Army Screws Up; Introduces Concept of "Taking Responsibility" to Government

Understandably, people have been freaking out over this story:

Army Sends 'Dear John Doe' Letters to Families of Fallen Troops

The Army mistakenly sent letters addressed "Dear John Doe" to 7,000 family members of soldiers who died in Iraq and Afghanistan, unleashing calls from troubled relatives and prompting a formal apology yesterday from the Army's top general.

Yeah, it's bad. But I'm going to take a different angle than most. Rather than criticize with a knee jerk, I'm looking at it this way: So the Army fucked up. Everybody knows it. I'm sure some witty person, somewhere has already designed the appropriate "FAIL" graphic to go along with the situation. I got it. But what makes this case different from most, is that as soon as it happened, the Army's senior leadership came out and not only publicly apologized, but they flat out took responsibility for the mistake.

Just look at some of these responses:

"There are no words to adequately apologize for this mistake or for the hurt it may have caused," Brig. Gen. Reuben D. Jones, the Army's adjutant general, said in a statement.

In addition to the apology, Gen. George W. Casey Jr., the Army's chief of staff, is sending the families a new letter explaining the error.

The Army declined to release the name of the California company that printed the letters, insisting the responsibility for preventing the error was the military's alone.

"We take full responsibility," Boyce said.

And not even a single person was killed in the incident. Now, imagine for a moment if the Bush administration had ever had the guts to show such leadership. Take the obvious example: Everybody knows that diverting from Afghanistan to Iraq was a massive bolo. Even the neo-cons who still publicly argue it was the right decision are aware of that. They know the deal. It's not a big secret. But you will never -- for the rest of your life -- ever hear a George Bush, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Condoleezza Rice, Paul Wolfowitz, Bill Kristol, Frank Gaffney, or Fred Kagan say, "There are no words to adequately apologize for this mistake or for the hurt it may have caused." Or, "we take full responsibility." In fact, you will see me managing the Palin/Wurzelbacher ticket in 2012 before you see anything close to the above people sending the families of the fallen a personal letter "explaining the error." You could say the same for Abu Ghraib, Hurricane Katrina, or any number of other catastrophes over which this administration has presided.

But then, that's simply their hallmark. No accountability. No responsibility. They're cowards to the end.

So, given that contrast, my hat's off to the Army today. They screwed up -- bad -- and then they did what leaders and professionals do: They stepped up and took total responsibility. And that doesn't excuse anything. But it's heartening all the same.

Also available at VetVoice.

Comments

[ThermoChemist]

I know it's difficult to believe, but Dubya DID wear his "big-boy pants" and claim [faux] responsibility at least two [whole] times.

[1] http://blog.washingtonpost.com/achenblog/2005/12/bush_almost_admits_a_mistake.html

"It is true that many nations believed that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. But much of the intelligence turned out to be wrong. And as your President, I AM RESPONSIBLE for the decision to go into Iraq."

[2] Bush claims responsibility for Katrina failures
http://the-reaction.blogspot.com/2005/09/bush-claims-responsibility-for-katrina.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/9324891/

President Bush said on Tuesday that he bore responsibility for any failures of the federal government in its response to Hurricane Katrina and suggested that he was unsure whether the country was adequately prepared for another catastrophic storm or terrorist attack.

"Katrina exposed serious problems in our response capability at all levels of government, and to the extent that the federal government didn't fully do its job right, I TAKE RESPONSIBILITY," Mr. Bush said in an appearance in the East Room with President Jalal Talabani of Iraq. "I want to know what went right and what went wrong.

[MarieLA]

I’m glad that you described the Bush comments as “faux” responsibility. I always question that phrase, "I take responsibility" when it seems that the person saying it is simultaneously trying to mitigate his behavior. He definitely wasn't taking FULL responsibility since he hedged his statements with those comments about how "all levels of government" or "many nations" were also in the wrong.

That’s such a lame phrase when not backed up by action or a genuine apology. It always seems to fall from the lips of politicians who have been caught cheating on their wives or on their taxes or what have you. The spoken part is, “I take full responsibility for my actions.” The unspoken part is, “But don’t expect me to actually face any consequences for my behavior.” I'm not saying that this is what the Army did here. I think their reaction was genuine - I've just often wondered what it really means when one of these guys (like Bush) says, "I take responsibility" and leaves it at that.

[ThermoChemist]

I agree. Equally as pitiful, as a "feigned" half-hearted attempt at taking RESPONSIBILITY, are the lame attempts at APOLOGIZING..!
I would like to see a politician give a true, sincere apology when confronted with a wrong..!

As per -- http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/2008/11/saying-sorry.html ]
"...there's the Vicarious apology: saying sorry for something somebody
else did, sometimes a very long time ago. Politicians and priests are particularly prone to this because it gets the apologizer cheap kudos without costing him anything. A telltale sign of an imminent vicarious apology is the tortured appearance of the passive tense: “Mistakes have been made,” or “Lessons have been learned,” in place
of that difficult little word “I”. "

Dubya is famous for this -- the declared apology that is really a non-apology. A generic "mistakes were made" statement is given; never stating WHAT mistakes were made, or by whom (!?!).

Example:
Bush Apologizes for Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119156,00.html

GWB offered his first direct apology over the prison issue.

"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," GWB said.

See? GWB stated that he's "SORRY for the humiliation suffered" -- NOT "SORRY for inflicting the humiliation"...!

[...or he was "SORRY" that pictures of the abuse appeared on the Internet -- NOT "SORRY" that policies existed where the pictures could be taken in the first place.]

[ThermoChemist]

Agreed...! Equally as pitiful, as a "feigned" half-hearted attempt at taking RESPONSIBILITY, are the lame attempts at APOLOGIZING..! I would like to see a politician give a true, sincere apology when confronted with a wrong..!

As per -- http://maggidawn.typepad.com/maggidawn/2008/11/saying-sorry.html
"...there's the Vicarious apology: saying sorry for something somebody
else did, sometimes a very long time ago. Politicians and priests are particularly prone to this because it gets the apologizer cheap kudos without costing him anything. A telltale sign of an imminent vicarious apology is the tortured appearance of the passive tense: “Mistakes have been made,” or “Lessons have been learned,” in place of that difficult little word “I”. "

Dubya is famous for this -- the declared apology that is really a non-apology. A generic "mistakes were made" statement is given; never stating WHAT mistakes were made, or by whom (!?!).

Bush Apologizes for Iraqi Prisoner Abuse
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,119156,00.html

GWB offered his first direct apology over the prison issue.

"I told him I was sorry for the humiliation suffered by the Iraqi prisoners and the humiliation suffered by their families," GWB said.

GWB stated that he was "SORRY for the humiliation suffered" -- NOT "SORRY for the inflicting the humiliation"...!

[...or he was "SORRY" that pictures of the abuse appeared on the Internet -- NOT "SORRY" that policies existed where the pictures could be taken in the first place.]

[SiberianRat]

Let's hope this is just the beginning. We need LOTS more people taking responsibility in a lot of areas.

[rocketman69]

Show this Barney Frank and Chris Dodd.

[appleknocker]

"Taking responsibility" without consequences - especially for a routine clerical error - is actually not that uncommon, even among our rulers. Janet Reno, for example, even "took responsibility" for the Waco holocaust and then sailed blithely on without a thought of resigning.

[EtTuBrute]

Isn't it a little early to be determining that there have been no consequences?

[Articulator]

Of all people, George Bush should understand that the first step in correcting a problem is to admit that there is a problem.

[marignymitch]

Heads will roll! Those that fessed up broke the no-talk rule.

[Rog49Thomas]

The critical first step in taking responsibility is admitting a mistake.

When your political philosophy and entire worldview are based on delusions and hallucinations, it may be hard to see reality.

[EtTuBrute]

I agree. The commander is always responsible. It would be a refreshing change to see some others in government following their example.

@Arawak: not a new phenomenon. Occurred quite a bit during Vietnam (returning due to alienation from the society). Truth be told, it is a consistent phenomenon throughout history.

@others: The principle of civilian control of the military in our country means that quite often soldiers are asked (ordered) to do things with which they do not agree. It's an occupational hazard. Because they carry out unpopular policies does not necessarily mean that individuals are without personal integrity. They will readily accept responsibility for shortcomings or failures. That is a core principle to most professional soldiers (acceptance of responsibility).

You will be hard-pressed though to find many members of the military who describe themselves as heroes. Their belief is that they are simply doing their job. They may cite the example of some other individual who has performed a specific heroic act, but you will find few (if any) respected soldiers willing to accept that description.

[Rog49Thomas]

It's more than alienation.

It's turning your head in the Humvee to say something to a friend and winding up with a mouthful of bloody pulp when the IED goes off on the side your buddy is sitting.

It's being under almost constant stress - not knowing if you're going to come back from mission. Not knowing what those around you are saying.

It's seeing and smelling the human wreckage of war - bodies - theirs or ours - cooking in the 150 degree heat - maybe for more than a day.

It's being in those situations where you have to make a decision and then finding out sometimes that you killed or injured civilians rather than combatants.

[EtTuBrute]

Rog - wasn't trying to be superficial or glib, but that wasn't the main thrust of my post or the topic, so didn't expand or concentrate on it, just didn't want it to go unaddressed. The word limit in these forums also can be inhibiting to serious in-depth discussions.

I've found through difficult experiences that the audience for discussion of the subject is limited, first because it is difficult (if not impossible) for others (civilians) to relate to the situation(s) you describe, regardless of the time period or theater they took place in, and second because the discussion more often than not turns into a political discussion, which is only tangentially applicable to the subject. The shock, stress, sensory responses, and moral issues are common to all wars, at least from my personal knowledge and my discussions with veterans back to and including WWI.

I'm a partially disabled vet, by the way, and no, not as a result of knees injured playing tennis or the like (don't laugh, I know of one just exactly like that).

[cowsandsheep]

HOORAH!!!

KIng Of Battle.

Read The Name Dammm It.
Baaaaaa

[Arawak]

The returning soldiers I've spoken to are not the same. One guy said he could not tolerate civilian life after being in a firefight. He kept going back for multiple tours. Who says the war in Afghanistan is justified?

[Rog49Thomas]

This is the dirty little secret of war.

Even those not injured physically come back with profound mental scars.

[WmC]

Alas, poor John Doe! I knew him, Horatio, a fellow of infinite
jest, of most excellent fancy. He hath bore me on his back a
thousand times, and now how abhorr'd in my imagination it is!
My gorge rises at it.

[LITNUP]

Ask the vast majority of the military heroes and their families if they think that their fighting is and was a mistake... you had better not ask them in person ... This is despicable

[TremoluxMan]

Friedman was saying the mistake lay in taking the focus off Afghanistan and putting it on a bogus and unnecessary war in Iraq. The fault lies not in those doing the fighting, but in where they are ordered to fight and under what pretexts.
Now, Afghanistan may go down the drain because badly needed attention, manpower and resources have been diverted for the past 5-6 years.

[LeftRight]

First, he didn't say that they were wrong. What he said was that they were doing their jobs and their LEADERS were wrong to allocate men and resources to a war that shouldn't have ever been fought!

Second, I doubt that very many of them would say that this is going right anymore!

[drkazmd65]

Their fighting WASN'T a mistake,... the mistake was sending them into the war/occupation with bad plans, insufficient equipment, and no plan for getting them home in a timely manner.

And that responsibility falls directly on the shoulders of the civilains that decided to send them off to Iraq to begin win. THAT is where the mistake was made. The military did almost exactly what they were supposed to do in that situation.

No thinking person, Liberal or Conservative blames the soldiers on the ground.

[johnsopinion]

After watching a program on television about Rome and Gaius Julius Caesar
in particular some years back, I've often wondered about our leaders. Whenever
they want to go to war, shouldn't THEY be the ones out in front, leading the
troops? Kind of wimpy to hang back in the office while their desires are being
fulfilled by others, isn't it? Rome survived while Caesar was out on the front
line. Does the Presidency cause some kind of short-circuit thinking that the U.S.
will fall without their presence?

[IndependentLass]

Exactly right! Good post.

[Michael Sheridan]

This wasn't a policy blunder--it was simple human error in mismanaging a mail merge. A mistake with terrible emotional resonance, but it's unlikely anyone died as a result. It wasn't a planned action the way the Iraq War was. I can forgive (while still holding accountable) whoever was responsible for sending thousands of misadressed letters. I'll never forgive the crew that made those letters necessary.

[LeftRight]

I will agree, but I must admit that I could come a lot closer to forgiveness if they would just admit that they screwed the pooch!

[LeftRight]

Hey, not even the Army can screw it up EVERY time! That takes a NeoCon!