Brig. Gen. Jeffrey Sinclair, fired from his command in Afghanistan last
May and now facing a court-martial on charges of sodomy, adultery and
pornography and more, is just one in a long line of commanders whose
careers were ended because of possible sexual misconduct.
Sex has proved to be the downfall of presidents, members of Congress
and other notables. It's also among the chief reasons that senior
military officers are fired, reports The Associated Press.
At least 30 percent of military commanders fired over the past eight
years lost their jobs because of sexually related offenses, including
harassment, adultery, and improper relationships, according to
statistics compiled by The Associated Press.
The figures bear out growing concerns by Defence Department and
military leaders over declining ethical values among U.S. forces, and
they highlight the pervasiveness of a problem that came into sharp
relief because of the resignation of one of the Army's most esteemed
generals, David Petraeus, and the investigation of a second general,
John Allen, the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan.
The statistics from all four military services show that adulterous
affairs are more than a four-star foible. From sexual assault and
harassment to pornography, drugs and drinking, ethical lapses are an
escalating problem for the military's leaders.
With all those offenses taken together, more than 4 in every 10
commanders at the rank of lieutenant colonel or above who were fired
fell as a result of behavioural stumbles since 2005.
The recent series of highly publicized cases led to a review of ethics
training across the military. It also prompted Army Gen. Martin Dempsey,
chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, to conclude that while training
is adequate, it may need to start earlier in service members' careers
and be reinforced more frequently.
Still, officials struggle to explain why the problem has grown and they
acknowledge that solving it is difficult and will take time.
"I think we're on the path. I think the last two defence secretaries
have made this a very high priority and have very much held people
accountable. But we've got a ways to go," said Michele Flournoy, a
former undersecretary of defence under President Barack Obama.
She said the military must enforce a "zero tolerance" policy and work
to change the culture so service members are held accountable and made
to understand that their careers will be over if they commit or tolerate
such offenses.
"The policy is in place," she said. "I don't know that it's as evenly and fully enforced as intended."
For top officers, the numbers are startling.
Eighteen generals and admirals, from one star to four stars, were fired
in recent years, and 10 of them lost their jobs because of sex-related
offenses; two others were done in by alcohol-related problems.
The figures show that 255 commanders were fired since 2005, and that 78
of them were felled by sex-related offenses. A breakdown: 32 in the
Army, 25 in the Navy, 11 in the Marine Corps and 10 in the Air Force.
Alcohol and drug-related problems cost the jobs of 27 commanders — 11
in the Navy, eight in the Army, five in the Marine Corp(s and three in
the Air Force.
"It's troublesome," said Rear Adm. John Kirby, the Navy's top
spokesman. "Navy leadership is taking a look at why personal conduct
seems to be a growing reason for why commanding officers are losing
their commands. We're trying to get to the root causes. We don't really
fully understand it."
He and other military leaders agree that poor leadership, bad judgment,
and ethical lapses, rather than operational failures, are growing
factors in the firings. But Kirby said it's not clear whether that has
anything to do with the strains of the past 10 years at war or simply
reflects deteriorating morals among the general population.
Defence Secretary Leon Panetta ordered the ethics review in November.
He said that "when lapses occur, they have the potential to erode public
confidence in our leadership and in our system for the enforcement of
our high ethical standards. Worse, they can be detrimental to the
execution of our mission to defend the American people."
Anu Bhagwati, executive director of the Service Women's Action Network,
said there is more focus on this issue now than ever in the past, but
that there really is no sufficient deterrent in place. She said a major
problem is that military commanders are responsible for deciding what
cases should move forward.
She said military lawyers, who are trained and have a greater
appearance of impartiality, should make such an important legal
decision.
The statistics gathered and analyzed by the AP represent a very
conservative estimate of the problem. While the Army, Navy and Marine
Corps provided details for all military commanders who were lieutenant
colonels or commanders and above for 2005 until now, Air Force officials
said they could only provide data for colonels and above from 2008
until today.
Also, the figures reflect only officers who were in command positions.
The numbers don't include what could be hundreds of officers fired from
other jobs, such as administrative or other military posts. Military
officials said they only collect data on officers in command who are
fired.
The reasons for the firings are also murky. In some cases, no reason
was listed; in other cases, it was vague — such as "ethics" or
"leadership" or for fostering a bad command climate.
No comments:
Post a Comment