both are at least partially at fault."
(2)
(0)
Philosophically I agree with SSgt (Join to see). In these types of questions I always try to think of demographic data and how that would be tied in. Each year we recruit ~60,000 new Soldiers in the total Army. Most of them kids out of high school or from a college campus (slightly more mature).
A 1-2 hour powerpoint semiannually or quarterly will not change how the human body and psychology operates. I'll speak for men as I am one: 900,000+ years of evolution has dictated the animal instincts of how human mating happens. That isn't changed with a power point. A modern civilization such as ours is still owned and operated by people who, on an evolutionary scale, are a shade above neanderthal.
Anyway, we know better because our mothers raised us so. Instead of cave manning our way to the win ...when we see something we want we try to engineer a situation to get it. In proper engineering a date, flowers, chocolate, chivalry, time, and all the good things that go into good human relations happens. In bad engineering alcohol (or rank or whatever) is poured into the mix and its forced.
I'm going to guess as every year we add 60,000 new Soldiers to the force NOT All OF THEM will be the best of social engineers. In my SHARP style training I try to name and call out this type of behavior. Prevent bad things from happening by recognizing that you (or your buddies) are poorly engineering a situation.
Preserve human dignity, SHARP will never replace damn good leadership.
A 1-2 hour powerpoint semiannually or quarterly will not change how the human body and psychology operates. I'll speak for men as I am one: 900,000+ years of evolution has dictated the animal instincts of how human mating happens. That isn't changed with a power point. A modern civilization such as ours is still owned and operated by people who, on an evolutionary scale, are a shade above neanderthal.
Anyway, we know better because our mothers raised us so. Instead of cave manning our way to the win ...when we see something we want we try to engineer a situation to get it. In proper engineering a date, flowers, chocolate, chivalry, time, and all the good things that go into good human relations happens. In bad engineering alcohol (or rank or whatever) is poured into the mix and its forced.
I'm going to guess as every year we add 60,000 new Soldiers to the force NOT All OF THEM will be the best of social engineers. In my SHARP style training I try to name and call out this type of behavior. Prevent bad things from happening by recognizing that you (or your buddies) are poorly engineering a situation.
Preserve human dignity, SHARP will never replace damn good leadership.
(2)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Sounds like you give a SH$% but the key is making sure your NCO core is on-track and in sync. The time to catch those troops with the "bad engineering skills" is sooner than later. The only way I found that happened when sat down with them and talked "the eaches" and mapped COAs. Time consuming? Yes, but better than getting a leadership problem that sucks the life out of you command. This is one issue I see coming up here at HRC that a little "pro-active leadership" would have prevented a crisis and generated a "teachable moment".
(0)
(0)
What is your definition of "abysmally" failing? In the last two years, I've dealt with three SHARP cases which were investigated fully by CID after the victims came forth and all victims were treated with dignity and respect. Good leaders make the difference and based on purely personal observations, I have to disagree with us leaders failing our Soldiers.
(2)
(0)
CPT (Join to see)
MAJ (Join to see)
Sir, my definition is based on the small percentage of victims who are willing to report SHARP violations to their chain-of-command, and the high percentage of victims who report reprisal. It is also based on how I have observed senior leaders handle SHARP cases. Unfortunately, I think that your unit far excels the Army as a whole when it comes to good command climate.
Sir, my definition is based on the small percentage of victims who are willing to report SHARP violations to their chain-of-command, and the high percentage of victims who report reprisal. It is also based on how I have observed senior leaders handle SHARP cases. Unfortunately, I think that your unit far excels the Army as a whole when it comes to good command climate.
(0)
(0)

Suspended Profile
Your metric is flawed, LT. A successful SHARP program will lead to ZERO cases...what will you do then to measure its success?
Thanks for raising this question which still has not been adequately answered, even tho I believe for the most part, the services are sincere in eliminating this horrible problem which has existed since the beginning of time no doubt. If one reads the various report from DOD to Congress they paint a fairly rosy picture of progress being made on all levels. Yet there are still disturbing reports on the other hand of less than satisfactory progress. Depends on who you want ot believe. Speaking out may be the most powerful way to put a lie to the rosy reports and make people recognize the truth where it lies.
(2)
(0)
My cynical side tells me it's because people know when they're being BS'd.
We can all generally agree on two things: sexual harassment = BAD; sexual assault = VERY BAD.
So where do we go from there? The Army has chosen to conduct regular blocks of training that may or may not (I think not) do anything about the problem. After an overview of what constitutes harassment and what constitutes assault, focusing on the areas that might lack fidelity ("what exactly is "quid pro quo?"; "she was drunk, so she didn't say 'no'!), we're done with training, and are now in the penalty phase.
Commanders and other leaders have to create climates that don't allow the conditions amenable to harassment and assault to fester and grow, but seriously, no one but no one thinks rape is okay, and if they do, an hour block of instruction won't fix that.
We can all generally agree on two things: sexual harassment = BAD; sexual assault = VERY BAD.
So where do we go from there? The Army has chosen to conduct regular blocks of training that may or may not (I think not) do anything about the problem. After an overview of what constitutes harassment and what constitutes assault, focusing on the areas that might lack fidelity ("what exactly is "quid pro quo?"; "she was drunk, so she didn't say 'no'!), we're done with training, and are now in the penalty phase.
Commanders and other leaders have to create climates that don't allow the conditions amenable to harassment and assault to fester and grow, but seriously, no one but no one thinks rape is okay, and if they do, an hour block of instruction won't fix that.
(2)
(0)
Like everything else I see in today's military, SHARP is "Band-Aid program" that fails to get to the heart of the issue. I have been accused of being a "knuckle dragging Neanderthal" and an old school officer out of the stone age, but I see even the need for a SHARP program as pathetic attempt to paper over several social engineering attempts forced upon the US military while it is trying to fight a GWOT. Actually the problem goes way before 9/11 but the solution has been and still is LEADERSHIP down to the individual fire team, The Army Values, and the Warrior Ethos.
Now, in full disclosure, I have been involved in raising four daughters (adopted and step) and I see no reason why men and women can not serve side by side. I say involved because, face it men, it takes a Dad's love to raise a wholesome and empowered woman....but they need a lot of a Mother's instruction and modeling to round them out and make them effective powerful people. Frankly, most young women today are still defining who and what they are....and what they want. They are told they can have it all and that men are not necessary. But at the same time their hearts, minds and perhaps body is at odds to those messages. I for one can see women in combat roles so long as the meet realistic standards that have not been watered down for political purposes. BUT is this what they really want...or is it the fact that the opportunity exists should they so choose?
At the same time, I see a generation of young men who are confused and full of misconceptions as to what a man is and is not. You can blame liberalism, feminism, the breakdown of the family, forty years of failed liberal policies, the rise of gangs & gangsta music, the decline of religious teachings and morals, of our subpar educational system, unlimited access to porn and the list goes on. But once you step outside of Christian-Judah ethics and roles the role of a man in society is very much in flux. Women for some men are to be objectified and to be manipulated for sexual and emotional use and abuse. On the flip side is the new castrati who milk toast for most woman.
All this is a cauldron stew for a major clash of the sexes. BUT THE FACT REMAINS the whole society has been in turmoil since the late 1960's to the present. We have "collectively" lost the ability to see beyond ourselves and respect others as individuals. Then when you throw in the military environment where there are the inherent pressures of rank, chain of command, missions and life-death situations...are we expecting too much of everyone?
Yes and No....By my definition "Sexual Assault" is at its core is the word "assault" which the total disregard of the individual. The assailant does not care about the other person and possibly does not see them as a person. Rather they see them as a means to an end...be it sexual gratification, power or something else. If YOU as a commander or senior NCO are not fostering an environment where every individual in your organization is respected, valued and validated, you fail as a leader or commander. Look in the mirror and I think you will agree. As a Band-Aid, SHARP is trying to force feed sensitivity and awareness on an organization whose mission is to kill people and destroy things of our enemies. But it is the leadership team of your organization that has to provide the backbone and support to that sensitivity and awareness. Actions, not works can only accomplish that.
AND YES ... I was born in the 50's so what do you expect...my perceptions are those of an "old man" who grew up with "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" and has no idea what is going on....yea...Right!
Now, in full disclosure, I have been involved in raising four daughters (adopted and step) and I see no reason why men and women can not serve side by side. I say involved because, face it men, it takes a Dad's love to raise a wholesome and empowered woman....but they need a lot of a Mother's instruction and modeling to round them out and make them effective powerful people. Frankly, most young women today are still defining who and what they are....and what they want. They are told they can have it all and that men are not necessary. But at the same time their hearts, minds and perhaps body is at odds to those messages. I for one can see women in combat roles so long as the meet realistic standards that have not been watered down for political purposes. BUT is this what they really want...or is it the fact that the opportunity exists should they so choose?
At the same time, I see a generation of young men who are confused and full of misconceptions as to what a man is and is not. You can blame liberalism, feminism, the breakdown of the family, forty years of failed liberal policies, the rise of gangs & gangsta music, the decline of religious teachings and morals, of our subpar educational system, unlimited access to porn and the list goes on. But once you step outside of Christian-Judah ethics and roles the role of a man in society is very much in flux. Women for some men are to be objectified and to be manipulated for sexual and emotional use and abuse. On the flip side is the new castrati who milk toast for most woman.
All this is a cauldron stew for a major clash of the sexes. BUT THE FACT REMAINS the whole society has been in turmoil since the late 1960's to the present. We have "collectively" lost the ability to see beyond ourselves and respect others as individuals. Then when you throw in the military environment where there are the inherent pressures of rank, chain of command, missions and life-death situations...are we expecting too much of everyone?
Yes and No....By my definition "Sexual Assault" is at its core is the word "assault" which the total disregard of the individual. The assailant does not care about the other person and possibly does not see them as a person. Rather they see them as a means to an end...be it sexual gratification, power or something else. If YOU as a commander or senior NCO are not fostering an environment where every individual in your organization is respected, valued and validated, you fail as a leader or commander. Look in the mirror and I think you will agree. As a Band-Aid, SHARP is trying to force feed sensitivity and awareness on an organization whose mission is to kill people and destroy things of our enemies. But it is the leadership team of your organization that has to provide the backbone and support to that sensitivity and awareness. Actions, not works can only accomplish that.
AND YES ... I was born in the 50's so what do you expect...my perceptions are those of an "old man" who grew up with "Leave It To Beaver" and "Father Knows Best" and has no idea what is going on....yea...Right!
(2)
(0)
OPINION:
62% of victims reporting receive reprisal...what % of those actually are victims. There are deeper stories here. Do I believe there is sexual harassment in the military yes. Do I believe it is wrong yes. But how many guys report the fact that they were also drunk the night they had a one night stand that wasn't super awesome. I believe this is a one sided sword that yes there are some victims but I believe there are also fake victims. I believe the reprisal may actually be punishment for false reporting. punishment for and against is very hard. If you report and you were a victim then you have to be a witness against the other person. If you aren't a victim and you accuse someone that person has to defend against a heavy handed anti sexual harassment Army.
Then we get into what I call "No Good Witness" ("NGW") as a victim your past is slightly protected however if you were sleeping with 5 guys(or girls) in one night and the fourth guy(or girl) you were too sure about...kind of hard to make a great case.
62% of victims reporting receive reprisal...what % of those actually are victims. There are deeper stories here. Do I believe there is sexual harassment in the military yes. Do I believe it is wrong yes. But how many guys report the fact that they were also drunk the night they had a one night stand that wasn't super awesome. I believe this is a one sided sword that yes there are some victims but I believe there are also fake victims. I believe the reprisal may actually be punishment for false reporting. punishment for and against is very hard. If you report and you were a victim then you have to be a witness against the other person. If you aren't a victim and you accuse someone that person has to defend against a heavy handed anti sexual harassment Army.
Then we get into what I call "No Good Witness" ("NGW") as a victim your past is slightly protected however if you were sleeping with 5 guys(or girls) in one night and the fourth guy(or girl) you were too sure about...kind of hard to make a great case.
(2)
(0)
LTC Thomas Tennant
Someone voted you down but I see it was because of how you said what you said.
Your central (and unpopular) point is no one is "effectively" addressing false reporting of a SHARP incident. Often when they do it, any action taken is perceived as retaliation or a reprisal. Net result is there are times the "victim" is really the aggressor/perpetrator but often that is impossible to prove. Net result is the "accused" is damage and the "victim" never faces any consequences.
Life is not fair and to be honest there are no pure "victims" in your perception. Maybe it is because I read Proverbs every day, but even if the "accused" did nothing, the fact is they failed to act with discretion at some point of the interaction or were operating as a fool and not assessing the 2nd & 3rd order of effects of the situation and their actions.
An Example of what I mean....I had to deal with an investigation where the young captain foolishly failed to call for support when dealing with a very drunk and disorderly young enlisted woman. Had he called for help from another Soldier (preferably female) what was an clear AR-15 for the young Soldier would not have degenerated into a SHARP incident. She was in no danger and he should have left her in her puke on the sidewalk near her billets and called the SDO (No CQ to be found and another AR 15 story).
Bottom Line: I had to issue a local letter of reprimand to the captain for "judgment" and vacate the company AR-15 on the young "lady." The CSM moved her out of the unit to a sister battalion but the damage was done. The BDE CDR later had to relive an otherwise good officer for failure to maintain "good order and discipline" within his unit. Oh by the way...her allegations were not substantiated.
But you get my point. Once a SHARP complaint is filed the damage is done. There is always a lapse of judgment or discursion .
Your central (and unpopular) point is no one is "effectively" addressing false reporting of a SHARP incident. Often when they do it, any action taken is perceived as retaliation or a reprisal. Net result is there are times the "victim" is really the aggressor/perpetrator but often that is impossible to prove. Net result is the "accused" is damage and the "victim" never faces any consequences.
Life is not fair and to be honest there are no pure "victims" in your perception. Maybe it is because I read Proverbs every day, but even if the "accused" did nothing, the fact is they failed to act with discretion at some point of the interaction or were operating as a fool and not assessing the 2nd & 3rd order of effects of the situation and their actions.
An Example of what I mean....I had to deal with an investigation where the young captain foolishly failed to call for support when dealing with a very drunk and disorderly young enlisted woman. Had he called for help from another Soldier (preferably female) what was an clear AR-15 for the young Soldier would not have degenerated into a SHARP incident. She was in no danger and he should have left her in her puke on the sidewalk near her billets and called the SDO (No CQ to be found and another AR 15 story).
Bottom Line: I had to issue a local letter of reprimand to the captain for "judgment" and vacate the company AR-15 on the young "lady." The CSM moved her out of the unit to a sister battalion but the damage was done. The BDE CDR later had to relive an otherwise good officer for failure to maintain "good order and discipline" within his unit. Oh by the way...her allegations were not substantiated.
But you get my point. Once a SHARP complaint is filed the damage is done. There is always a lapse of judgment or discursion .
(0)
(0)
SSG Richard Reilly
LTC Thomas Tennant - I don't see the down vote and really doesn't sway my opinion. I dealt with a lot of "reports" and when it turned out to be false we did punish them with a reprimand or something which may count as reprisal.
Reporting and findings of actual misconduct are two different things. Everyone is so sensitive about SHARP that they tend to look extra hard for the incident reported as being true. Collecting actual useful evidence is more important to any judicial or nonjudicial action. I see us as an military under punishing things do to lack of evidence but also punishing things just because we need to keep face. The stats are horrible. They do not include founded reports only from what I know and they may include unfounded ones. When I had to do the reporting it was any report...founded and unfounded. I know there is an argument about the "under the rug" investigations. But knowing first hand that most people were on a witch hunt when they were assigned to investigate I can't see that happen too often.
Reporting and findings of actual misconduct are two different things. Everyone is so sensitive about SHARP that they tend to look extra hard for the incident reported as being true. Collecting actual useful evidence is more important to any judicial or nonjudicial action. I see us as an military under punishing things do to lack of evidence but also punishing things just because we need to keep face. The stats are horrible. They do not include founded reports only from what I know and they may include unfounded ones. When I had to do the reporting it was any report...founded and unfounded. I know there is an argument about the "under the rug" investigations. But knowing first hand that most people were on a witch hunt when they were assigned to investigate I can't see that happen too often.
(0)
(0)
I'm currently only an AROTC cadet so take this with a grain of salt but it reflects the kind of people going into the army's leadership so I think it counts. We've had to do SHARP training here and quite frankly everyone treats it like a joke. There is almost nobody who takes it seriously to include the Army personnel in charge of us cadets. Its hard to make us, male and female, take it seriously because the training is so laughably bad. Its usually just a female officer reminding us that sexual assault, rape, and harassment are bad, which we already know. It just becomes harder and harder to take it seriously as it goes along. This might be solved by having it become a JAG program so that its outside of the chain of command and it could be made more anonymous but I just know that my classmates, who will make excellent Army officers in every other way, are not being properly trained to handle these kinds of issues because they are more complicated than can be taught in a classroom along with all of the other subjects that are also being taught.
(2)
(0)

Suspended Profile
There is a problem. But like everything else, we are overthinking it. Not sure if you are familiar with a book called the "Power of Habit" by Charles Duhigg, but if you have the time, read it. In a nutshell, if your core processes are out of control, you will see lots of problems that might at first seem unrelated. However, fix the foundation...and like magic, all the other problems fix themselves. The best example I can give from the book is when ALCOA's new CEO Paul O'Neill made his first speech to the shareholders, he didn't talk about taking over the world, expanding product lines or production or anything like that. He said "I intend to make Alcoa the safest company in America. I intend to go for zero injuries." He was of course met with huge criticism and doubt. However, he insisted that the goal be zero accidents. What nobody else saw was that making that the one single goal changed the entire culture of the organization. Workers were given a target they could see and hit and more importantly, understand. That ONE change in safety habits improved several processes in the organization. When he retired, 13 years later, Alcoa's annual net income was five times higher than when he started.
As Soldiers, we keep looking at the symptoms and not at the problem, which is our culture. Our culture should NOT tolerate sexual harassment, rape, laziness, complacency, toxic leaders, unsat personnel, or any of the MANY issues we complain about with the military which mainly stem from a failure of cohesive leadership at the very top levels. When we fix that and find our "zero accident safety goal", then we won't need SHARPS or any other Band-Aid approach to our problems.
As Soldiers, we keep looking at the symptoms and not at the problem, which is our culture. Our culture should NOT tolerate sexual harassment, rape, laziness, complacency, toxic leaders, unsat personnel, or any of the MANY issues we complain about with the military which mainly stem from a failure of cohesive leadership at the very top levels. When we fix that and find our "zero accident safety goal", then we won't need SHARPS or any other Band-Aid approach to our problems.
Why are the Chain of Command failing... because they are the Chain of Command and not Law Enforcement. Its a CRIME so let Law Enforcement deal with it.... tell commanders to get that thier star PT and Weapons expert is really a POS oh and the MPs are coming to pick him up and put him in pretrial confinement. Everyone knows SHARP is a crime but CoC think they know better than Law Enforcement. I have said it before and will say it again.. Untill we see Senior Leaders treated the same as junior Soldiers and walked out of their offices in cuffs they will continue to do this.
(1)
(0)
MAJ (Join to see)
SHARP is an education program to integrate personal and professional respect with military training and doctrine, not a law enforcement issue. When leaders treat it as some form of regulatory or disciplinary exercise, they insert a fatal flaw into the program. It is not acceptable, however, for us to shift the training and education requirement to law enforcement. As leaders in the U.S. military, we have a responsibility to provide leadership, training, and guidance to minimize any factors which degrade our effectiveness in performing the mission for which we were designed.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next