The Only Path to a Healthy Military

Acknowledgement, Accountability, and Restitution of the covid-19 Vaccine Mandate's Harm

Photo available from iStock

The United States armed forces are in crisis. The abysmal state of the military is not exclusively due to the effects of the covid-19 shot mandate, but the impacts of this mandate have been so disastrous that any attempt to salvage a failing military must include a plan to repair the destruction it has caused.

The only path that gets us from where we are to a healthy military must include such a plan.

That assertion is not meant to suggest that the covid-19 shot mandate is the only problem affecting the military or that the mandate is the first serious event that has revealed the weakness of the military’s leaders. It is, however, to state that any true path forward to a capable fighting force must include a full reckoning of the covid-19 shot mandate and its aftermath.

This reckoning must encompass three crucial ingredients: acknowledgement, accountability, and restitution. These three concepts can be captured in the acronym AAR.

This acronym is already well known in the Army. It stands for “After Action Review” which is a process that involves a retrospective look at an operation, mission, or other endeavor with an aim to analyze the unit’s actions conducted in light of what was planned. A successful AAR will highlight what went well and should therefore be sustained in future missions as well as identify what did not go as planned and provide recommendations for improvement. (More can be found in Chapter 4 of the Army’s Field Manual 7-0, Training.) Incidentally, if the Department of Defense (DoD) were to conduct a sincere, thorough After Action Review of the covid-19 mandate and its destructive impacts, they’d realize the only productive path forward looks a lot like what I’m proposing here.

Let’s take a deeper look at the three components I've listed above: acknowledgement, accountability, and restitution. This is not meant to be an exhaustive review of the three stated points because these points are not exactly new. The issue has never been that problems have not been identified or that ideas for rectification have not been proposed but rather that these things have been willfully ignored by those whose duty it is to explore them.

With that preamble stated, let’s look first at acknowledgement.

Acknowledgement

Perhaps the most glaring gap in the Department of Defense’s (DoD) actions since the rescission of the mandate has been acknowledgement that any wrongdoing occurred. In fact, the military also refuses to acknowledge any causal link between its covid-19 vaccine mandate and the current retention and recruitment crisis. Though the Army recently released a letter informing former soldiers of new guidance on correcting service records as a result of the mandate, the Army’s Human Resources Command website from which the letter’s contents originate, states that the Army is “proud of [its] response to the pandemic and will continue to encourage vaccination against the COVID-19 variants…”

This failure to acknowledge the obvious is intentionally deceptive and represents an unwillingness to repair readiness.

A full acknowledgement of the nature of the mandate and its impacts is crucial to moving forward. Specifically this acknowledgement must include two elements:

a) that the mandate was unlawful and predicated upon fraud

b) the effects of the mandate have been immeasurably destructive because they extend far beyond physical injuries

Let's look at each of these in more detail. We can first begin with the unlawful nature of the mandate. The mandate was clearly and demonstrably unlawful. I’ve written about this before in a post I called Facing the Truth and will not rehash here either what I have written before or what others far more qualified than me have written before. Again, it’s not that our case has never been stated; it’s that our case has been ignored by those who apparently have the power to remain beyond the law.

The mandate is not legally defensible regardless of what your military commanders, military lawyers, and some members of Congress might say. At best, they are ignorant (willingly ignorant at this juncture) and at worse they are outright lying. Beyond the extremely dubious constitutionality of the mandate and clear violation of law with respect to religious rights of service members, it was also based on outright fraud. This fraud consisted in the misrepresentation of an unlicensed product as a fully FDA-approved product, the intentional conflation of the Comirnaty and Pfizer BioNTech products, and the lies surrounding the supposed interchangeability of these products. For more, see this fantastic explanation here.

What would follow from this acknowledgement, assuming it were ever given, is the sobering realization that our military leaders neither understand their oath to the Constitution nor take that oath seriously. They also do not seem to believe that this nation’s laws apply to them. The American people should meet this grave realization with the level of concern and urgency with which a patient receives a diagnosis of cancer, for the recognition that our armed forces have virtually no senior leaders of character is just as dire.

Second to the acknowledgement of the laws broken in the implementation of the mandate is the acknowledgement that its effects are to a large degree incalculable. This is certainly due to their immensity in scope but also because some of the impact is impossible to accurately measure. This does not any way suggest, however, that they are not real.

We can begin by looking first at what can be measured, at least to a degree. A great place to start is with the data obtained from the Defense Medical Epidemiological Database (DMED). In full disclosure, I do not now have, and have never had, access to this database. However, the database exists and is well maintained so that it can provide a warning signal to military leaders that could indicate potential health threats that could impact the readiness of the force. Multiple whistleblowers have raised attention to the significant spikes in certain health markers after the rollout of the covid-19 injections. According to these whistleblowers, these increases in certain health conditions are significant enough to warrant a thorough investigation into their cause(s), and yes, this includes being open to the possibility that the injections are causing or contributing to these adverse conditions. So far DoD has been elusive about the nature of the DMED data and too few member of Congress have seemed to think this is worthy of investigation. (Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI) is a notable exception.) The fact that our government and military seem unwilling to investigate significant increases in health concerns for fear of what they may discover is unconscionable. It appears as if the suspicious deaths and injuries of young, healthy service members are not worth accurately investigating in order to determine possible causes, whatever they may be.

However widespread the physical impacts of the injections may be, the moral injury is even wider. I would argue that all those who are physically injured are also morally injured, but many others suffering from moral injury are not dealing with physical injury. Moral injury occurs when an individual commits or witnesses an act that goes against his moral code. This can be extended to an organization whose members, particularly the leadership, act against the organization’s stated moral code. The Department of Veterans Affairs has an entry for moral injury listed under Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), which suggests that this type of injury occurs as a result of moral trauma.

How many service members and their families have been subjected to moral trauma as a result of this mandate?

Accountability

Given the assertion stated above that laws have been broken, then there must have been individuals that broke those laws. Those individuals must be held accountable. Anything less is completely unacceptable.

The excuse that accountability can't occur because too many senior leaders are involved is nonsense, and frankly, un-American. We live in a society that, despite its flaws, prides itself on the rule of law. If we believe in justice - and we’ve all been led to believe the idea that “justice is blind” - then those responsible for breaking these laws must stand and account for their actions. The only alternative is to continue forward with a compromised military. This compromised military will then diverge further from the citizens of this country as it becomes ever more apparent that its leaders have limited integrity and that they value their careers over the truth, the readiness of their units, and the well-being of the troops in their command.

Accountability, if done correctly, would likely result in the removal of many leaders across DoD. This is necessary. This is essential. These officers and senior enlisted leaders do not belong in their positions. Many do not deserve to wear the uniform. At the highest levels, some should likely face charges. This must happen if we are to recover the image the military has in the eyes of the citizens expected to fill its ranks.

It is not my place to suggest exactly who is guilty of criminal behavior. I sincerely believe that highly egregious crimes, perhaps including treason, have been committed and that rigorous investigations should be conducted to determine the exact crimes perpetrated and the persons involved. That is my belief and my opinion, neither of which is a substitute in even my own eyes for a thorough investigation. I merely suggest that the proper proceedings occur and that where laws were broken, those lawbreakers be appropriately held to account.

For those military leaders whose conduct was not necessarily illegal per se but nevertheless lies beyond that which is considered acceptable for those of their rank and/or position, then other steps could be taken. These could include relief of their commands or other positions of authority, forced retirement, reduction in grade, etc. It is my opinion that there are many senior military leaders that should no longer be wearing the uniform and that after a thorough attempt to account for the mandate and its aftermath, this would likely become apparent. However, I would prefer to defer to a thorough investigation so that the findings and conclusions might properly be used to determine appropriate punishments for those involved.

Restitution

This step is arguably the hardest to achieve because, at least in theory, the first two steps could be entirely accomplished. Acknowledgement, in theory, could occur. Next, those guilty of breaking the law, in theory, could be held responsible for their actions. However unlikely, those two steps could occur. This one, however, is impossible to completely accomplish because some things can't be fully restored regardless of our sincerity in attempting to do so. For example, there are many service members who have died in ways that suggest the injections were responsible. In these cases, full and exact restitution isn't possible though every effort to provide due compensation to their families should be made.

Beyond those who might have died as a result of the shots, there are other service members that are now injured so severely that their lives are forever changed. Ironically, some of these individuals have now lost their military careers because they are no longer medically fit to serve in the military that forced the shots upon them. Full restitution here is also impossible though every effort must be made to provide optimal treatment for these injuries. Optimal medical treatment necessarily includes a proper diagnosis of the injury and its cause regardless of how politically inexpedient that diagnosis might be. Appropriate compensation for these individuals should be assumed.

There are thousands of others who were harmed in other ways by the mandate. These are those who did not suffer injury from taking the injections but rather faced injustices perpetrated against them as a result of their refusal to comply with the mandate. Service members lost out on promotions, certain assignments, or schooling opportunities that would have enhanced their career paths. Other personnel were relieved of their positions and some lost their careers altogether.

In moments of alarming tone deafness, multiple members of Congress have recently called for the military to offer “an apology” to service members harmed in some way by the mandate. These comments for an apology make a mockery of the situation. These ridiculous comments suggest that the injustices suffered by untold numbers of current service members, former service members, and their families amount to little more than a childhood scuffle on an elementary school playground wherein saying “I'm sorry” might suffice. Those making these comments are not to be trusted; their empty words are substitutions for action. They feign concern while doing nothing.

Another refrain often heard from members of Congress is the call for reinstatement. While this is markedly better than the laughable demand for an apology, it massively misrepresents the amount of damage done to these service members’ careers. In many cases, these troops have now been outside of the military for more than a year. They have moved on their lives.

Just as an example, imagine a case where a young soldier had perhaps been stationed at Fort Wainwright, Alaska. Let’s assume that he had ten years of service in the Army, a stellar record, and that he fully planned to serve at least ten more years to reach retirement and perhaps well beyond that. However, let’s assume that the soldier was separated from the Army over his refusal to comply with the covid-19 vaccine mandate. Upon his discharge (characterized as “general” rather than “honorable”) from the Army, let’s assume he moved his young family all the way from Alaska to the Miami, Florida area where he and his wife had perhaps grown up. Let’s assume that he now has a new job where he has worked for the past year since his discharge. His wife has also found a job in the area and the couple’s children are now enrolled in the local school where they have attended for the past year. Is reinstatement in this case viable or even desirable? How can this family uproot themselves again just to return to Alaska or even to go to any other duty station? It’s infeasible to think they would be able to do so. Even if they chose to return, how does the Army account for the year of service and pay that this soldier lost?

Whether this notional family chooses to return to service or not, this family deserves significant compensation. If he chooses to return, then the year this soldier lost should be credited as time served, he should receive the backpay for that time, and he should receive preferential choices of assignment form that time forward. Further, he should receive a commendation for his adherence to the Army Values when virtually everyone around him failed to do adhere to this stated moral code.

If he chooses not to return due to the infeasibility of doing so, how can he be justly compensated? He should certainly have the status of his discharge upgraded (assuming an otherwise stellar service record), and receive backpay from the time of his original discharge to the date that he officially declines reinstatement. Additional financial compensation for the unlawful termination of his career should be assumed.

For those service members who were closer to retirement, their discharge status should be changed to retired. In some cases, it might be reasonable to assume that some service members would have been promoted one more time prior to leaving the service. In these cases the retired rank should reflect that additional promotion and the retirement pension should reflect this. In addition to the pension, these individuals should also receive compensation for the injustices they suffered.

What I have proposed above are merely some of my ideas for restitution. I realize that they involve many factors, some of which I am not privy to. My point in explaining these is that service members and their families suffered grave injustices despite being among the very few to withstand enormous pressure and still hold to their convictions. They deserve as much restitution as can conceivably and appropriately be given. Even where reinstatement may be an option, care must be taken to ensure these returning troops do not have their files marked for marginalized career trajectories moving forward. These returning troops, despite their reinstatement, also deserve compensation for the hardships unnecessarily suffered.

I can’t give a comprehensive list here of what all variables must be considered in making claims for restitution. It is not my intent to do so. My aim here is to explain that I have yet to hear serious plans put forward for restitution that in any way approach an attempt to restore that which has been taken from our service members who exhibited top tier integrity and character over the past few years amid incredible pressure.

We can’t listen to the voices of the unserious who merely call for apologies or make soundless appeals for blanket reinstatement without even pretending to know what that means or its practical limitations. Those making these comments are merely creating noise to cover up the fact they are doing nothing.

Real, good-faith attempts at restitution are absolutely essential in moving forward to a healthy, functional military.

Conclusion

In conclusion, our military is currently is in a state of crisis. Governmental leaders, as well as current military leaders at the senior and mid grades, are fully responsible for this crisis.

Though repairing the damages done by the covid-19 vaccine mandate will not necessarily fix all problems within DoD, the failure to do so will ensure that the military’s decline will continue for the foreseeable future. However, the three steps listed above, if taken to address the aftermath of the mandate, will also solve multiple other problems affecting readiness as well.

Until this happens, many Americans won't trust our military.

And they shouldn't.