OK, it is after 1:00 am. I have an APFT in less than 5 hours, but Im still up because I was told yesterday that I have to write a 1000 word essay by tomorrow. Why? Because I am fairly regularly late to arrive at work in the mornings (usually less than 5 minutes late, never more than 10 minutes late). The essay is upon the importance of accountability in the Army. Here it is in its entirety, I would like some feedback: “Why Accountability is Important in the Army” An Essay By SGT Jonathan R. Vanasse The various definitions of ‘accountability’: 1. The obligation imposed by law or lawful order or regulation on an officer or other person for keeping accurate record of property, documents, or funds. The person having this obligation may or may not have actual possession of the property, documents, or funds. [DOD] 2. The quality or state of being accountable; especially : an obligation or willingness to accept responsibility or to account for ones actions. [Merriam-Webster Online] 3. In ethics and governance, accountability is answerability, blameworthiness, liability, and the expectation of account-giving. [Wikipedia] I am often late to accountability formations, so named because they provide the means by which a commander or his delegated authority may satisfy their obligation to account for Army property (i.e. subordinate Soldiers) to their superiors. My writing assignment, to elucidate the importance of the value defined above, is without specific guidance as to the manner or means with which it is to be accomplished; so I will simply be honest and present the most accurate reasons why I think accountability is important in the Army. To simplify the task, I will narrow the focus to the specific context within which my comprehension of accountability was brought into question, as detailed by the counseling sessions in which this assignment finds an origin. First, I will refer to the explanations given to me during both the aforementioned counseling sessions as well as those explanations given to me in previous counseling sessions. These explanations vary in their phrasing and level of articulation, but all are able to be reduced to the central nugget of truth: “this (i.e. accountability formations) is how the Army does things”. I will not contend the fact the fact that the Army does in fact hold accountability formations, as it is self-evident most every weekday morning at or immediately before 0630 at my designated place of duty. I will however contend the propriety of asserting that the importance of such formations is self-evident and will likewise contend the acceptability of explanations similar to that found earlier in this paragraph for the importance of such formations. Admittedly, the argument that the importance of accountability formations is established by fiat of Army traditions and customs, buffeted by Army regulations or hierarchical authority, and maintained in acquiescence to congressional authority is valid. The truth of the premises vindicates the conclusion, but the argument lacks proper context. Article 21 of the United Nation’s 1948 ‘Universal Declaration of Human Rights’ states that “The will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government.” If this premise is true, then our Congress is only legally empowered to the extent that their actions serve the will of the people (i.e. the taxpayers). “Waste”, as defined by the Department of Defense Office of the Inspector General, involves the taxpayers not receiving reasonable value for money in connection with any government funded activities due to an inappropriate act or omission by players with control over or access to government resources. It is with these premises in mind that I argue that modern Army accountability practices have failed to provide such reasonable value to the taxpayer, as there are far more suitable human resource management practices employed within the general population that achieve the same end result: operational success on scales not overly dissimilar to military operations. It must be noted that qualifying this failure as ‘waste’ depends not only upon the value presented to the taxpayer, but also upon the agency by which a reasonable value could not be realized: meaning, there cannot be waste unless there had either been an ‘inappropriate act’ or ‘omission’ by the authorities responsible for the resources in question. The reality is that a reasonable case could be made for either possibility, but it is imperative to first establish the historical context within which the Army’s current accountability practices were developed. In the United States Army’s first year, the following technologies did not exist: 1. Landline telephones 2. Fax 3. Cellular Phones/Smart Phones 4. TCP/IP 5. Communication Satellites 6. 4GLTE (GSM/EDGE/UMTS/HSPA) 7. Global Positioning Satellites I must stop myself, as it would take considerable time to make the above list comprehensive. In comparison, as hard as it might be to believe, the only available technologies for communications between two persons separated by anything more than shouting distance in 1775 were: 1. Post (Mail) 2. Semaphore 3. Carrier-pigeons That list is exhaustive. Does it make sense to require all soldiers of a military unit to show up for work at the same time in order to ensure everyone has been accounted for? In 1775, absolutely. The US Army was, at that time, overwhelmingly expeditionary in the Latin sense, as the battalions were maneuvering on foot against an invading force. If someone failed to appear for an accountability formation, this was more often than not equivalent to missing movement. Unlike today, missing movement meant that the only recourse for a Soldier to re-establish contact with his unit was to pursue on foot (provided he knew where the unit was headed), as the contemporary communication technologies required either line-of-sight (semaphore), a permanently stationary command element (carrier pigeons), or a known address (post). If the Soldier was unaware of the direction in which his unit had departed, he was practically lost. It is immediately obvious that accountability formations, as they occur today, were an absolute necessity in the first years of the Army’s life. Today, after 239 years of military leadership that has repeatedly failed to implement new accountability practices that incorporate available technologies in a meaningful way, Soldiers’ time and energies are wasted on a daily basis. This is a fact, and it would be inappropriate to accept what I have been told to accept so many times: that no one can “change the Army”. If the premises and supporting facts I have outlined cannot be refuted, then someone must change the Army. Why not me? I did not join to back down from a challenge. I must note that none of this is to say that I am innocent and should not be held liable for my lateness (I am not innocent and I should be held liable), neither does it serve as an excuse for my behavior. Rather, this essay attempts to convey that perpetuation of inane and antiquated practices that waste taxpayer dollars should be simply unacceptable (and soldiers time and energies do translate into taxpayer dollars, although the relationship is indirect). Furthermore, this essay attempts to convey that the perpetuation of inane and antiquated practices should be considerably less acceptable than my recurrent tardiness.
Posted on: Fri, 24 Oct 2014 05:28:09 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015