Aquestion appeared in the Little Rock Air Force Base's publication, The Drop Zone,
recently. Four people were asked their opinions of a recent recommendation made
by the Senate Armed Forces Committee. The committee has suggested that military
officers adhere to stricter standards of conduct than enlisted personnel.
The answers were presented in the form of a "man on the street" interview in which a
cross-section of readers is polled and their answers printed.
To break down the dynamics of the situation, the respondents were: one second
lieutenant and three enlisted personnel; an airman basic, a senior airman and a staff
sergeant. The lieutenant and the senior airmen were women and all four came from
different Air Force bases. The senior airman was African-American, all others were of
European descent.
The lieutenant agreed with the Senate committee, stating that to be an effective leader
one should be held to higher standards. Each of the enlisted personnel disagreed
with that assessment, with each of them basically saying: "We're all in this together,
we all should have the same standards."
Reading the questions and the answers, I began to wonder about what was really
being said, both in the committee's intention to amend the law and in the service
members' responses.
First, doesn't it seem that the recommendation the Senate committee is making
smacks just a bit of elitism? Aren't they stating that those who are military officers
are created from higher grade ingredients than those who make up the lowly enlisted
ranks - and so by law should be made to act accordingly?
Another question that should be asked of the Senate committee is: Does the
phrase, '...all men are created equal' sound familiar? It should, it's found in the
second paragraph of our country's Declaration of Independence, right after the
words, "We hold these truths to be self-evident..."
It seems that the Senate committee is approaching behavior problems in the military
from the wrong direction. Instead of expecting officers to adhere to a higher standard
of conduct than what is currently acceptable - it should be expected of every member
of the armed forces, regardless of rank.
It seemed that what was really being played out in this brief article was one more
skirmish in a class struggle that has been going on since mankind first recognized
that someone has to be responsible for making the decisions. Simply for the sake of
efficiency, someone has to be in charge. And we've usually awarded those who have
accepted that responsibility well.
But just as the majority of humanity has elected to have someone make the hard
decisions, that same group has also been swift to take down leaders who have
messed up mightily. History is rife with tales of deposed leaders of all types.
Revolution was not something the American minuteman thought of by themselves.
In fact, at one point during man's history, it was customary to expect leaders whose
decisions turned out poorly to commit suicide. And if the leader didn't do it, then
someone was usually found to do it for them.
I agree with the second lieutenant that officers should set an example, but should
they have to adhere to a stricter set of rules than the soldiers they're supposed to
guide into battle? No.
Are the enlisted personnel right? Is teamwork the key to a successful military
campaign, and all soldiers, regardless of rank, have equal responsibility in behaving
and seeing the goal accomplished? Yes.
Am I just reacting to the suggestion that officers are superior to their troops - as any
good tech sergeant's daughter would?
Before military officers get to thinking that they're being given proof of their superiority
by the senate committee, they should be made aware of some lesser-known facts of
military history - some they probably won't find in the history books.
The most recent example being how incompetent officers were deposed during the
Vietnam conflict. Too many tales have been brought back of oafish and idiotic officers
getting "scragged" by their own troops, to doubt the veracity of these stories.
Officers who made too many wrong choices or were impossible to work with
sometimes were shot by their own men.
But this is not a new facet in the working relationship between military officers and
basic soldiers. Roman generals who lost their battles, just like poor kings and failed
emperors, were supposed to fall on their swords. If they didn't, their soldiers would
get a shot at helping them along - and they wouldn't be very gentle about it, either.
But I don't think the Senate committee is questioning the leadership skills of military
personnel in time of war but their moral conduct off the battlefield, especially in the
wake of the Tailhook scandal or the more recent military sex scandals.
So is the Senate committee actually saying that officers have to adhere to a certain
tone in their moral conduct, while their followers, the grunts who actually will do the
fighting, are allowed to wallow in boorishness when not dodging bullets and bombs in
the name of liberty?
Bingo! I think the proverbial nail was just hit on its head. It has been the policy of
military leadership through the ages to allow, if not downright encourage, soldiers to
carouse when not on duty; a sort of holdover from the days when rape and pillage
immediately followed the battle.
Well, I hope the Senate committee is listening, because according to the enlisted
personnel who were polled, they can behave as upright and morally as any officer.
If you would like to drop the author a note about the article
please email to
deborah@ipa.net
Back to Main Page
