Proximity to Power

RealClearDefense  |  Mark W. Castillon

The U.S. Army faces a systemic erosion of good order and discipline due to commanders delaying intervention in visible workplace boundary violations. This institutional hesitation allows minor interpersonal misconduct to gradually escalate into procedural leverage, leaving military formations highly vulnerable to narrative manipulation and selective enforcement during subsequent formal investigations.

Following the 2020 Fort Hood Independent Review Committee report, commands have increasingly prioritized rapid, visible responsiveness over thorough contextual evaluations of allegations. Consequently, the military justice system frequently examines complaints in isolation, ignoring documented mutual participation, prior command awareness, or the complainant's own substantiated misconduct. This asymmetry of risk incentivizes commanders to aggressively pursue allegations to avoid reputational damage, disrupting careers before establishing complete factual records. Ultimately, the selective enforcement of standards under external pressure compromises the integrity of administrative processes, weakens internal trust across integrated combat-arms units, and undermines the foundational credibility of the entire defense establishment.

Comment

The post-2020 restructuring of U.S. Army command accountability, driven by the Fort Hood Independent Review Committee findings, has shifted command and control dynamics from proactive discipline to reactive risk mitigation. Under the revised Uniform Code of Military Justice framework, commanders frequently delegate early-stage behavioural intervention to external investigative bodies. This centralisation weakens the traditional command prerogative. It transforms routine unit leadership into a process-driven exercise highly vulnerable to procedural exploitation.

To read in details click here