Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: kvkkc1 who wrote (29821)	8/17/2000 4:24:52 PM
From: greenspirit	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 769667

You're making my point for me. Leadership which was unable to understand the dynamic effects on the culture of the military, as it relates to one policy change, demonstrated a severe lack of knowledge of their craft. The negative effects of "don't ask, don't tell" on the troops, (if any existed) were a symptom of a much broader disconnection between military leaders and the system under which they operate. Correctly, our military is under the control of civilian authority. At times our civilian authority (in this case the President) may strongly desire certain policy shifts which go against the grain of many in the trenches. How those changes are implemented, and how they in turn ultimately effect the troops is directly related to the way those policies are communicated, managed and implemented. Effective leaders wouldn't have let a single policy change dramatically negatively alter the morale of the troops. The military in the past has always been on the leading edge of social change and development. Racial integration is one area where the military can proudly showcast how they led, and still does in many ways. Implementing "don't ask, don't tell" should have gone down this same path of acceptance. If it didn't in the troops you led, perhaps it had something to do with the way you communicated your own biases. Additionally, I believe you've overstated the negative effect this policy change had on troop morale. From my perspective, after the initial first few months of national attention and discussion, no one really cared all that much about the policy change. Allowing our Commander in Chief to get away with lying under oath and Fraternizing in the Oval Office, when we have booted out hundreds (and maybe thousands) of 20 year olds with families for the same offense or less, has had a much deeper negative effect toward morale. And it goes to the heart of my comments related to leaders unwilling to "walk-the-talk". Policy changes are a manageable issue. Double-standards of this magnitude, are an entirely different ball game. Michael