Four star removal

the importance of modeling

Several news outlets trumpeted a relatively rare action yesterday when the Secretary of the Army, Christine Wormuth, fired a four star general who interfered in the promotion board to advantage a subordinate. According to what I read, the last time firing of a U.S. four star (not Stan McCrystal who chose to retire after remarks attributed to him criticizing President Obama in 2010) was 2005, in that case due to more personal egregious behavior.

Wormuth’s decision is actually unsurprising as the sanctity of promotion boards, along with a number of other processes in the U.S. military, is crucial. The importance is not merely to assure we don’t become a bunch of “tin pot generals” who promote only our buddies (or budettes in this particular case) but for a far more crucial aspect of “good order and discipline” in the armed forces.

It’s hard to overestimate this latter attribute that we hope separates our military from others. Part of order and discipline results from understanding the rules of the road, the Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), instilled immediately for any incoming military personnel at any and all levels. The UCMJ lays out military law on the range of behaviors, from disobeying a lawful order from a superior to drunk driving to lying and everything in between. It’s the complete package. The Code also discusses in detailed articles, numbering 146 in total, the procedures used should someone in uniform face an accusation under the Code. It applies across the Marine Corps, Army, Coast Guard, Space Force, Air Force, and Navy. It is the law.

The UCMJ mandates processes but the military also relies on leaders to model good behavior to encourage subordinates to adhere to that same behavior. Secretary Wormuth’s decision thus had two purposes: interfering in a process while guarding against erosion of “good order and discipline”.

One of the common problems militaries in the former Third World faced historically was a sense of command for personal gain (broadly applied) rather than an objective system of predictable governance. In systems where rules seem completely malleable, one gets Lieutenants or colonels rallying sufficient force to overthrow governments as occurred in Liberia in the late 1970s or Libya a decade earlier.

Rule of law and predictability provide some stability as they offer standards against which everyone is held.

When Bill Clinton was elected in 1992, a soto voce complaint by many in the military was that his acknowledged use of marijuana disqualified as Commander-in-Chief under the UCMJ. Obviously Clinton’s actions on that and other troubling behaviors did not rise to a high enough level to dissuade millions of voters in two general elections but the discontent among the military was noteworthy and often caustic. As Clinton served out both terms as POTUS, the grumbling abated but never entirely disappeared. Because these were not public statements against the President, there were no prosecutions that I recall (other readers may know more or have better memory than I do). Even in our “not-for-attribution” setting at the National War College seminar table, the overwhelming majority of personnel were guarded in their criticisms of superiors for fear of being called out on this.

It also cannot be a partisan thing as all parties must adhere for the system to work.

The real crux of Womrthu’s issue would be when a superior engages in behavior that subordinate level troops decide must be acceptable, regardless of UCMJ or admonitions to stop. The military justice system is separate from the civilian system but I can imagine the controversies of prosecuting behaviors leading to Congressional challenges in our era of constantly lodging complaints.

I know nothing of General Charles Hamilton, now former Commander of Army Materiel Command, except what I read in these reports. I have to assume the Secretary acted out of compelling need based on investigations of the accusations against him rather than a whim as we don’t generally remove people without evidence (again, part of the UCMJ so we have a professional service rather than merely political friends in high places). I would not assume the message Wormuth was sending was inconsequential. It was actually at the heart of who we are as a system. Our system is far from perfect but it’s the one we operate within.

I welcome any rebuttals, thoughts, queries on this or any other piece. Several readers of this column are retired military who may have better understanding of this than I do, having never served; a couple of them are lawyers, including a retired Judge Advocate General. But the U.S. military are our Armed Forces, the women and men who carry arms on our behalf. We have been lucky over two and a half centuries that those millions who served have respected civilian control over the military and the needs of the country. The Hamilton case raises some interesting questions those of us never in uniform may not have considered.

Thank you for reading this or any other Actions. I especially thank the subscribers. If you can afford to become a subscriber for 2025, I would welcome that (or a gift subscription for someone who might enjoy Actions) but I write to expand our measured, civil conversation amid a time of too much yelling. I also welcome thoughts on how our actions create consequences we never envision.

Be well and be safe. FIN

Todd South, “Army Secretary Fires Four Star General for Promotion Board Meddling”, MilitaryTimes.com, retrieved at https://www.defensenews.com/news/your-army/2024/12/10/army-secretary-fires-four-star-general-for-promotion-board-meddling/

Uniform Code of Military Justice, retrieved at https://ucmj.us