When is it okay for Senior Leaders to lie or misrepresent the truth?

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 00:56:22 -0400

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/241573-report-obama-lied-about-bin-laden-raid

Seymour Hersh accuses Obama of rushing to take credit for the al Qaeda leader's death.

Response by CW4 Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 1:00 AM

CW4 Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 01:00:03 -0400

According to the study below the Army breeds dishonesty and I would have to agree with this to an extent!

Everything has to be green for the boss, we always have to show improvements, we don't want to tell the boss that so we will rephrase it this way.

"Lying to Ourselves: Dishonesty in the Army Profession"

Summary: "While it has been fairly well established that the Army is quick to pass down requirements to individuals and units regardless of their ability to actually comply with the totality of the requirements, there has been very little discussion about how the Army culture has accommodated the deluge of demands on the force. This study found that many Army officers, after repeated exposure to the overwhelming demands and the associated need to put their honor on the line to verify compliance, have become ethically numb. As a result, an officer’s signature and word have become tools to maneuver through the Army bureaucracy rather than being symbols of integrity and honesty. Sadly, much of the deception that occurs in the profession of arms is encouraged and sanctioned by the military institution as subordinates are forced to prioritize which requirements will actually be done to standard and which will only be reported as done to standard. As a result, untruthfulness is surprisingly common in the U.S. military even though members of the profession are loath to admit it.

To address this problem, the authors point out that the first step toward changing this culture of dishonesty is acknowledging organizational and individual fallibilities. Until a candid exchange begins within the Army that includes recognition of the rampant duplicity, the current culture will not improve. The second recommendation calls for restraint in the propagation of requirements and compliance checks. Policies and directives from every level of headquarters should be analyzed in regard to their impact on the cumulative load on the force. Finally, the authors recommend that leaders at all levels must lead truthfully.

At the highest levels, leading truthfully includes convincing uniformed and civilian senior leadership of the need to accept a degree of political risk in reducing requirements. At other levels, leading truthfully may include striving for 100 percent compliance in all areas, but being satisfied when only 85 percent is reported in some. The Army profession rests upon a bedrock of trust. This monograph attempts to bolster that trust by calling attention to the deleterious culture the Army has inadvertently created."

http://www.strategicstudiesinstitute.army.mil/pdffiles/PUB1250.pdf

Response by CH (MAJ) William Beaver made May 11 at 2015 1:16 AM

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Mon, 11 May 2015 01:16:24 -0400

Since the late 18th century, apparently

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 1:51 AM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 01:51:53 -0400

Wow good question. I guess the RIGHT answer would be National Security right? Maybe Sensitive Information? Then I stop and think, what about when the WARNO comes out, this information comes out. So the question would be shaped to me, WHO is being lied to? Those of us who are going to be the tip of the sword? Those of the public that are feeling like they are voting and making the choice for the next President (since in reality we all know that the electoral vote is what is going to actually decide anyway)? WHO are they lying to?
We ALL know that we have been in situations where they have given us KTK information in bits and pieces, all the way down to when we actually HIT a target. This is something that we just know. It is not really lying, it is protecting information, plus honestly I think that they are still making up the plan as we drive along.
On the OTHER hand, if someone is standing in front of a group of FRG and says that your loved ones are going to be home for a certain holiday KNOWING that they are not, then I think that is not cool, even if it is under the guise of protecting classified information. Better to not say nothing at all.
If you are in charge I mean REALLY in charge, and you REALLY feel that you MUST say something and you KNOW that it cannot and I mean REALLY CANNOT be the truth because it would give away lets say troop movements right at that moment for example, then it is better to SHUT UP. That is just my personal opinion. I understand that there is that Official need to know thing, but that line of lying is one that should never be crossed. You lose ALL credibility REGARDLESS of who you are.

Response by SPC David S. made May 11 at 2015 2:11 AM

SPC David S. — Mon, 11 May 2015 02:11:52 -0400

I think my opinion on the morality of lying would vary with the action from which the lie was derived.

Personally motivated - bad
Protection of others - good

Response by Capt Private RallyPoint Member made May 11 at 2015 9:29 AM

Capt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 11 May 2015 09:29:46 -0400

Shutting ones mouth might be a viable alternative.

Response by 1LT Timothy Kneisel made May 11 at 2015 11:12 AM

1LT Timothy Kneisel — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:12:17 -0400

Unless you're telling your wife her new dress doesn't make her look fat.

If your question is implying that Obama lied about Bin Laden, you must not have read the entire article.

"Hersh faced a big blowback over the story; critics have called the report thinly sourced and questions have been raised about inconsistencies within the piece.
“Every sentence I was reading was wrong,” former acting CIA Director Michael Morell said Monday on “CBS This Morning.”

“The source that Hersh talked to has no idea what he’s talking about. The person obviously was not close to what happened," he added. "The Pakistanis did not know. The president made a decision not to tell the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis were furious with us. The president sent me to Pakistan after the raids to start smoothing things over.”Hersh faced a big blowback over the story; critics have called the report thinly sourced and questions have been raised about inconsistencies within the piece.
“Every sentence I was reading was wrong,” former acting CIA Director Michael Morell said Monday on “CBS This Morning.”

“The source that Hersh talked to has no idea what he’s talking about. The person obviously was not close to what happened," he added. "The Pakistanis did not know. The president made a decision not to tell the Pakistanis. The Pakistanis were furious with us. The president sent me to Pakistan after the raids to start smoothing things over.”"

Copied directly from the article.

Response by SrA Edward Vong made May 11 at 2015 11:23 AM

SrA Edward Vong — Mon, 11 May 2015 11:23:43 -0400

I'm not so much against lying unless it actually negatively affects something (i.e. National Security, etc.). Me personally, I wouldn't necessarily lie, but I would sugar coat the truth, or not say anything at all.

Response by LTC Jason Bartlett made May 12 at 2015 1:17 PM

LTC Jason Bartlett — Tue, 12 May 2015 13:17:26 -0400

Well, there goes the whole sloppy bin Laden narrative, wow. (http://www.lrb.co.uk/v37/n10/seymour-m-hersh/the-killing-of-osama-bin-laden)Thought maybe President Obama might be a steely-eyed killer, turns out he might just be a run-of-the-mill lying politician.

LRB · Seymour M. Hersh · The Killing of Osama bin Laden

It’s been four years since a group of US Navy Seals assassinated Osama bin Laden in a night raid on a high-walled compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan. The killing was the high point of Obama’s first term, and a major factor in his re-election. The White House still maintains that the...

Response by Sgt Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 5:12 AM

Sgt Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 05:12:35 -0400

Only when he or she can't get out of it.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made May 13 at 2015 10:04 AM

MAJ Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 13 May 2015 10:04:21 -0400

I don't think there is ever a good time to lie. I know many do it using many different excuses such as National Security, etc., but then you see information put out for the public that quit frankly is way to much information in my opinion. I know the public feels like it has the right to know things as they happen but that is not always the case or in the best interest of the military members carrying out a mission. So to me it is best to shut up and not say anything, and if necessary take a hit on lack of initial information than to put certain things at risk. It is better to never said anything than to wish you hadn't said something, even if it is a lie. I think there is a time for everything to be truthfully told, but sometimes the public needs to wait and that is something I think they don't understand. If the question deals with immediate or upcoming situations as listed in this poll, then just say the truth, in that you can't immediately answer that question due to "X" concern. End of message.