Green on Blue: causes and responses (merged thread)

[Ken White]

Carl:

So what can the military do to reform itself to the extent possible?

IMO the problem is individual human failing, societally supported and systemic and the degree of applicability of each factor will vary from situation to situation. In any event, my belief is that little can or will be done barring major systemic changes which are unlikely. Political Correctness in all aspects is very much a societal factor and that changes but slowly; the PC factor is partly responsible for the refusal to acknowledge mistakes. The American public is both tolerant (of wrongdoing) and superficially vengeful (of perceived slights and failures) so the message is mixed. The systemic problems are, simply, that a failure in this regard really has very little practical effect on the institution (as opposed to some persons within the institutions) so there is no impetus for the change.

JMA's 'example' of Howard K. Johnson is proof of that. Had the General done what he is quoted as thinking, it would not have affected the debacle that was Viet Nam one iota.

All that said, incremental improvement can be achieved however and there have been many such improvements over my lifetime -- not enough but there is change, it is improvement and it is constant -- albeit far too slow...

JMA:

In the meantime shoot the messenger if he makes you feel uncomfortable.

Pointless and ill informed scolding is not a message. I'm not at all uncomfortable or frustrated. Nor do I block out the problem and pretend it doesn't exist. I learned to live with the reality a great many years ago in the Land of the Morning Calm, so I'm quite comfortable -- you seem to be the one with undue concerns and frustrations relative to a situation upon which you will have absolutely zero effect.

It is fun to watch you fruitlessly gnash your teeth, though.

Dayuhan:

if a senior officer did resign in protest against policies deemed impossible to work with, would that officer's pension be at risk?

Essentially, so-called Military Retirement Pay in the US is actually retainer pay and is legally deferred compensation, thus it is earned and can be rejected only by the individual in rare circumstances. i.e., the 'system' forces one to take it (yet another point where the system is part -- not all -- of the problem). All the folks I cited above since WW II received their retirement even though fired, I know of two General Officers who 'resigned' in protest -- one over the belief that the Army had gone astray with respect to training and education, the other concerned about the Army's political inclinations -- and both took their retainer pay, one under protest but the Treasury simply paid into his checking account regardless.

Thus, a 'resignation in protest' has none of the martyr effect that makes the idea so popular and somewhat prevalent in other nations with different laws.

The foregoing applies to anyone with over 20 years service (occasionally and / or in view of some medical conditions with fewer years). Those with less service than required for retirement can and do resign for cause or on principle.

In either case, the practical effect of such resignations or departures is almost nothing -- the system just replaces the dearly departed with another body -- often more compliant but if not, he or she too can be replaced. When one of the 80 or so Canadian FlagOs resigns in protest as some have (did they get their Retirement checks???) people notice; if one of the almost a thousand US FlagOs were to resign, few would notice -- the system would not even hiccup. The US tradition of not resigning but trying to work within the system for change is pretty firmly embedded for that reason.