I once participated in a leadership program through Kaiser Permanente. I was joined by pairs of both medical and non-medical leaders from across the nation and with them, participated in didactic and interactive educational programs. Kaiser included two labor union representatives in this training. Medical doctors and union representatives can be a bit like oil and water; in this circumstance, I found myself drawn to conversations with both of the union representatives as they saw the institutional problems faced by Kaiser very differently than we physician-managers. I was having lunch with them one day, and a manager from Kaiser Ohio came and asked me an intentionally provocative question: “Randy, do you have a problem, at Group Health with nurses (members of a union) asking staff doctors providing their medical care to modify their requests for time off in a manner out of line with what is truly needed?”
Before I could give an opinion, one of the Union Reps piped up, “That never happens.” The other—older and from the Bay Area— suggested, “Yes, that definitely happens.”
So we have a civilian scenario that parallels the problems played out in Alpha—the story of a Navy Seal team in Mosul. Autonomous teams can develop a loyalty that tests how things are supposed to be done as well as the accountability of those who go their own way in conflict despite what everyone knows is supposed to happen.
A unifying theme from my union friends at Kaiser that we could agree on—and it plays out in this book—- managers often, don’t know how to effectively manage. Their emotions can cloud their judgement. In the world of healthcare, this means sketchy nursing or physician staff can push boundaries, demoralize teams, and not be held accountable. Some of those people are charming and have worked for years, developing relationships with managers. Managers are supposed to prevent or reverse such breakdowns. When they do not, as in this case with this Seal team, things go south.
Alpha lays out the story of a Seal Team involved with the re-capture of Mosul from Isis and the subsequent charges raised against the tactical leader of Alpha Unit, Eddie Gallagher. Observations and thoughts:
A New York Times associated author wrote the book. He may be prejudiced. He has never been in the service and accordingly, “doesn’t know what it like.” His characterization of the events is clear: Gallagher committed a war crime; he stabbed a barely conscious wounded fifteen year old Isis soldier in the neck—the boy died within an hour. He was accused of shooting civilians in the ISIS held city. The sources for the story as it unfolds are long and detailed: trial transcripts and a number of official and unofficial interviews— as well as emails and social media sources from the team members. He makes a compelling case. You don’t have to experience cancer first-hand to know it is really bad. Whether you come to the same conclusion or believe Gallagher innocent of the charges brought against him, problems remain.
This trial in many ways was done by the book; he was tried by peers ie combat veterans, mostly from the Marine Corps. The forms within the courtroom were properly followed.
The Navy trial for war crimes in this case was snake bit and painful to follow. Consider how difficult prosecution is: You have no body, no forensics, no video—- months after the event which took place in chaos. The case is based on circumstantial evidence—that is to say based on team member testimonies as to what they saw, or heard, or discussed. Initially virtually all members of the squad supporting the initial charges against their leader. The prosecution may have felt this to be in their favor (there is no previous case of a Seal team turning on its leader like this). However, the uniformity of their initial concerns and testimony changed over time. In addition, outside of the courtroom, there was a psychological pre-trial battle going on. The court system of the Navy- as in civilian life- finds the prosecutor’s ability to fight that battle quite limited while allowing the defense to attack—just as Seal Teams do in the battle field—the rules are fast and loose for the defense. Losing the psychological battle of this trial with the public, mostly on Fox News, the prosecution team attempted to find out who was leaking sensitive information from the defense side to the news with a tracking email. The defense’s paranoia narrative about why the system was treating Gallagher as he was being treated now had a legitimate example —outside the normal rules of conduct. This got the lead prosecutor kicked out of the trial. The prosecution, with two weeks to go was led by an inexperienced, “middle manager” of the legal team. The prosecution did not “prep” the witnesses from the Seal team as to what to expect from the defense when giving testimony. Their testimony was shaky and the prosecution did not help shore them up in court as any depth it had had left with the lead prosecutor. The defense did a masterful job raising the issue of reasonable doubt. Given all this, I think most juries would have voted for acquittal as this jury did.
Fox and Friends, as well as other conservative information sources were very effective supporting this, “war hero who was doing what we asked him to do.” Gallagher’s wife, as Mrs. Stockdale from Viet Nam days was extremely persuasive in her relentless prosecution of her husband’s prosecutors. The narrative on Fox was of the seasoned leader in conflict tasked with a dirty job. His was a squad of millennials—cowardly, spoiled, entitled millennials. The individuals from the team were legally prohibited from defending themselves in this arena. To be reconciled with this image: this Seal team was picked to go to Mosul because of its performance over time when compared to other Seal teams. It got the assignment because of its excellent work—led by Eddie Gallagher. That work is inconsistent with the conception as presented by Fox and others of what it means to be a millennial. The leadership issues with Gallagher and his team broke down during the deployment. Afterwards, the way the team communicated verbally and on social media may have passed a “Millennial standard” under cross-examination—and did them no credit. This Millenial characterization was propaganda, pure and simple. It was mindless as is the notion that our warriors can do no wrong when in the fog of war—that they must be supported, no matter what. Gallagher was accused among other things, of shooting an old man and a young girl. The Fox discussion? Why would be punish a warrior for doing what warriors must do to win?
This trial by press got momentum. It hooked the president into requiring changes in the pre trial circumstances—-all based on the assertions of his loving wife and brother both of whom had no idea what Gallagher had actually done in Iraq. Their claims with Fox and Friends willing participation would question the integrity and focus of the trial not to mention of Navy leadership itself, all the way to the top. If I were a spokesperson—not even linked to the prosecution but with information from testimony giving the counter discussion in such a setting, I might ask: Should you practice medical procedures on someone who is dying on the battlefield knowing they are going to, “die anyway?” Is that commonly done or unusual? Is that a normal focus for a sniper team at the end of the day? Do Seal Teams really practice medical procedures on captured enemy in the field and when they expire, videotape a re-enlistment ceremony with the body in the foreground? Is mercy killing acceptable? Why would an Iraqi captive of the Iraqi army be given over to a Seal Team in the first place? Should Navy leadership, out of faith and loyalty to these teams never investigate reported events by team members? Are they disloyal to the team, navy, or country if they do investigate accusations?
Navy Seals have social networks that would put those of our children and grandchildren to shame. They live in a very special niche. A concerted shaming effort was orchestrated through these networks to influence those of the team who had charged Gallagher as well as those who would testify only if asked. Gallagher had trained a virtual generation of Seals and as teacher, commanded great loyalty from these teams simply from that past relationship. Just as with our children and grandchildren, there was no effective counter or balancing information to this shaming. You can’t take their cell phones or computers away……It went beyond shaming: death threats to the team members and their families were suggested based on the gossip with no details about the case being prosecuted in these networks. We parents don’t have a counter to this process or to the culture it lives within, when worrying about our kids/grandkids. Neither does the government with respect to the culture and this process as it relates to these elite teams. As with our kids, the texts within the social networks can require some context and interpretation that is easily lost on the outside reader.
Watching movies or reading books, we know that military units have a society that is not like that which we civilians live in. They communicate differently and have different assumptions about cause and effect. There is a chain of command, both formal and informal. This is doubly so with special units like the Seals. A huge theme of the book lies in the question of loyalty. I am reminded time and time again that heroic actions on the battlefield are commonly motivated not by love of country, but rather, love of the comrades those actions protect. These teams are close-nit specialized groups—idiot savants if you will—incredibly well-trained and functional to do what they do but often with limited capabilities outside that workplace. Regardless, there is loyalty within the team that is essential for the team to function under the stress and difficulties of a deployment to Mosul. This loyalty and with this, the functionality of the alpha team deteriorated. Why? For me, case and point: the team was unhappy with Gallagher’s tactics (returning to the same spot for sniping day after day). A team cannot question their leader’s tactics; they had to live with that. An exposed Seal at this location was hit by an enemy sniper. They were in a zone that was prohibited by their orders and Gallagher had his team violating those orders. He reportedly shouted at the wounded soldier as they waited for his evacuation to remember to report that he was shot in an approved zone. Trust……..The wounded soldier was asked to lie to protect the leader of the squad. Trust in the leader, whether he committed the murder he was charged with or not, was now a clear problem for the team. Reporting Gallagher in Iraq while on duty to his superior officer led to no changes/charges or feedback to the team. After coming home, and raising formal charges to the chain of command, trust again comes into play as the middle and senior leadership of the Navy had to reluctantly grapple with the implications of this occurring in a Seal Team, the news cycle, and history of the prosecution of such crimes in our past. The witnesses faced no reliable support in trying to do “the right thing.” The middle management (people they reported the charges to and the NCS staff preparing for trial) in a sense ignored everything but the concrete pieces of testimony needed to prosecute. There was no exploring the pressure these witnesses were under—pressure that logically might affect testimony. There was no reassurance or context to their role delaying this formal reporting until after they were back from deployment. Would they be prosecuted for being complicit with their leader’s actions? All were threatened (by a defense lawyer) that aiding the prosecution could get them charged with crimes.These enlisted men had no experience to guide them through this event at trial and no support was offered—not unlike a Seal team isolated in the mountains of Afghanistan with no air support or reliable communications, the enemy, on their home turf, coming at them.
Was Gallagher a victim? This was Gallagher’s eighth deployment. He has a history of head traumas predating and including his deployments. He abused drugs and the trail documenting this suggests this is not all that unusual in the service. He was emotionally labile. He could be erratic and his communication as a leader was less than optimal in a team thought to be at the top of its game when it was deployed. His judgement was questioned frequently by the team: he was the leader the unit but would not issue orders for the day but rather, assign himself sniper duties day after day when he was not one of the trained snipers in the unit. Gallagher’s was trained as a Medic. Once home and aware of charges against him, his incarceration in part was because he was intimidating witnesses. One Seal moved his family out of fear that they were in danger by Gallagher. Gallagher was arrested while active in therapy for stress. He could have offered up PTSD as a defense. This issue was never raised by the defense because there was no need for it; the prosecution’s presentation was that weak.
8) The author characterizes the assumptions and styles of Eddie Gallagher as reflecting a “pirate” philosophy that has had a minority presence in the Navy Seals since their inception. Pirates subvert rules and grow their processes their own way; he suggests it is a culture at odds with that of the Navy if not the nation’s leadership. The book ends with Navy leadership working with “middle managers” to redirect and train with as few of such pirates influencing future teams as possible. Many of his team spoke to their motivation in pressing charges being the prevention of Gallagher from training future Seals. This in effect did occur; Gallagher retired. The focus on training again, will lean on junior officers and senior enlisted Seals to avoid an outcome as is laid out here; they need focus, training, and perspective on the goals of that training. And they need to execute a plan consistent with all that.
9) I have always thought the Seals as an invincible force. I remain impressed and proud of what these teams are capable of. The book reminds me that their record is not perfect. Granada and Panama saw less than exceptional planning and led to Seal losses that were avoidable. There is always room, for all of us, for improvement.The book points to a deeper concern. These specialized units with their intense loyalties required to operate optimally can be challenged by someone who seems to have gone off the rails. And the consequences of this—-(the expression in the book: “frag radius”) can be huge. A Secretary of the Navy was asked to resign over this case. In a military executing deployment after deployment after deployment, middle managers (not the lower-ranked enlisted men or Admirals) are the ones to be most likely to detect the problems and effect a course correction before a disaster unfolds. Murdering wounded soldiers on the battlefield is a disaster—no matter what non-military news pundits or the ex president says. The senior officials knowledgeable with this case were ashamed by the revelations, above and beyond the war crimes. The president of the United States was complicit in supporting Gallagher regardless of the evidence. The notion that President Trump raised, that he could shoot someone on the streets of New York City and not likely be prosecuted became true for Eddie Gallagher. He could, after this trial, with the president’s backing, do virtually anything he wanted without fear of further prosecution by the Navy.
I recently drove by the Amphibious base where Navy Seals are trained. I grew up within a mile of this base. There are more views to be seen in an Apple TV documentary (The Line) on the subject of this book. Seeing the subjects interviewed and the footage from Mosul made the issues all the more……..engaging. This is a really engaging book on its own
!
Comentários