Second, the careerism that inevitably creeps into militaries after wars – and particularly during inevitable postwar drawdowns – remains alive and well. Zero defects and perfect scores on mandatory training subjects are required to remain competitive with peers in an ever-shrinking force. Being the outlier who reports failing to meet 100 percent of compulsory requirements may be the ethically correct choice, but it may also destroy a career. Furthermore, Wong and Gerras find that senior Army officers are clearly complicit in maintaining the expectations of perfect reporting while knowing full well that such outcomes are simply impossible. This erodes individual integrity and promotes deference to a group culture of duplicity as “the Army way.” In effect, the Army’s senior leaders are condoning systemic lying throughout the service by failing to recognize and rein in the aggregate effects of their utterly unconstrained requirements.
I believe this point resonates strongly with many members of the military. Although I am only a cadet, I have already been warned by many individuals to beware the bureaucratic and political nature of the Army, especially if you choose it as a career. The pervasive idea of all for one and one for all stops to exist for many once they have graduated to the higher ranks. It becomes a game where you have to oust your peers in order to climb the social ladder. It is better to accept flaws in the system and check boxes rather than to point out hypocrisy when you see it. Even as a cadet, I have been told by cadre in very innocent instances that it was better to maintain the status quo than to try and improve it. The Army is an organization that I want to be a part of and I do not want to detract from it in anyway. However, everyone is able to see that the increasing size of the Army has only fostered an environment where bureaucracy rules superior even to the core values the institution was founded upon.