The Polish Military Academy - Honorable Leadership in the Profession of Arms
On the 9th of February 2009, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, the 3rd Battalion of the 8th Cavalry Regiment was securing the western part of Mosul, Iraq as part of the famous “surge”. Coalition casualties and enemy contact incidents had dropped significantly throughout most of Iraq, but northern Iraq, specifically Nineva Province with its capital city of Mosul, was still seeing relatively high numbers of contact. The battalion commander of 3rd Battalion was a tough, no nonsense scrappy officer who was truly loved and admired by his Soldiers, and in the couple of months he had been in Theater, significant progress was being made in western Mosul under his leadership. LTC Gary Derby was the Soldier’s Soldier, who always led from the front, and through his constant presence and leadership, always brought confidence, hope, and optimism regardless of whatever circumstances his unit was facing.
The 8th Calvary Regiment is a storied U.S. Army unit. Formed shortly after the civil war in 1866 in California to fight in the Indian Wars and to facilitate western expansion, it fought honorably in every war the United States fought in except WWI, where it secured the Mexican border during that time. The Regiment has earned six Presidential Unit Citations, and 18 medals of honor.
LTC Derby was not only a great warrior, officer and leader, he was a loving husband and father of three children.
About 1:00 in the afternoon of 9 February, I received the call that any commander never wants to receive. LTC Gary Derby was enroute to a combat outpost in western Mosul to conduct a combined operations patrol with the Iraqi Security Forces his unit was partnering with, when his vehicle was hit by a Suicide Vehicle Borne Improvised Explosive Device (SVBIED). LTC Derby and the 3 other Soldiers and 1 interpreter in his vehicle were all instantly killed. As soon as I got the news that this battalion lost their beloved commander, I immediately got in a helicopter and flew up to his battalion headquarters to meet with the leadership of his battalion, to console and put my arm around them, and to assure that our Division and the rest of the Theater leadership would do whatever we could to assist them through the battalion commander’s loss, and to as quickly as possible, get another commander for the battalion.
When I arrived and met with the battalion’s leadership, it was clear how much Gary was loved and respected. The impact he had on the culture and values and effectiveness of his unit was obvious, and the Cavalry troopers were clearly taken back knowing their beloved leader was no longer with them. A couple days later, during the memorial service for Gary and the other Soldiers who were killed in the attack, the Brigade Commander, Colonel Gary Volesky, summarized what Gary meant to the unit and to his boss. "Today we honor Lt. Col. Derby and the members of his (personal security detachment) who made the ultimate sacrifice in the defense of freedom for not only the people of Iraq but for the lives of our citizens in America as well," he said. "Of all the Soldiers I have known and lost during my time in the Army, I have never lost a closer friend than Gary Derby."
I’ve always known that the impact a leader has on the men and women in his or her organization is significant, but I learned that in crisis and stress, this impact is exponentially higher. Crisis and stress bring people closer, they allow themselves to become more vulnerable, and they are more attuned to what leaders are doing. This occurs simply because there is increased dependability on a leader to guide and lead through the minefields that can potentially bring uncompromising circumstances. But the glue that holds these people together is the trust that exists with their leader. Trust – perhaps the most important ingredient in effective leadership. The love and respect the troops had for Gary Derby was because Gary delivered for them again and again. Their trust factor was about as high as one can imagine.
But there is another element of trust that is as important as competence – the competence that Gary Derby demonstrated every day as a battalion commander in combat – and that is character. Quite simply, you can be the most effective and competent battalion commander in my Division in combat, but if you fail in character you fail in leadership. Let me illustrate with the 3rd Battalion 8th Cavalry Regiment battalion commander that followed Gary Derby.
3rd Battalion 8th Cavalry is traditionally assigned to the 1st Cavalry Division but was placed under my Division’s (the 25th Infantry Division – nicknamed “Tropic Lightning”) operational control while it was assigned to conduct operations in Mosul, Iraq. The 1st Cavalry Division headquarters was currently responsible for operations in Baghdad, while my Division was responsible for operations in northern Iraq, including Nineva Province and its provincial capital, Mosul. Working with my sister Division Commander from the 1st Cavalry Division, we worked hard to find a commander who we could quickly place in charge of the battalion and get it back into the fight. We were fortunate to find an officer who worked in the 1st Cavalry Division headquarters who was already selected for battalion command, although scheduled to take over a year or so later. But because he was selected for command, and already in Theater, we were able to divert him to take command of 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry now. For me, this was a critical event. The battalion lost its beloved leader and was obviously set back on its heels. Western Mosul was a critical location in the fight against radical Sunni Islam, and we needed to get this battalion back into the fight as quickly as possible. Bringing this commander on board would facilitate the gap in effectiveness because of Gary Derby’s death.
The new commander was tough, personable, and accepted by the battalion’s leadership. He quickly proved through his competence, that he would be an effective leader in this critical location in western Mosul. But he hadn’t been in command a couple months when I received a call from his brigade commander of an issue that needed to be looked in to.
In combat, security of one’s weapon and the authorized use of lethal force is not only critical in defeating the adversary, but it is also critical in the safe application of lethal force to prevent accidental fratricide. The “negligent discharge” of a weapon is one of the leading causes of a safety violation that can easily cause accidental injury or death of one’s friendly force. As a result, Army units increase awareness, training, and safety to prevent this accidental injury, and will also discipline those who commit negligent discharges to demonstrate to the command the seriousness of such an offense.
So, the report I received from the Brigade Commander was that this new battalion commander had a negligent discharge with his personal weapon and ordered his subordinates who were with him when the incident occurred not to report it and not disclose to anyone under any circumstances that the incident had occurred.
When I received the report, we obviously had to initiate an investigation, and during the investigation, it was disclosed that in addition to the negligent discharge and ordering his subordinates to not report it, the commander was also having an inappropriate relationship with the spouse of one of his staff officers. Enough was enough, and for the remainder of the investigation, we had to suspend him from command, and we sent him home while the investigation was completed. And sure enough, the investigation substantiated the allegations, and the commander was relieved of command.
It does not matter how competent you are as a leader, because if you fail in character, you fail in leadership. This couldn’t have been more obvious, than what occurred with 3rd Battalion, 8th Cavalry Regiment.
When the second battalion commander was relieved, the battalion not only lost its trusted and competent leadership in Gary Derby, but it now lost its moral compass with the character defects of the second battalion commander. The battalion would continue to work hard at its mission, but it was never the same. I recall conducting battlefield circulation and went out on patrol with the battalion for a day and left concerned about the discipline of the unit I was with. The Soldiers were out of uniform, the Non-Commissioned Officers were not making corrections, disrespectful comments were made over the radio that we all were able to hear, and it was concerning. The Brigade commander and I had a long conversation of what was needed to bring standards and discipline back to the battalion, and fortunately under his leadership, he addressed the situation appropriately. But the battalion had never been the same, and this taught me another important lesson about character defects in leadership.
Quite simply, the failure of character in leadership not only has an impact on the leader himself or herself, but it also has a significant impact on the unit’s organizational climate, as well as its ability to accomplish its assigned task and mission. And in combat, a unit with a defective organizational climate because of defective character in leadership, can have uncompromising consequences that not only impact mission accomplishment, but also the lives of each and every subordinate. Let me give you another key example of failure in character with devastating consequences in both the leader and the effectiveness of the unit.
Battalion CSM story
One of the most important and influential leaders in an infantry battalion of about 800-1,000 Soldiers, is its senior non-commissioned officer, commonly referred to as the Command Sergeant Major (CSM). Many in the battalion feel, next to the commander, that the CSM is indeed the most influential leader. So, when this leader finds himself or herself under investigation for some type of moral or ethical issue, the entire battalion is adversely impacted. This is their leader. This is the one they are told to emulate. This is the leader who not only establishes the standards but enforces the standards. This is the leader whom all the enlisted Soldiers want to be like. He is their role model and the person they will aspire to be like. All non-commissioned officers memorize an NCO Creed that says, “I am proud of the Corps of noncommissioned officers and will at all times conduct myself so as to bring credit upon the Corps, the military service and my country regardless of the situation in which I find myself. I will not use my grade or position to attain pleasure, profit, or personal safety”. So, when the senior NCO is charged with character issues contrary to the standards, values and culture of the unit and the NCO Corps, you can imagine the devastating impact it would have on the morale and discipline of a unit. And when that unit is in a combat environment, where stress and life and death situations face the troops daily, morale and discipline are exponentially affected. Such was the case with one of the infantry battalions in my Division.
Sexual violence is not only a crime that violates a fellow teammate, but it is also a scourge that will impact the victim in still unknown crippling ways for years. And knowing that one of your own teammates is a victim of sexual violence, also has a crippling impact on the morale of the unit itself. Such were the alleged charges against this Command Sergeant Major.
As we began the investigation, we had to suspend this leader from his position as the unit’s Command Sergeant Major. And interesting, allegations not only surfaced from one female Soldier in the unit, but from a number of others from other units. And they surfaced from not only this deployment, but from previous as well.
Exposing his conduct which was now under investigation did not create the most devastating impact of the character issues of this particular CSM. In the middle of the investigation, the CSM took his own life, which really put a knife directly into the heart of this unit. I will never forget the impact on this unit when they found out their CSM was not only under investigation for alleged unethical and immoral activity, but who took his own life instead of facing the charges and allegations. It was devastating. As with 3rd Battalion 8th Cavalry, the impact on the morale and discipline of a unit, particularly a unit in combat, is more devastating than the impact on the unethical Soldier himself or herself.
The Profession of Arms
When cadets graduate, they will become members of the Profession of Arms. As with any profession, the Profession of Arms has a unique service it provides its clients, and that service is the ethical application of lethal force for the protection of its client, the American people. On graduation day, when the cadets take their oath of office, they swear allegiance — not to the Commander in Chief or the Chief of Staff of the Army — but to the Constitution of the United States. And it is that Constitution that puts the military subordinate to its civilian officials who are elected by the American people. So in the Profession of Arms, our client is the American people.
As with any profession, it is important for members of the profession to have a relationship with their client, and that is a relationship that is built on trust. Trust is a function of both competence and character. It is earned and does not happen automatically. And it is earned by the competent, professional, and ethical application of lethal force in the protection of its client: the American people.
Effective leaders must earn the trust of not only those they lead, but they must also earn the trust of their bosses, or supervisors. I can be one of the most competent subordinates in my organization, but if my boss discovers that I lied about something, it would be hard for him or her to ever trust me with anything. I can make a promise to my subordinates that I will back them up or be there for them, but if I am not there for them when they need me, it would be hard, if not impossible, to ever have their trust again.
Likewise, my troops expected me, as their leader, to be competent in my duties. They trusted me to lead them in the harshest of circumstances, in the crucible of ground combat, and they trusted that I would make decisions that would give them every chance of not only accomplishing the mission, but also every chance of coming home and seeing their families again. If I failed to lead them physically in those harsh circumstances, or if I made poor decisions in the application of lethal force that unnecessarily caused them harm or even death, I would have lost their trust and it would have been nearly impossible to get it back. Trust is critical to leadership effectiveness, and trust comes about from both competence and character.
One other critical element of our profession is our commitment to it. In our profession, we choose to hold ourselves accountable. If we do not, then someone will, whether it is Congress, other agencies, or even the American people. If one within our profession exhibits behavior that is outside our values and norms, and that person’s behavior goes uncorrected, in most cases it will usually catch up with the Soldier. However, the damage that can occur between our client, the American people, and our profession, goes much further than the damage to the individual leader. I call this the Bank of Public Trust. As mentioned earlier, our relationship with the American people is built on trust. If a member of our profession, especially a senior officer with high visibility, commits egregious acts outside of our values, it not only brings harm to himself or herself, but to the entire profession. It also puts a “chink” into the trust that exists between our client and our profession. Continued bad behavior can ultimately drain the trust, where eventually the American people no longer have any trust or confidence in our profession. Those of us who served in the Army during Vietnam know all too well what it feels like to serve in an Army that is not trusted by its own client, the American people.
It is hard to earn America’s trust. It takes consistent behavior and performance of the highest values and standards, always meeting the expectation of the American people. And even when we do, it will almost always go unnoticed. But hundreds of valued acts will slowly increase that trust. And unfortunately, one single egregious act by a senior leader, or even a misaligned junior Soldier, can and will eradicate the entire trust deposit within the Bank of Public Trust. It is a funny dynamic how this works, but it is also tremendously important for all of us to realize the potential damage and consequences in public trust created by the maligned acts of a single Soldier or officer. And it is a terrible indictment to lose the trust of our client. We never want to go back to that again.
Pillow Fight
Let me give you an example of a huge drain on the bank of public trust. While Superintendent of West Point back in 2014, the freshman class (or plebes) performed an annual ritual in one evening at the beginning of the academic semester. Their ritual was an entire class pillow fight after taps and was designed to reduce the stress from the tough difficult Beast Barracks summer.
For whatever reason, this pillow fight produced a number of concussions and head injuries, and like many events today, it was captured by social media and posted someplace on the internet. But as you know social media today, once on the internet, it can go viral, and if it appeals to the public’s interest, it can easily go out of control. And that’s what happened to the pillow fight video. To make matters worse, the NY Times ran a hugely negative story on their front page, that was quickly picked up by CNN, Fox News, and every other news outlet out there. This was not the behavior the American people had expected of the future leaders of their Army. This was not the behavior they expected at one of their treasured institutions – which by the way is a public institution with an annual budget of over $200M paid for by the taxes of the American people.
The consequence? The withdrawal of every ounce of trust between West Point and its client – the American people. Or said another way, a complete withdrawal of the Bank of Public Trust.
Division Commander: 72 offenses
The battalion commander and battalion CSM character issues I referred to earlier were unfortunately not the only ethical issues of senior leaders I had to deal with during my 12 months in Iraq as a Division commander. As a Division Commander, I was in charge of 23,000 mostly Army Soldiers (and other service members, contractors, and civilians). While in command, I assumed responsibility for the adjudication of any senior leader misconduct within my Division. Senior leaders were not only the battalion commander or command sergeant major, but all senior non-commissioned officers, all officers, and all warrant officers. About three quarters of the way through our one-year deployment, after writing general officer letters of reprimand and reading Article 15 of the Uniform Code of Military Justice charges about once or twice a week, I asked our Judge Advocates what was going on in the Division. I was astonished with their reply that our senior leader misconduct was comparable to any other deployed Division in theater.
Most of the misconduct were not violations of the law of land warfare, but simple character issues linked to living in close quarters while on our Forward Operating Bases. Treating subordinates improperly, hostile command climates, inappropriate relationships, sexual harassment, and sexual assault were common themes. Failure to report for duty, or violations of General Order #1 were also common offenses. They were mostly moral issues of inappropriate behavior, all of which illustrated defects of character.
But the consequences of this misconduct were what surprised me the most. As mentioned earlier, not only did these incidents have a severe consequence and in most cases a termination of a career for the senior leader, but they also negatively impacted the health, welfare, morale, and discipline of their units. Morale and discipline are critical to a unit’s success while in combat, and anything that detracts from it has a significant impact on the unit’s ability to perform its combat mission.
Honorable Living: Cup of Coffee
So, this is one of the most important reasons why building and developing one’s character is so important in military leadership in the Profession of Arms. Some organizations will have an honor or ethical code to help remind the employees of the ethical values of the organization, and to highlight a set of values that defines that organization’s culture. The United States Military Academy at West Point, for example, has as its Honor Code that “a cadet will not lie, cheat or steal, nor tolerate those who do”. Although the honor code serves as the foundation of the Corps of Cadet’s values and culture, it does not encompass or define the entire character necessary for effective ethical leadership in today’s complex environments that leaders will find themselves in. We like to refer to the character we expect in leaders today, as “living honorable”. Living honorably has its foundation in West Point’s Honor Code, which says that a Cadet will not lie, cheat, or steal, nor tolerate anyone who does. But living honorably goes much further. It is the internalization of West Point’s values of duty, honor, and country, and the values of our Army, which are loyalty, duty, respect, selfless service, honor, integrity, and personal courage, so that they become part of our very essence. So that if we are faced with a compromising situation, we do not have to think about what right or wrong is, our natural reaction is the manifestation of what we have internalized.
Think of holding a cup of coffee filled to the top and someone accidently bumps into your arm. What is in that cup is going to spill out whether we want it to or not. And what comes out is what is inside. We may not like what comes out, but what does come out is indeed the true essence of what was inside. Likewise, we may not like how we reacted in a compromising situation, but I would maintain that our actions are the true manifestation of the values we have internalized. Therefore, our character must be developed, so that in these compromising situations, our actions are consistent with the values of duty, honor, and country, and the other values of our Army and the Profession of Arms.
Let me give you an example of an issue that was contrary to what we would consider “living honorably” but would not be a violation of moral or ethical character conflicts. I had a staff officer in my Division who was tremendously competent and demonstrated the highest of standards every day. But he was such a perfectionist, that any of his subordinates who failed to meet his high expectations were talked to in a hostile adversarial way. It is what we refer to as a hostile command climate. There were no violations of lying, cheating or stealing, nor of inappropriate relationships or moral or ethical issues. But if you found yourself in his staff unit, you would find any way possible to try to get out from under his authority, simply because of the antagonistic and hostile way he treated his subordinates. Not violating our fundamental character values, this would certainly be considered a violation to “living honorably”, simply because this is not how we treat those we work with and is demonstrated behavior that destroys the trust between a leader and his or her subordinates.
This therefore is another key reason why character is so critical to effective leadership, and that is because trust is such a critical component to effective leadership. If you were in a hostile work environment where you were constantly belittled and demeaned, even in front of your peers and others, would you be able to have a trust relationship with your boss? Can you then imagine an effective leader if his or her subordinates do not trust him or her? Or can you imagine a leader trying to lead if his or her boss does not trust him or her?
USMA Mission
All of this is why the mission statement of the US Military Academy is to “educate, train and inspire leaders of characters”. At West Point, we develop leaders militarily, intellectually, physically, and with character. But the mission statement does not say that we “educate, train and inspire leaders who are militarily competent, or intellectually competent or physically competent. Because you can be number one in your class academically, or number one in your class physically, but if you fail in character, you fail in leadership. So, building leaders of character is the most important thing we do at West Point. Period.
Polish History and President Trump visit to Poland and President Duda visit to the USA
Let me say that character goes far beyond living a moral and ethically based life. When the American people put their Army in harm’s way, they don’t expect the Army to go out there and look good or to do its best, they expect it to accomplish its mission and win. They also don’t expect the Army to win at all costs, they expect it to win in accordance with our Nation’s values.
But when you look at a winning team or a winning Army, what do you see? There are specific character traits that I have admired in the best units I’ve observed over the years, which include tenacity, relentlessness, discipline, grit, and moral and physical toughness. Further, these character traits of winning teams not only reflect the character of the Army, but they also reflect the personality and character of the people they represent.
In preparation for this talk, I went back and read President Trump’s speech to the people of Poland on July 6th, 2017 and learned a lot about the history of the great people of Poland and the grit and tenacious spirit of Poland. President Trump said, “The story of Poland is the story of a people who have never lost hope, who have never been broken, and who have never ever forgotten who they are”.
Poland persevered in the summer of 1944 with Nazi Germany pressing from the west, and Russia pressing from the easy, where 150,000 Poles died in a desperate struggle to overthrow this oppression. Poland then endured 4 decades of communist rule and stood in solidarity against oppression; against a cruel and wicked system that improvised your people and your cities. But your spirit never died. Your spirit never broke. Your spirit persevered, and with Pope John Paul II’s famous visit to Poland on 2 June 1979, everyone collectively recognized that your spirit wanted God.
President Trump said, “Poland has been a symbol of hope since the beginning of our Nation”, and this is where our two military academies are forever entwined. In our Revolutionary War to secure our freedom as a Nation, General George Washington knew the British wanted to secure the Hudson River flowing from upstate New York to New York City where the British were encamped at both ends. Their strategy was to dominate the river in order to divide the colonies. Divide and conquer. To counter this strategy, General Washington found a point on the western bank where the river made a dog-leg shift. Any boat sailing from north or south would have to go into this bend, stop, turn and proceed; thus, becoming very vulnerable. And on the western bank, small forts, or “redouts”, had to be created to deter and defeat any ground attack against the encamped revolutionary troops.
Unfortunately, the new nation had no experience in building defensive positions or forts, and Washington had to rely on the knowledge of a well known European military engineer – General Thaddeus Kosciuszko. Much of his work is still in place, in and around West Point. I love to visit the old redouts that have the thumbprint of General Kosciuszko. His insights and expertise made a difference, and if you know the importance of his work – not only at West Point, but all throughout Washington’s Army – his work was instrumental in the defeat of the British and the birth of my Nation today.
Conclusion
I can relate with President Trump’s statement that “Poland is the heart and soul of Europe”. Let me just say thank-you. Thank-you for showing us your indomitable spirit, your unwavering trust and loyalty, and your kindship and friendship. Thank-you for showing us and the rest of the world the character of strength, perseverance, grit, relentless tenacity, and mental and physical toughness. And thank-you for standing in solidarity from 250 years ago, to today, in Iraq, in Afghanistan, in your NATO commitment, and in welcoming U.S. Soldiers to your country.
President Duda’s visit to the United States this year, and his visit to the US Military Academy last year were historic visits, as they confirmed our partnership and commitments to each other’s peace and security. We were honored to host your president, and grateful that he would remind us of Poland’s sacrifices and your enduring commitment to freedom. Your security and the U.S. commitment to that security, remain symbols for not only a strong partnership between our Nations, but also a strong and democratic free Europe.