You are currently serving overseas in a multinational headquarters. The United States and the host nation have been Allies for over half a century and it is located in a pivotal region as relates to the Great Power Competition. After periods of relative peace, a regional competitor has recently taken a series of actions to bolster their influence on the region, to include a recent wave of cyber attacks on the United States and its Allies. Despite these actions of aggression, several key leaders In Washington D.C. have been advocating for reduced manning and funding to your headquarters’ mission. The main arguments against support to the partnership revolve around prioritizing resources to higher priority missions and the overall strong capabilities of the host nation in defense. Diplomatic relations between the two nations have taken a turn for the worse, with both sides accusing the other of not pulling their fair share.
Question: Your Headquarters Commander, a high profile senior leader, recently made the comment on social media: “This partnership is key to our ability to maintain influence in the region. Leadership from the President on down needs to understand that this uncertainty is not good for the United States. Commit to continued funding and manning now!” Due to these comments, the senior leader was removed from command. One of your host nation colleagues approaches you and asks why such a great advocate for the partnership was removed. How do respond to this colleague? What ethical issues are at stake with the removal of the commander?
