As I am writing this, I’m crossing the Canadian prairie. I’ve learned a lot about our country in the last week from the prospective of Irish, French, Australian, Scottish and Asian tourists on a train across Canada.
The unofficial survey shows that America under the new administration has had its image tarnished to the point of unanimous disappointment. The comments are mainly centered around the president and his polarizing personality characterized as being a “bully,” out of touch with international relationships, “greedy” and out of touch with the reality of the working class.
The common sentiment reminds me of a military tactical operations tool we used as senior leaders. Simply put, when faced with a tactical or strategic issue your basic initial response is “SO WHAT?” The process forces you to look past the sensationalism of the initial impact of a first strike and engage in a sounder understanding of what actually occurred.
In essence, you’re asking, “So what does it actually mean, what actually happened or what is actually being done?” Most importantly, what is the best response?
Most of my fellow train travelers would reflect upon the familiar rhetoric about waste and abuse, Democrat versus Republican affiliation or the unapologetically racist undertones embedded in comments and actions. The general consensus being, “What does this have to do with people trying to make a living, eat, find a job, gain good housing and afford education? The “SO WHAT” of what has been coming out of the White House tends to look like the continuation of an ugly political campaign.
From my military-career perspective, the initial response to a new commander who blames the shortcomings of his or her unit on the previous commander provides the opportunity for a mentoring moment. An opportunity to remind them that “YOU ARE IN COMMAND NOW … what is YOUR plan to improve the performance of your unit?”
Which brings me to another point: military commanders who do not prove to be a good fit for the current mission may be relieved of command to be utilized elsewhere.
Military leaders are not “fired.” Although it sounds good in sound bites for TV, the truth is four-star admirals and generals have unique operational and tactical experience that cannot easily be replicated. If for some reason they are unable to figure out what right looks like they may be reassigned, retrained, court-martialed or simply removed from their service obligation. From the outside looking in, though, the current president’s comments sound like they were made for TV entertainment.
During other train discussions it was suggested that we as Americans seem to have lost our way. Replacing highly trained and experienced military leaders based on political ideas and then having them report to someone who served seven ranks lower shows a lack of understanding, experience and leadership. It doesn’t bode well when you blame other countries for their lack of defense initiatives and then turn around and place very inexperienced people in key positions. The common person sees that type of appointment to be based on a quid pro quo assignment.
True leaders should be able to build a team with the resources given … that’s why it’s called leadership. My view is that the military is nonpartisan and should remain so. Gen. George Patton said it best: “When everyone is thinking alike, somebody is not thinking!”
We need the best at the helm of our military without regard to political party, religious affiliation or ethnicity. Words like inclusion and equality, however, have somehow become the latest mantra of hate. I would have expected the leadership in the White House to have laid out their new direction and started everyone moving in that direction … leadership!
As my train mates commented, the tone of the new administration appears to be stuck in the idea and concept of retribution, division and disingenuous bravado. The most sickening and outright despicable issue I observed was the alleged wording that followed the infamous email in which government supervisors were asked to identify what their agency does for “brown people”.
If the attack on DEI (Diversity, Equality and Inclusion) had nothing to do with race, as has been suggested, it obviously had everything to do with the color of a person’s skin. Even the term “merit-based” from the outside looking in loses its merit when the person who is spouting about it inherited his wealth and position in American society.
Another blatant disappointment for me from an administration who is claiming to be the watch dog of waste, fraud and abuse is the hypocrisy seen in the stunt of using our taxpayer funds to transport thousands of dollars in resources (air, ground, security) to a racing event with regard to military recruitment. Yet here we are today in the wake of chainsaw spectacles and claims of destroying waste, fraud and abuse with hundreds if not thousands of American citizens out of a job.
The “SO WHAT” of the attack on immigration, identifying waste, fraud and abuse comes down to the basics of life in America. What do these policies do to keep Americans working and earning a livable wage? Why spend taxpayer money on a new czar appointment when we already have organizations like ICE (Immigration, Customs and Enforcement) and the Department of Homeland Security?
The previous president is no longer in office. The U.S. government is in disarray. Americans are losing their jobs while necessary historical relationships are being fractured.
The SO WHAT for the current administration is, “So what are you doing to move American citizens forward to a positive future?”
(Retired U.S. Army Brigadier Gen. Arthur G. Austin Jr. lives in Cuba and is an advocate for veterans throughout the Twin Tiers.)
