Honor versus Dishonor

IM (an American citizen with an inquiring mind):  Gadfly, I have done my homework on progressivism and believe I am ready to contribute to our conversation.  Meanwhile, AM, are you aware of the cheating scandal by missile officers at Malmstrom Air Force Base in Montana?

AM:  (an American combat aviator with an inquiring mind):  Yes, I am.  There was a national outcry because these officers have nuclear ICBM responsibilities.

Old Gadfly:  Yes.  And, it was especially noted that some of the officers were Air Force Academy graduates, who were taught the importance of an honor code.

IM:  Perhaps the Academy failed to instill an enduring sense of honor.

Old Gadfly:  A very wise idiom claims “one swallow does not make a summer.”  The wisdom cautions against the tendency to generalize.  Yet, generalizations are made or implied (also, here and here) about honor violations associated with the Service Academies, which diminishes the value of such institutions that exist within the broader culture of society.  Keep in mind; cadets arrive at the Academy from society at large.  The Josephson Institute recently indicated that while there seems to be some improvement over the past 2 years, the percentage of American high school seniors who admit to lying, cheating, or stealing is 55%, 51%, and 20%, respectively.  The recent Academy chemistry cheating scandal included 40 first-year cadets.  Among the more than 1,000 first-year cadets, that represents 4%.  Among the entire cadet wing, this number represents 1%.  I say all this not to exonerate dishonorable behavior, but to put it into context.

AM:  Just this morning, I read a letter from the wing commander at Malmstrom to members of his command.  Several lines in Colonel Stanley’s letter caught my attention:  “We've seen the reputation of our beloved wing and America's ICBM mission tarnished because of the extraordinarily selfish actions of officers entrusted with the most powerful weapon system ever devised by man.”  Here Stanley acknowledges the seriousness of this breach of honor. 

AM:  Stanley then goes on to say:

Our amazing airmen and their families, the astoundingly supportive community and the successes of Wing One have far outweighed the bad. Just being allowed to be a small part of your lives is a memory that Cheryl and I will cherish forever. But, like all things of great value, such blessings come with equally great costs. I represent this wing to the world, and we let the American people down on my watch. 

With that realization, and the genuine hope that my action will stir even the most apathetic hearts to action, I have decided to volunteer my resignation from this post effective immediately. This request has been accepted. I have also requested, and been approved for, retirement from the United States Air Force. If this sacrifice by Cheryl and me influences just one airman to stand up for what's right the next time they are confronted by immorality, it will have been worth every tear and sleepless night.

IM:  So, not only did Colonel Stanley assume responsibility for what happened under his command, he held himself accountable by resigning and retiring from the Air Force.  By doing so, he is demonstrating character-based leadership to inspire others to act when needed.

AM:  Yes.  Think about it.  Colonel Stanley did not cheat.  But, it happened under his leadership.

Old Gadfly:   Stanley was the proverbial captain of the ship.  IM, do you remember our conversation about the empty chair?  You mentioned a Wall Street Journal editorial published on May 14, 1952.  A collision between the USS Wasp and USS Hornet on April 26, 1952 resulted in the loss of 176 crewmembers.  You said, “The editorial claimed that with responsibility comes accountability.  Without accountability, there is no responsibility.”  You then reminded me that our President is the captain of our ship of state, and quoted a passage from the editorial:

It is cruel, this accountability of good and well-intentioned men.  But, the choice is that, or an end to responsibility and, finally, as the cruel sea has taught, an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead, for men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do.

AM:  Colonel Stanley also passed on an important lesson:  “Had just one solitary airman spoken up for integrity, our leadership team would have been able to take action immediately.”

Old Gadfly:  Do you think this lesson applies to just those who serve in our armed forces?

AM:  Of course not.  The former Secretary of State “took responsibility” for the tragedy at Benghazi; but, where was the accountability?  Perhaps her advice to the Secretary of Defense and general officers regarding the Malmstrom incident might be, “what difference does it make”?

IM:  IRS’s Lois Lerner was directly involved in violating the Constitutional right to speech for many conservative groups between the 2010 and 2012 elections, yet invoked the Fifth Amendment when she had an opportunity to achieve accountability. 

IM:  And then, the same commander-in-chief, who said there were merely stupid mistakes made by rogue members of the IRS and claimed Obamacare would let people keep their doctors and plans, offhandedly referred to the Benghazi attack (and by implication the four American deaths) and other Middle East unrest as “speed bumps.”

AM:  The editorial talked about accountability of well-intentioned men.  I see this happening at Malmstrom.  Elsewhere, I see a lack of accountability of not so well-intentioned people, who seem to be getting away with their ideological agenda of fundamentally transforming America, despite occasional speed bumps. Will America turn out to be that “cruel sea” that will demand “an end to the confidence and trust in the men who lead,” because “men will not long trust leaders who feel themselves beyond accountability for what they do”?

Old Gadfly:  One can only hope.  Meanwhile, it remains important for us to support and encourage character development for future leaders at the Academies.