As the combatant commands and functional commands, begin their transitions under the Trump administration it is important to know that like their predecessors the incoming generals and admirals failed to stand up for their service members and undermined the warrior ethos. These generals will transition seamlessly regardless of the political ideology. This is the real danger to military readiness.
In contemporary military discourse, the legacy of leaders like Major General Terry De La Mesa Allen Sr. serves as both a benchmark and a point of contention. Allen, known for his unwavering commitment to soldier welfare and combat effectiveness during World War II, represents a type of leadership increasingly rare in today’s military environment. As one examines the current landscape of military leadership, one cannot help but notice a disconnect between the principles that once defined strong military leadership and the prevailing attitudes that seem to dominate modern ranks. Today’s generals, often described as being part of a “go along, move along” mentality, seem more focused on navigating bureaucracy and maintaining the status quo than on fostering a true warrior ethos.
The perception that modern generals are entrenched in a “good old boy” club reflects a significant shift from the qualities that once made leaders like Allen exemplars of military virtue. The “good old boy” mentality, characterized by protecting the interests of peers and covering for mistakes of predecessors, detracts from accountability and growth within military ranks. This institutional inertia can lead to complacency, reducing the urgency to adapt to the realities of contemporary warfare which demand innovative and courageous leadership. Such an environment may disillusion younger service members who look for inspiration and mentorship, further eroding the warrior ethos that has been the foundation of military effectiveness.
Some may argue that the challenges facing today’s generals arise from external pressures, particularly from political entities that shape military policies and operations. While these pressures cannot be overlooked, it is crucial to question the roles of leadership within the military itself. Where were the generals willing to speak truth to power, advocate for their troops, and assert the values of a warrior ethos when faced with difficult decisions? This allegorical silence can be interpreted as a retreat from the principles that inspire soldiers to fight bravely and honorably.
The essence of a true warrior ethos lies in the willingness to embrace risks, not just in battle but in leadership. Generals like Allen exemplified this ethos by aligning their actions with the welfare of their soldiers, engaging in realistic training, and leading from the front. This commitment engendered camaraderie and trust, elements which are crucial in fostering a resilient fighting force. In contrast, the current environment, where adherence to bureaucratic norms often takes precedence over soldier welfare, leaves many service members feeling unsupported and disconnected from their leaders. They may see their commanders less as inspirational figures and more as bureaucrats focused on self-preservation.
Moreover, the professional military education system, which should be a crucible for developing leaders who embody the warrior ethos, often prioritizes compliance and managerial skills over the traditional aspects of combat leadership. This shift in focus may de-emphasize essential qualities such as courage, adaptability, and a genuine concern for soldier welfare—qualities that were once hallmarks of military leadership. Rather than fostering leaders who prioritize the human experience of their troops, there is a risk of producing technocratic leaders who are adept at managing operations but lack the deep relational qualities required to inspire soldiers in the field.
Despite these challenges, the military must confront its leadership crisis head-on. Rebuilding the warrior ethos is not merely a matter of nostalgia for the past; it requires a concerted effort to instill values that prioritize soldier welfare, resilience, and accountability. This can be achieved through deliberate selection processes for leadership roles that prioritize individuals with demonstrated commitment to their troops, along with robust training programs that emphasize the importance of empathy, courage, and ethical decision-making.
In conclusion, as we reflect on the legacy of leaders like Major General Terry De La Mesa Allen Sr., it becomes imperative that the military rekindles the spirit of the warrior ethos in its ranks. While political pressures and institutional inertia present significant challenges, the responsibility ultimately lies within the military itself to foster a culture that values genuine leadership, accountability, and soldier welfare above all else. Only then can the military reclaim its identity as a guardian of freedom, led by warriors committed to the well-being of those they serve. Recognizing the importance of this ethos is essential to reinvigorating a fighting force that reflects the spirit of sacrifice, loyalty, and honor that has characterized the best of military leadership throughout history.
Donald C. Bolduc