By Matthew Wadler:
Remember a few months ago, when Donald Trump was condemned for not agreeing to concede the election should he not win the electoral vote? I do. I also remember how media agency after media agency went on rants about how America only survives because we as a nation strive to ensure a peaceful and focused transfer of power. Of course, I also remember how Bill Clinton’s staff cost tax payers approximately $13,000 in damages, according to the General Accounting Office, after he left the White House. Funny how having a well-run transition only applies to the Republican Party.
I would like to hearken back to my own transition of power as a company commander. For two years, I had the great privilege to command a United States Army Recruiting Company. It was the toughest assignment I ever had in my career. This was specifically due to the accountability inherent within the position. Not only was I accountable to my boss, the Battalion Commander, but I was also morally accountable to each and every soldier under my command.
Added to that is the fact that, unlike just about any other command position in the Army, there is no training or preparation for recruiting command. In other words, if you are going to be an Infantry Company Commander, you have to be an Infantry Officer first in order to learn the tactics, strategies, and capabilities of your personnel and equipment. If not, you put the lives of your troops at risk because of your own ignorance.
This isn’t an option in recruiting, especially at the company commander level. There is no job that mimics it in the Army. Even within the Adjutant General Branch (the Human Resource function) the functions of personnel recruitment come from a static pool of select individuals who are already integrated into the organizational culture. Since the systems that are utilized within recruiting command and built specifically for recruiting are unique, the learning curve for this command is very steep. There is a high failure rate for leaders, which is why the Army typically gives this as a follow-up to a successful command. The military doesn’t want a lackluster command performance in recruiting to kill a promising career. In fact, in order to have a recruiting command for your first command, you must receive a waiver signed off by the commanding general of recruiting command.
My first few months in command were overwhelming. Just the terms alone made my head swim, not to mention the accountability systems that we were required to utilize. As time progressed, however, I found myself slowly but surely beginning to understand how recruiting worked. I understood the pros and cons and different leadership styles. Most importantly, I started to understand the difficulty of leadership when your area of operation was throughout an entire region with soldiers spread across that area.
When I left command, it was bittersweet. I had put one hundred percent of myself into that organization for over two years. Those troops were more than simply soldiers, they were like my children (albeit dysfunctional and mind-numbing children). I wanted to leave knowing that I had left my mark on the organization. More importantly than that, I wanted to leave knowing that I had set up my replacement for success. In no way did I do this because I cared about her; I did it because I cared about my troops. They deserved the best commander that they could have. I would do anything for them to make that a reality.
To help with the transition, the incoming commander shadowed me for two weeks. For the first week, she watched what I did. She went with me to visit my recruiting stations, attended future soldier briefings that I gave, took notes as I conducted interviews and wrote waivers. She watched me as I executed all of my daily responsibilities. I also gave her an electronic Continuity Book with all the briefings I had put together, classes I had written, statistical analysis, and other papers and forms that I believed she would find useful. I showed her where she could find information and how to interpret the data she needed. Then, for the second week, I sat and watched her conduct business as the commander. She followed my guidance, but would make the calls herself and give the briefings to the battalion commander.
It was not easy to sit and watch someone else in my chair, talking to my troops, and talking to me about which of my policies she was going to do away with. Yet it was necessary for the sake of my company. This time allowed her to work through questions and concerns with me there as a sounding board to show her things she did not have the experience yet to understand.
What I did for her is the norm in the Army. It is the expectation that when the commander passes the guidon over to his or her replacement that they have already passed on the knowledge as well. In fact, it was important enough that I had to brief my commander a month out on what my plan was, and then update him regularly throughout the hand off.
Currently it seems the President of the United States, the most powerful and important figure in the world, cannot wrap his head around this concept.
I remember very clearly when Obama said, “You don’t like a particular policy or a particular president? Then argue for your position. Go out there and win an election,” in 2013. The Republicans listened and took his advice to heart. They did exactly what he recommended.
Yet it seems that the President’s memory is not as good as mine. While he publicly stated, “I want to be respectful of the office and give the President-elect an opportunity to put forward his platform and his arguments without somebody popping off in every instance,” he followed it up with, “as an American citizen who cares deeply about our country, if there are issues that have less to do with the specifics of some legislative proposal or battle, but go to core questions about our values and our ideals, and if I think that it’s necessary or helpful for me to defend those ideals, then I’ll examine it when it comes.” In other words, I don’t care about the election being over. I don’t care about elections having consequences. I don’t care about a tradition of ex-Presidents allowing their successors the ability to enact their policies without their predecessor interfering.
After a change of command in the Army, the new commander has a reception where they are welcomed into the command. The outgoing commander has a spot somewhere near the podium where people can say goodbye. The new commander typically meets with their troops to give them some general guidance. However, once the ceremony is over and the goodbyes are said the old commander disappears. It is exactly as General MacArthur stated on April 15, 1951: “Old soldiers never die, they just fade away.” To do anything else would completely destroy the process.
Soldiers, just like the rest of the nation, need the time to have their loyalty coalesce around the new commander. They need to be able to do so without feeling the spirit of the old commander haunting them. Obama has shown, through his comments and the comments of his staff, that he does not intend to quietly slip into the night.
This is not only arrogance bordering on narcissism, it is dangerous to the very fabric of our democracy.
Matthew Wadler is a Senior OpsLens Contributor and U.S. Army veteran. Matt served in the Army for 20 years as both enlisted and officer before retiring. His service includes time as Military Police, Field Artillery, Adjutant General, and Recruiting. His deployments include Somalia and two tours to Afghanistan. His formal education includes a master’s degree in HR Management. He is a strong supporter of the constitution and advocate for the military and veteran communities. Follow Matthew on Twitter @MatthewWadler.
