Failed Marine Corps Commandant Amos Calls for Consequences for Failed Leadership (for Others)
Marine Corps Commandant James Amos has rediscovered the concept of consequences for failed leadership. Will he also face consequences?
I have long maintained that part of the reason why Afghanistan has been such a doomed mission is that high ranking military figures have faced zero consequences for their failed leadership. As just one example, John Allen faced no punishment when he offered the insane excuse that the rash of green on blue killings in August of 2012 was due to Ramadan fasting, even when it was widely known that clashing cultural values and the mere presence of Americans were the driving forces of the attacks. Allen did wind up retiring in disgrace, but only because he got caught up in the periphery of the panty sniffing surrounding the David Petraeus-Paula Broadwell affair. Until that point, Allen was scheduled to fail upward to NATO Commander.
That background makes last night’s announcement that two Marine Corps generals will be forced into retirement over their failures that led to the devastating attack on Camp Bastion last September a huge surprise. From the New York Times:
Maj. Gen. Charles M. Gurganus, formerly NATO’s regional commander in southwestern Afghanistan, was faulted for failing to properly assess risks posed by the insurgency operating outside the vast military base in Helmand Province that included camps Bastion, Leatherneck and Shorabak.
General Gurganus had been nominated for his third star and a senior leadership role at the Marine Corps headquarters at the Pentagon, but will retire instead.
Maj. Gen. Gregg A. Sturdevant, the former commander of the Third Marine Aircraft Wing forces assigned to Afghanistan, was faulted for not having established an integrated system of security at Bastion airfield, and will also take early retirement.
Of course, a cynic might note that such severe consequences don’t seem to have been leveled due major loss of life, but was more likely tied to the loss of $200 million worth of aircraft and major damage to facilities at the base as well. There was also a huge chance for even bigger embarrassment from the attack, as McClatchy reminds us that the attack may have been aimed at Prince Harry, who was at the base at the time of the attack which hit just about two hours before his birthday.
Returning to the Times, we have this from Amos:
Gen. James F. Amos, the Marine Corps commandant, announced the disciplinary action on Monday. He said the punishments were unprecedented in modern Marine Corps history and were an effort “to remain true to the timeless axioms relating to command responsibility and accountability.”
Hmm. Amos is telling us about “command responsibility and accountability”. I wonder if he feels that those concepts apply to him, as well? Amos has been at the center of not one, but two scandals in which he has been accused of applying undue command influence regarding criminal proceedings inside the military.
First, there are his comments on the prosecution of sexual assault cases. While it is laudable that Amos wants to see sexual assaults prosecuted fully, the way he has gone about it has actually made such prosecutions harder to carry out. From McClatchy:
The Marine Corps commandant wanted to snuff out rape in the ranks. However, his well-meaning but overly blunt talk instead complicated Marine sexual-assault cases worldwide and raised troubling questions about whether accused Marines will get a fair shake.
This week, for the second time in recent months, a Marine Corps trial judge found that Gen. James F. Amos’ forceful remarks on sexual assault earlier this year presented the appearance of unlawful command influence.
And just what did Amos say to cause the problems? Try this:
Amos used his tour to stress his own strong feelings about the 348 reported sexual assaults in the Marine Corps last year. In a roughly 75-minute talk intended for every Marine non-commissioned officer and officer, the career aviator demanded tougher punishment for those accused of sexual misconduct.
“Why have we become so soft?” Amos asked in a speech April 19 at Parris Island.
He further described himself as “very, very disappointed” in court-martial boards that don’t expel those who misbehave sexually, and he denounced as “bullshit” claims that many sexual assault allegations amount to second thoughts from individuals who initially consented.
“I know fact from fiction,” Amos declared, a transcript of his April 19 speech shows. “The fact of the matter is 80 percent of those are legitimate sexual assaults.”
Put another way, the Marine Corps’ top officer was telling his subordinates that 80 percent of those charged with sexual assault were guilty. He was demanding dismissals from the service, and suggesting that an alleged victim might be simply suffering from, as he phrased it, “buyer’s remorse.”
But the sexual assault cases aren’t the only front where Amos has appointed himself as judge and jury. The high profile case in which soldiers were seen on video urinating on the corpses of insurgents they had killed certainly called for aggressive prosecution. But Amos clearly crossed the line again in how he went about calling for prosecutions:
The Marine Corps dropped the criminal charges filed against the only officer implicated in the video depicting Marines urinating on dead insurgents in Afghanistan, but he will still faces possible involuntary separation from the service.
/snip/
Clement’s defense team had been preparing for a court-martial scheduled in November, and maintained that he did nothing wrong that day. They expected to hear testimony on Sept. 11 at Camp Lejeune, N.C., from Col. Jesse Gruter and Maj. James Weirick, two Marine staff judge advocates who have raised repeated concerns about unlawful command influence by senior officials at Marine Corps headquarters in all of the urination cases.
Weirick filed an explosive inspector general complaint in March that accused Commandant Gen. Jim Amos, or others acting on his behalf, of deliberating and unlawfully seeking to exert influence on the cases of Clement and the seven other Marines who faced disciplinary action following the investigation. Weirick, acting as a whistle-blower, also alleged that senior Marine officials sought to cover up their involvement in the cases.
/snip/
The Corps’ controversial handling of the legal cases has generated interest in the national media, on Capitol Hill and across the Corps. Clement’s lawyers filed a motion in July to dismiss his case on the grounds of unlawful influence. The motion included a signed declaration from Lt. Gen. Thomas Waldhauser, who acknowledged that he was removed as the consolidated disposition authority overseeing all the legal cases after he had a disagreement with the commandant over how much punishment was warranted. The commandant told Waldhauser he wanted all of the Marines involved “crushed,” the three-star general’s declaration states.
Hmmm. A Marine Corps Commandant who appoints himself as judge and jury in multiple cases while even removing prosecutors with whom he disagrees might be in line for facing some “responsibility and accountability” of his own. I won’t hold my breath waiting for it to happen, though.
“the timeless axioms relating to command responsibility and accountability.”
Timeless ?
The axioms were a little different only a couple of hundred years ago…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Byng
Heh. Unlawful Command Influence. The good General should have known better. Unless he did know better and intended to screw up the courts-martial all along.
The long and the short of it is that the kind of speechifying he engaged in has been extremely hazardous for a long time. A leading case on this is United States v. Treakle, 18 M.J. 646 (Army Court of Military Review 1984), aff’d 23 M.J. 151 (CMA 1986). In Treakle, the commanding general of an Army division (2 stars) gave a series of talks to company commanders (captains) relative to the military justice system. He said, in short, that if the commanders were going to go ahead and send one of their soldiers to a court-martial for whatever crimes they thought the troop had committed, it didn’t make sense for them to come in and testify that the defendant soldier could be a good soldier, i.e., was rehabilitable as a soldier. This general’s sergeant major gave a series of similarly themed talks, though in sergeant’s language, to company first sergeants and battalion sergeants major.
So soldiers expecting to be able to get testimony that, other than this particular screwup they were (or could be) a good soldier suddenly were aware that such was not going to be forthcoming. In other words, this was witness intimidation – or it could be. (Unlike the federal system, where prosecutors threatening to charge potential defense witnesses with crimes, particularly perjury, is an everyday occurrence, in the miltary justice system that kind of intimidation is forbidden. Yet another way the UCMJ system is better than the civilian.)
There was great consternation in the company commanders’ offices and among the company- and battalion-level oficers and senior sergeants. While it was evident the general intended to encourage economical use of courts-martial and for commanders to use all the modulated types and levels of discipline and correction available and not rely solely on the court-martial system – in other words, he may have intended to tell them to reserve court-martialling for someone who the commander felt was irredeemable as a soldier – he also made clear to them that he was watching and that testifying some defendant could be rehabilitated as a soldier would be noticed. That, of course, carried with it professional (career) implications.
Well, Treakle was a defendant in a court-martial and his defense lawyers took on the general over what they alleged was unlawful command influence that made it impossible for Treakle to have a fair trial. It should be noted that Treakle was a career sergeant who was not charged with the generic drug or assault charges. IIRC, his was a paperwork offense of some sort. There was a huge hue and cry about some captains and majors (defense counsel) taking on a two-star but, in the end the deense counsel won. The day the ACMR came down with its decision, the general was on a plane direct to Washington and a meeting with the Chief of Staff. And then he was relieved (fired) from his command and put in charge of the (small) office in the Pentagon in charge of buying gasoline and fuel oil for the military – a huge blow to his career – until he hit his 30 years’ service and retirement. He wasn’t tossed out of the service immediately, as there was a further appeal of Treakle’s case to the Court of Military Appeals (CMA) (the last step before the Supreme Court) and that took a while to resolve.
See also United States v. Thomas, 22 M.J. 388 (CMA 1986), further elaborating on the many, many cases affected by this general’s speechifying and the “incalculable” damage it caused.
The problem is, among career officers and retirees, the general has been something of a hero for taking it on the career chin for standing up to the bad soldiers and criminals. He’s been lionized, a bit, and that has (IMHO) diluted the force of the lesson of his case. He might have intended well, but he went about it in the wrong way.
In googling around, I found an outline (the lawyers in the room will get it) on Unlawful Command Influence – go read it. https://www.jagcnet.army.mil/DocLibs/TJAGLCSDocLib.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/doclibs/tjaglcsdoclib.nsf/9C8BA1FEEF89ABC085257549005F74A7/Body/Tab%20T%20-%20%20UCI.pdf It ends with the 10 Commandments of Unlawful Command Influence:
COMMANDMENT 1: THE COMMANDER MAY NOT ORDER A SUBORDINATE TO DISPOSE OF A CASE IN A CERTAIN WAY
COMMANDMENT 2: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE POLICY ON DISPOSITION OR PUNISHMENT.
COMMANDMENT 3: THE COMMANDER, IF ACCUSER, MAY NOT REFER THE CASE.
COMMANDMENT 4: THE COMMANDER MAY NEITHER SELECT NOR REMOVE COURT MEMBERS IN ORDER TO OBTAIN A PARTICULAR RESULT IN A PARTICULAR TRIAL.
COMMANDMENT 5: NO OUTSIDE PRESSURES MAY BE PLACED ON THE JUDGE OR COURT MEMBERS TO ARRIVE AT A PARTICULAR DECISION.
COMMANDMENT 6: WITNESSES MAY NOT BE INTIMIDATED OR DISCOURAGED FROM TESTIFYING.
COMMANDMENT 7: THE COURT DECIDES PUNISHMENT. AN ACCUSED MAY NOT BE PUNISHED BEFORE TRIAL.
COMMANDMENT 8: COMMANDERS MUST ENSURE THAT SUBORDINATES AND STAFF DO NOT “COMMIT” COMMAND INFLUENCE” ON THEIR BEHALF.
COMMANDMENT 9: THE COMMANDER MUST NOT HAVE AN INFLEXIBLE ATTITUDE TOWARDS CLEMENCY.
COMMANDMENT 10: IF A MISTAKE IS MADE, RAISE THE ISSUE IMMEDIATELY.
This is relatively simple stuff that usually comes acropper when the commander lets his emotions and exasperation that soldiers keep misbehaving (it’s something they do…) get the better of his self-control and take over his mouth.
Following up on my comment #2, some of the defendants in Thomas petitioned the Supreme Court for certiorari. From the government’s opposition to the petition, http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1986/sg860235.txt an indication of how widespread a mess (that’s a technical legal term) the general’s talks caused:
219 appeals decided as of that time (1986), 35 published opinions, 182 appeals in which the defendant got relief. That’s one of the highest percentages of appealing defendants succeeding I’ve ever seen in any context.
There’s a lot to chew on. He’s probably right about the sexual assault numbers. That’s apart from whether he ought to be blabbing about it in the first instance. As to the urination cases? Pffft. Boys will be boys. These are guys seeing their friends blow up randomly (often by the forces they’re “training”. The entire war is a total crock and war crime to begin with, but when we pass off the responsibility of slaughter and empire building onto the young and the poor (volunteer military), I think it’s a little too much to ask that they not get some relief out of their nightmare. They are fighting an enemy they have been trained to revile and are aware of taped beheadings of innocent westerners by lunatic Muslims. I would discourage the act but not criminalize it. There are plenty of war criminals higher in the triage order who have been ignored for me to support the prosecution of these soldiers. Banksters can piss all over our population with impunity and I’m supposed to care whether shell-shocked Johnny, on his forth or fifth deployment decides to piss on the corpse of someone determined to kill him? Not.Going.To.Happen Enjoy.