Thursday, February 18, 2016

Leaving field leadership out to dry


Vincent J. Curtis

18 Feb 2016



At the link is a story from Fox News headlined, “Decision looms for Army Sergeant who protected Afghan boy.”

The story is that SFC Charles Martland, a Special Forces (Green Beret) soldier was stationed on a remote FOB in Kunduz province, Afghanistan, had a mother and her twelve year old son approach him with the accusation that the local ANP commander, named Abdul Rahman, had bound and raped the boy and then beaten her.

A medic examined the boy with an interpreter and concluded that he had been.

SFC Martland and a person I am surmising as his A Team commander, Daniel Quinn who would rank as a Captain, approached Rahman with the accusation.  Rahman not only admitted it, he laughed in their faces about it.  The two soldiers shoved the smug police official to the ground, and then threw him off the base.

Rahman then went to their superiors and complained about his treatment.  Martland and Quinn’s superiors promptly removed them from their assignment.  They were subject to further discipline.

As a result of this event on his record, SFC Martland was selected to be involuntarily released as part of a reduction in force.  He is fighting it, and that is the reason for the news story.

The reason I am noting this event is that this sort of abuse of field leadership happens all too often in the military, and not just the U.S. military.  The politics takes precedence, and no one has the back of the field leadership, not even senior army leadership.  Often, the senior leadership are the worst offenders.

The rise of the “Strategic Corporal” is one such example of political leadership leaving very junior field leadership to shift for itself, and woe betide the junior leader should something bad happen.  He is toast.

The Canadian military has got itself all wrapped up in the so-called “sexualized culture,” and woe betide the field leader who gets accused by some recruit or some newbie of exhibiting something of the “sexualized culture.”  The reputations and careers of field leadership are held hostage to the immature opinions of their subordinates.

This is a crazy way to run a military.  Sooner or later it will cost the military in terms of the quality of the leadership it retains.  The leadership it retains won’t be fighters.
-30-


No comments:

Post a Comment