Speaking Up Against Power Dangerous and Worthwhile

Sam Waltz, former counterintelligence specialist and now, business management consultant at Sam Waltz & Associates Strategic Counsel

Speaking up to power and authority can be difficult to do, especially when your career and overall safety could very well be compromised. In the military, where following orders for country and anything questioning and deviation from the norm is against the culture, the challenge might be even greater. Trust, reputation and future can be immediately, permanently destroyed. Who’s in the moral ‘right’ is not always black and white — and the correct thing to do isn’t either.

This past week, a story written by Ronn Blitzer, assisted by Rebecca Rosenberg, was published about now former Lt. Col. Stuart Scheller, Jr., “Marine who criticized Afghan withdrawal, called for accountability, discharged.”

Scheller accepted the risk of speaking up and against his superiors decision making and it cost him his relationship and career with the armed forces, as he likely speculated it would, as the announcement of his discharge came approximately four months following his video that went viral where Scheller criticized the military regarding the withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan.

"Your actions have harmed good order and discipline with the service as well as publicly discredited the U.S. Marine Corps," Gen. Maj. Gen. Julian D. Alford wrote. "Your narcissistic acts can serve only to erode the rule of law."

Scheller invited this angry reaction by publicly communicating, "I’m not saying we’ve got to be in Afghanistan forever, but I am saying: Did any of you throw your rank on the table and say, ‘Hey, it’s a bad idea to evacuate Bagram Airfield, a strategic airbase, before we evacuate everyone? Did anyone do that? And when you didn’t think to do that, did anyone raise their hand and say, ‘We completely messed this up?'"

This public questioning and shaming of leadership was never going to be received well. Confronting people in power, especially with ego in play, is dangerous business even if authority’s decisions seem to be — or are going against wisdom and safety. This holds true in a military context too despite this type of action being frowned upon and considered the grossest professional violation of responsibility.

In this conflict of irreconcilable differences, did one party respond more poorly than another? It depends on the lens in which you view the question.

“I come at this from a point of view with built-in tension, from four points of view, some with built-in conflicts,” says Sam Waltz, who served from 1968-70 in the 109th Military Intelligence Group. “Any military veteran knows that the heart of its promise of success -- actually twin principles -- training coupled with command and control. You train for a situation, you obey the orders that come down, and you do your best. Soldiers have grumbled as long as there have been soldiers, back to the days of chariots and spears. But politicians, media and citizens enjoy a luxury that soldiers do not enjoy, the luxury of a public opinion. Subordinate criticism is seen as force-weakening dissension by the forces of command and control.”

Those facts spoken, Waltz says there is another dynamic in place that is important to consider.

“Each of us, individually, and collectively as organizations, enjoy some agency in how we respond. Neither Scheller nor the military was obligated to respond in a way that forfeited discretion and agency,” he says. “However, any individual in the military knows, and I'm a Vietnam-era veteran of US Army CounterIntelligence, that such organizations as the military — lead, govern and decide by process and principle, operationalized into rules.

“The military, if it chose to do so, perhaps courtesy of a courageous commander, could have looked the other way (about Scheller) or otherwise excused the seeming breach,” Waltz says. “Having said that, Scheller would have been well aware of the obvious likely outcome of his principled stand.”

He put the military in a difficult place. He had to know it would come down hard on him, maybe make an example of his misconduct and insubordination.

“His command authority had two choices, either of which were okay in my view,” Waltz says. “On one hand, given the moral basis on which (Scheller) operated, they could have chosen to overlook what they regarded as his transgressions, based on his principled actions. Or, in the spirit of their codes, they could deal with the hand they were dealt, which is of course the path they took.”

This type of conflict is not unusual and how it was handled, is also not anything new.

“I've seen issues like this throughout my career of a half century. They're predictable,” Waltz says. “Two sides, each of whom feel ‘right’ is on their side, (is) operating with regard to principle and ‘right-ness.’ In an action—reaction mode, one chooses to act according to principle, which requires the other to react according to principle.”

That said, despite the conflict, he says, how it moved forward was ideal.

“The outcome may have been unfortunate, but the system worked as it should,” Waltz says.

He elaborates as to why so: “In short, from the reading I've done, I have no problem with how this went down from either side. No ultimate agreed-upon universal yardstick of right and wrong exists in this case, and in many cases like it,” Waltz says. “Yes, (Scheller) had an obligation to his unit, and to his code, and ultimately to the overall interests of the military and the country. But he also had a moral and principled obligation to himself, perhaps even to his country, to do what he believed is right, and he improvised as best he could to do what he believed he should.”

The outcome, as ugly as it is for Scheller’s military career, could have been worse, maybe far worse. Public relations assessment may have been taken into consideration in how severely to punish a soldier judged as rogue. Waltz sees that as wise.

“Restraint by the military was a smart, even compassionate, move,” he says. “First, in my view, it acknowledged the truth of the criticism, that is, that the operation was not well-executed, perhaps because it seemed so politically-driven and timed from the outset, and leaders of the military always has been reluctant to be a political asset, at least in terms of domestic politics.”

Scheller did receive a leadership reaction that could be labeled generous.

“Was room present for compassion, understanding and grace with regard to how the military person was treated? Yes,” says Waltz. “Was that compassion, et al, shown? Perhaps, albeit not as seen in the outcome. Presumably, his dishonor could have been worse, more egregious.”

As for what’s next for the discharged, outcast Scheller, his future might be brighter than one might imagine, according to Waltz, because of how many potential employers could and likely will view his strength of character and the risks he accepted to speak up.

“At a cosmic level, frankly, this is not a big deal,” Waltz asserts. “Rather, it's a one-day story, as it should be, even governed by principle. Yes, Scheller has created an attractive, to some, ethical portfolio. Given the role of principle, he'll carry it as a badge of honor until the day he dies, when it will be featured in his obituary and family legacy.”