Editorial: Proactive, not reactive

[CommunityEditor]

The mad scramble to fix rotten, moldy barracks after a soldier’s father posted a video on YouTube underscores a troubling pattern in Army leadership.

First, problems are ignored. Then they are exposed by someone else. And only then are they finally fixed.

Last week, the Army redirected $248 million to rush fixes to dilapidated barracks at eight posts.

Little more than a year earlier, similarly crumbling facilities were exposed at Walter Reed Army Medical Center in Washington, D.C. After this newspaper and the Washington Post identified the problem, Army leaders expressed shock and dismay and ordered immediate fixes.

Similarly, shortly after the invasion of Afghanistan, the Army deployed troops without full sets of body armor for every soldier. Units didn’t complain. But when parents started complaining that they were footing the bill for body armor for their kids, Congress had to get involved.

A few years later, it took a question from Spc. Thomas Wilson to then-Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld to change the way the Army looked at vehicles in Iraq. His question about why troops were scrounging scrap metal to armor their vehicles unwittingly set off an uproar that led to accelerated up-armoring programs for all Army vehicles.

Wilson showed the kind of leadership that should be expected of NCOs and officers. But too often, Army leaders tell their troops to “embrace the suck” and accept the hand they’ve been dealt.

That, however, isn’t leadership. Leaders must see it as their responsibility to look after their troops’ needs, make clear to their superiors what those needs are and demand better if America is failing its soldiers.

As the emergency release of $248 million for barracks repairs demonstrates, the resources can be found to fix critical needs.

But first, leaders have to recognize what is and isn’t acceptable. Too often, it seems, they set the bar too low.


Article: http://www.militarytimes.com/communi...ership_051908/

[smarg]

And, we all need to admit what the real problem is: the uniformed leadership are nothing but older screaming careerists who would throw anybody under the bus if they got in the way of their career advancement and COULD CARE LESS ABOUT STANDARD OF LIVING.

[jay_ellis04]

Uniformed leadership? That would include you as well, since (if in fact you are in uniform), you are a leader as well.