I am gonna warn you, this is quite sad and disturbing. It is a brutal flashback to a very difficult period of Northwest history, but I felt that it was important to share and discuss it. I am sure most of you are familiar with this terrible day in June of 1994, but you may not know the backstory. This brief study demonstrates that all leaders must be held to the same high standard or the consequences can be deadly and far reaching.

Darker Shades of Blue: A Case Study of Failed Leadership

To accompany the text, I have found footage of several incidents described in the article as well as a fairly complete overview of the final disaster.

I post this as a simple reminder of the sort of climate that is created when a popular "rogue" writes his own rules outside the lines. This is not offered as an indictment of those who survived, or a slap at those who continue to bravely serve our country. It simply demonstrates in blunt terms that impulsive behavior while making command decisions is very dangerous. When critical mistakes are made without immediate consequences in the short term, it can get good people killed in the long run.

"Often my haste is a mistake, but I live with the consequences without complaint."

-- John McCain

Littlesongs, you have been posting up some seriously good material as of late.

Thanks a bunch for that. Some of it takes a while to digest, and I'm distracted by things. You might not see the responses you would expect, but that does not mean some (I hope it's some) of us are not reading and thinking.

"Leadership exists in direct proportion to the degree to which subordinates are willing to follow. Leadership is a social phenomenon When followers cease to follow, leaders cease to lead."

(this one sucked me in)

In these scenarios, there existed a significant motivation for subordinates to do the right thing.

Put in the context of our current dilemma, that significant motivation does not always exist to do the right thing.

1. People have bought into poor expectations and thus are not motivated.

(this one is serious and one I believe to be deliberate on the part of establishment powers that be seeing value from promoting these poor expectations)

2. People are profiting from the poor leadership and thus are not motivated.

(varies from just ignorant people doing well, to really just this being a reinforcement of #1)

3. People fail to see the implications of the poor leadership and are not motivated, when they otherwise would be.

(this one is a serious problem in that I believe it impacts a significant number of us)

4. People are motivated to do the right thing, but fail to either be empowered, or lack the perception of empowerment.

(result is the same, but solutions to the dilemma are different, of course)

5. Variation on #4: People are motivated, and perhaps empowered, but are not aware of their numbers and therefore do not feel compelled to act, believing such an act would be futile.

I've noted a very significant number of my peers fall into one of these classes. In general, the expectation of principle being important enough to warrant more than passing consideration isn't always set to the degree it should be for the checks and balances we depend on to function as they should.

I've actually had people look at me, with surprised looks on their faces, and state: "You actually stand for stuff?" And this is on BASIC, CORE stuff. Not the usual hot button crap, but fundamental truisms that should be fairly well recognized across the board, regardless of where one is politically!

I find it difficult to nail this down, but it's almost like these kinds of people are happy they've got their out to be the disinterested asses they are! It's like the feelings I've heard gay friends express over seeing some social relief favorable to them.

In the case of the gay person, these feelings are warranted and just, of course.

In the case of the person, just wanting to get theirs at any cost, they really aren't.

Are they?



What the fuck do we do with that?

Thanks for the link to the Bush White Hou . . . I mean the Fairfield B-52 Crash report.

I've known of this idiotic indicdent for years but didn't know of the depth until now. Thanks LP.



As for the election, if McCain wins, I will apologize to my kid for leaving her this mess.

Thanks Missing and Skep. I felt that the article dovetailed well with this election. It is crucial to weigh in all the factors when choosing a leader. Here are some thoughts about Senator McCain that may have been lost in the long primary battle:

It is not difficult in Washington to find high-level military officials who have had close encounters with John McCain's temper, and who find it worrisome. Politicians sometimes scream for effect, but the concern is that McCain has, at times, come across as out of control. It is difficult to find current or former officers willing to describe those encounters in detail on the record. That's because, by and large, those officers admire McCain. But that doesn't mean they want his finger on the proverbial button...

"I like McCain. I respect McCain. But I am a little worried by his knee-jerk response factor," said retired Maj. Gen. Paul Eaton, who was in charge of training the Iraqi military from 2003 to 2004. "I think it is a little scary. I think this guy's first reactions are not necessarily the best reactions. I believe that he acts on impulse."

"I studied leadership for a long time during 32 years in the military," said retired Air Force Maj. Gen. Scott Gration, a one-time Republican who is supporting Obama. "It is all about character. Who can motivate willing followers? Who has the vision? Who can inspire people?" Gration asked. "I have tremendous respect for John McCain, but I would not follow him."

"One of the things the senior military would like to see when they go visit the president is a kind of consistency, a kind of reliability," explained retired Gen. Merrill McPeak, a former Republican, former chief of staff of the Air Force and former fighter pilot who flew 285 combat missions.

McPeak said his perception is that Obama is "not that up when he is up and not that down when he is down. He is kind of a steady Eddie. This is a very important feature," McPeak said. On the other hand, he said, "McCain has got a reputation for being a little volatile." McPeak is campaigning for Obama...

John Lehman, the Navy secretary during the Reagan administration and a McCain supporter, said he has known the Arizona senator for 30 years. Lehman said that in comparison with some of the people he has worked for, such as former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, "John McCain is a pussycat."

"I have never seen him really lose it and really be just passionately furious," Lehman said. "When I have seen him lose his temper, it is for effect."

McCain's outbursts have only occasionally been captured by the press. The most recent episode appeared to have occurred last May, when McCain was embroiled in immigration reform negotiations with Republican Sen. John Cornyn of Texas. Cornyn accused McCain of "parachuting" in on the negotiations. During the heated exchange that followed, McCain screamed "Fuck you!" at Cornyn, according to news reports at the time.

Such McCain episodes have occurred for many years. Strikingly, McCain has an icy relationship with some families of American service members still missing in Southeast Asia. That's in part because in a 1992 hearing he unloaded on a witness whose brother went missing during the Vietnam War. Dolores Apodaca Alfond expressed concern that the Senate panel looking into missing service members might shut down before it exhausted all the possible avenues of finding answers. "I do not denigrate your efforts," McCain thundered at her. "And I am sick and tired of you denigrating mine and many other people who have views different from you."

Retired Rear Adm. John Hutson, who has been a Republican his entire adult life, but who now supports Obama, put it this way about facing a national security crisis: "When everybody else goes nuts, the president of the United States needs to get cooler and cooler."

Salon
March 6, 2008

FYI, the latest Rolling Stone (yes, we know, a liberal rag, but they'll tell you stuff a right winged rag won't) has a pretty in depth article on McCain, including quite a bit on his military career.

Skep, that was a very good catch. "Make Believe Maverick" is an article that everyone should read. It is comprehensive, well researched and fits in perfectly with this discussion about his military past. Here is how the story begins:

At Fort McNair, an Army base located along the Potomac River in the nation's capital, a chance reunion takes place one day between two former POWs. It's the spring of 1974, and Navy commander John Sidney McCain III has returned home from the experience in Hanoi that, according to legend, transformed him from a callow and reckless youth into a serious man of patriotism and purpose. Walking along the grounds at Fort McNair, McCain runs into John Dramesi, an Air Force lieutenant colonel who was also imprisoned and tortured in Vietnam.

McCain is studying at the National War College, a prestigious graduate program he had to pull strings with the Secretary of the Navy to get into. Dramesi is enrolled, on his own merit, at the Industrial College of the Armed Forces in the building next door.

There's a distance between the two men that belies their shared experience in North Vietnam — call it an honor gap. Like many American POWs, McCain broke down under torture and offered a "confession" to his North Vietnamese captors. Dramesi, in contrast, attempted two daring escapes. For the second he was brutalized for a month with daily torture sessions that nearly killed him. His partner in the escape, Lt. Col. Ed Atterberry, didn't survive the mistreatment. But Dramesi never said a disloyal word, and for his heroism was awarded two Air Force Crosses, one of the service's highest distinctions. McCain would later hail him as "one of the toughest guys I've ever met."

On the grounds between the two brick colleges, the chitchat between the scion of four-star admirals and the son of a prizefighter turns to their academic travels; both colleges sponsor a trip abroad for young officers to network with military and political leaders in a distant corner of the globe.

"I'm going to the Middle East," Dramesi says. "Turkey, Kuwait, Lebanon, Iran."

"Why are you going to the Middle East?" McCain asks, dismissively.

"It's a place we're probably going to have some problems," Dramesi says.

"Why? Where are you going to, John?"

"Oh, I'm going to Rio."

"What the hell are you going to Rio for?"

McCain, a married father of three, shrugs.

"I got a better chance of getting laid."

Dramesi, who went on to serve as chief war planner for U.S. Air Forces in Europe and commander of a wing of the Strategic Air Command, was not surprised. "McCain says his life changed while he was in Vietnam, and he is now a different man," Dramesi says today. "But he's still the undisciplined, spoiled brat that he was when he went in."

As it unfolds, this tale is both amusing and alarming. One thing is abundantly clear: John McCain is unfit to lead the United States.

(I find it kinda amusing that RS is labeled a "liberal rag" when one of their outstanding longtime contributors is conservative satirist, P.J. O'Rourke.)

A Case study in a failed campaign