Posted on 07/05/2005 12:21:04 AM PDT by Former Military Chick
Leadership is not measured by the force of your punch, but by the the respect you have cultivated in those whom you will lead into combat. It is not the fear of your kick that motivates a soldier, but rather his fear of letting down his leader.
heh....
Something I've noticed - look at the militaries created by countries who do a lot of kicking, punching, etc - Russia, Korea, most South American and African armies - you get the idea. Their armies, as a whole, aren't worth a bucket of warm spit.
Our techniques, on the other hand, seem to be working pretty well. Remember that 95% of the soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan now went through basic training AFTER 1990.
Oh, and by the way, thanks for your service, and for giving me a free country to grow up in.
From reading both pieces, it appears that the choice of sentence was dismissal from the service OR time in prison..not both. Am I mistaken in this? Regardless, the guy's carreer is effectively over..He'll never wear the uniform again... An even bigger disappointment is the apparent total failure of the NCO's informal grapevine to try to rectify the situation. Look, let's say the captain was a total bad apple.. you've got several DI's in the company...the way it should work, if the CO's off the wall, is that one or more of them has a beer with the CSM...hey tell him that he needs to have a word with the Col..or even better, that that Col needs to "drop in" a few times to see what's going on. S**T rolls downhill rapidly in the military, but when it hits, EVERONE, up and down the chain of command.. gets smeared..
One last point..the guy was a decorated veteran of Iraq..he used Lyme disease in his defense ( the military equivalwent of the "Twinkies" defense?), yet to his credit, he did NOT cite post-traumatic stress syndrome as a defense. I give him credit for that much..
My intuition tells me that there is more here...
Thank you Terabitten. You have made a good observation about other armies. Training involves mental and physical development and training in the use of weapons and tactics. None of it requires back alley abuse. And thanks again for you good wishes. Serving was a great honor for me.
As for the physical part, most that I served with bled and died in service to their country without being abused. The days of the non-thinking military person have long been gone.
Heros are born, not made by military training of any kind.
Maybe the judge saw something in this case that you and I can't see. While the outcome seems odd, I trust their judgment -- and there are worse cases of injustice.
I think that's right. Something is being left out of the article. There has to be some form of an 'other than honorable' discharge from the service that goes along with this punishment. Although it doesn't say so, he may have already been discharged.
FMC, there are two separate issues here.
1. Is the kinder, gentler, trainee treatment policy a good idea? and
2. Whether it is or not, is an officer obligated to follow and enforce it?
Let's not dwell on #1 at this juncture -- that's a policy matter that honestly does not bear on the facts of the case. The fact of the matter is that this man has acted in a truly bad manner. He disobeyed the orders of the officers appointed over him. Then he lied about it -- under oath.
How COULD they let this guy stay in? We're not so short of people that we need criminals or people with no self control. One profound lesson from SF is that a team at half strength where every man is completely dependable is superior to a team at full strength with one questionable man.
I don't get or read Army Times any more. Since Gannett bought them, they have been so liberal and hostile to the service, why bother? But I agree with you fully that Captain Fulton ought to go, as a former commander of mine used to tell his officers that failed to excel, "and take his brand of excellence somewhere else."
d.o.l.
Criminal Number 18F
The point is this, Basic Training is not the place for this type of behavior. Let them get it from their units when they finish basic and arrive at their new units. Basic is to teach enlistees how to assimilate into the service, not "toughen" them up. It's to see if folks can follow simple instructions like folding your underwear into six inch squares, hang shirts two inches apart, etc. If you can do that, we can trust you with reading a technical order on how to fix a tank or airplane.
My TI's were verbally abusive and man, I swear, there were times it looked like they wanted to kick the tar out of some us, but they restrained themselves. Later on in my career, I learned to appreciate what they taught me.
There is no place for this kind of treatment in BASIC TRAINING. If you're going to Spec Ops, or aircrew survival training, etc., then all bets are off.
Folks sometimes wonder why enlistees get out after their initial hitch and then turn on the services. This is one of many reasons why.
As for why this Capt. is still in the Army, I can only surmise that it may have something to do with severance pay. I've heard of officers getting involuntarily separated getting severance. However, this is a criminal case now, so who knows?
Just my $.02 and change.
Cheers!
I agree with you. I went through basic training back in 1974 and never saw this kind of stuff. My DI's didn't need to use physical abuse because they were not only superb leaders but very creative in finding ways of motivating excellence without resorting to assault.
Me too. I was a Drill Sgt at Knox in late 1960's and went to Infantry OCS 1972...plenty of harrassment but NO TOUCHING...not sure what this CPT was doing. What happened to the Honor Code?
He probably was influenced to deny, deny, deny and felt he would be protected, but then a video tape showed up and the rest of his command left him to twist in the wind. Even after that, though, he kept his mouth shut and didn't point his finger up the chain of command, and prosecutors didn't look too hard that way either. He was in a no-win situation.
It would be good to find out. Apparently the Honor Code was lost on that company commander. A candidate does not lie, cheat or steal...or tolerate those who do. I remember in my class on graduation weekend, one of my friends went swimming (no uniform of course) was turned in by someone, lied about it and was thrown out...on his last weekend!
Having read the complete article, I've got some thoughts.
First, the Captain was the commander of a unit whose mission was to train young men according to a given set of standards. The facts proven in the case were that he witnessed his NCOs violating those standards (and the UCMJ), failed to correct them when he saw his men violating the standards, and lied under oath about having witnessed them violating standards. He is granted no lattitude in his mission statement regarding his (or my) personal feelings about the standards that were part of his mission. Nor were the NCOs violating them granted a personal opinion.
In my own mind, I'm having trouble deciding whether his most egregious fault is failing in his mission (the dereliction charge) or lying about it under oath. Either way, he has proven himself unworthy of additional responsibility. He should not be afforded even the possibility of returning to active duty.
In other words, I think the Judge blew it.
I understand that the judge was following his legally mandated requirement (per the UCMJ) of taking mitigating factors into account before deciding upon a sentence. Some of those mitigating factors:
1. Previous honorable experience, to include three deployments to three different active theaters (Kosovo, Afghanistan, Iraq), at least one of which resulted in decoration for his service.
2. Impact of potential sentences on the family of the accused.
3. The seriousness of the crimes committed by the NCO's, none was particularly severe (their punishments varied from mere demotion to 30 days in confinement). The bubbas at Abu Ghraib were treated much worse than the trainees in this incident, for instance.
There are probably other mitigating factors, but those are the ones that jump immediately to mind from having read the article yesterday. Number two was probably the biggest factor, I'm guessing, based on the fact that the judge allowed him to continue to collect pay/benefits and left him with a job, even if it's a dead-end one.
Nevertheless, I don't think this guy deserves the trust implicit in letting him come back on active duty to lead any of our soldiers ever again. He violated his mission, then lied to protect the real offenders. He seems to have forgotten that his primary responsibility was to the trainees, not to the NCOs. Is it possible this guy learned from his mistakes? Yes. But he should never have left his commissioning source still needing to learn that lesson, let alone rising to be a company commander without having learned it.
I don't care if this dude had just walked away from the Army without further punishment, so long as he walked away.
He probably was influenced to deny, deny, deny and felt he would be protected, but then a video tape showed up and the rest of his command left him to twist in the wind. Even after that, though, he kept his mouth shut and didn't point his finger up the chain of command, and prosecutors didn't look too hard that way either. He was in a no-win situation.
Sorry to disagree, but I read the whole article and there are facts in it that you probably haven't seen.
For example, the incident came under investigation in the first place because the Battalion Commander followed a regulation requiring him to periodically question trainees about abuse. He did and they told him about the incidents. He immediately began investigation, which led to the charges being filed.
No cover up. No pressure from the top.
I agree the NCOs were probably getting away with this under a previous commander if they thought they could get away with it under this one. I'm willing to bet that was also investigated. We'll know if there are ever any charges filed on his predecessor.
Interesting that video was being made during the scene. I'm curious as to who was taking it and what was their motivation? Perhaps this wasn't the first time CPT Fulton and his Drill Sergeants let loose and physically abused new trainees. Perhaps someone who had a grudge or knew this was occuring was motivated to capture it on video. It must have made for a tight case against him. I too am pissed that this "Captain" is allowed to remain in the Army. He should serve his time, be fined the maximum and be cashiered from the Army. We don't need anyone with this lack of character commanding and leading soldiers that badly- ever.
Good points all; however I only feel qualified to speak from my own experience, which one would expect to differ between services and between the genders. Certainly I never witnessed physical abuse or even a blanket party, though I heard rumors from later platoons that ended up in the same MOS school.
I really was frustrated.
My beloved, No Longer Free State offered his thoughts on the subject, so I thought I would share them with you. His post is #35. I am biased but as they say behind every great man, is a woman! :)
Evening Peach, nice to know I am in such good company. I still am very disappointed but having the ability to discuss this certainly helps put it into perspective.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.