Gen. Patton's Hospital Incident: Toxic or Tough

Is tough leadership "good" and at what point does it cross the threshold and become Toxic Leadership. In a recent discussion, the incident of Patton's visit to a hospital was brought into question. The topic was poised, however, with the outright assumption that Patton was at complete fault and that the incident tarnished his name. The incident is referenced below:

Lt. Gen. George S. Patton, commander of the Seventh U.S. Army, visited a military hospital in Sicily on Aug. 3, 1943. He traveled past the beds of wounded soldiers, asking them about their injuries. Coming to the bed of a soldier who lacked visible signs of injury, Patton inquired about his health.

The soldier, 18-year-old Pvt. Charles H. Kuhl, had been tentatively diagnosed as having a case of psychoneurosis. He told Patton that he couldn’t mentally handle the battle lines. “It’s my nerves,” he said. “I can hear the shells come over but I can’t hear them burst.”

Enraged, Patton slapped Kuhl across the face and called him a coward. As Patton left the tent, he heard Kuhl crying and turned back, striking the soldier again and ordering him to leave the infirmary tent.

Toxic vs. Tough is difficult to pinpoint as each individual has different thresholds for what level of ‘tough’ they are willing to endure in the name of mission success. Often when that threshold is reached a person might change their view of their leader from viewing them as tough to viewing them as toxic. Mission success and warfighting capability being the reason the Corps exists, a leader who takes action in adherence to these principles might maintain a level of grounded toughness while one seeking personal career glory might slide into a toxic form of leadership. Take the reference to General Patton. The specific example depicts Patton's outrage as he witnessed what he believed to be cowardice. Patton’s intention might have been mission success - “we need all the men we can get for this fight” – and if this patient had simply missed his family, feared for his life, and claimed an ailment to leave the frontlines, then would you not say Patton had every right to be furious. Notice he walked past countless beds of soldiers missing limbs and dying before coming to Pvt. Kuhl. Is a man, one who is called to fight, surrounded by countrymen and brethren laying down their lives, who fears death and lies in order to gain special treatment and safety, not a coward? And is it not possible that Patton has met many men before Pvt. Kuhl who claim ailment to escape the horrors of war while other men, also fearful for their lives, persisted? The problem is we do not know the legitimacy of his ailment, and at the time there was no way for Patton to know either. Before making such a statement as he did it would have been important to know the facts. But I do not think we can outright barrage him with titles of toxic leadership for his disdain of what he perceived to be man skirting his duties and responsibilities - at least not without a length discussion first. You may point to the distasteful treatment of the patient, but men conducted themselves differently during the mid 20th Century and the outrage is not against the fact he slapped a man, its that he refused to accept the man to be a victim - taking the victim's side without clear discussion and review is all too common.  Wasn’t Patton's fury out of love for those men who were dying on the lines? Those men who also missed their family, and feared death and war, but fought nonetheless, and in spite of it? What talk of that love is mentioned in this scenario? – often none. I think toxic leadership and tough leadership both exist prevalently in the military today, however, I think often times we are quick to get so enamored with our comforts and feelings that we too quickly default to claiming toxicity. 

After all, look at Patton's own words:

"It has come to my attention that a very small number of soldiers are going to the hospital on the pretext that they are nervously incapable of combat. Such men are cowards and bring discredit on the army and disgrace to their comrades, whom they heartlessly leave to endure the dangers of battle while they, themselves, use the hospital as a means of escape. You will take measures to see that such cases are not sent to the hospital but dealt with in their units. Those who are not willing to fight will be tried by court-martial for cowardice in the face of the enemy."— Patton directive to the Seventh Army, 5 August 1943

Clearly, he is operating not out of hate for the victim but out of love for those he left behind.

Let me be clear, I am not advocating for Patton's actions to be duplicated, nor am I even claiming they were just - but I do believe its an important discussion to have in order to understand the motives from each perspective.

Eisenhower did well to confirm Patton's motives but condemn the way he carried them out. He wrote to Patton several days later:

“I am well aware of the necessity for hardness and toughness on the battlefield. … But this does not excuse brutality, abuse of the ‘sick,’ nor exhibition of uncontrollable temper in front of subordinates,” Eisenhower wrote.

Who's fault is it anyway?

The question of: to what degree a parent- or more applicable to me, a father - is responsible for the actions and the spiritual life of his children has come to the forefront of many of my thoughts. In speaking on this matter I believe it is important to know that Christ alone saves, not mom and dad. And that if the Authority to save were to be ours, that would diminish what was done on the cross and the power of the Holy Spirit. That being stated, there is a weighty aspect of the conversation that can be likened to the yield of a crop. Does the harvest not speak to the planting, and the planters? To what extent can a parent be held accountable for the actions of their children? Are they responsible for everything the child does up until the age of 18, up until they move out, up until marriage, and responsible for nothing after?

This is two-fold, children are responsible for obeying their parents, parents are likewise responsible for teaching said obedience -

"Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother,” which is the first commandment with promise: “that it may be well with you and you may live long on the earth.” And you, fathers, do not provoke your children to wrath, but bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord." - Ephesians 6:1-4

 Knowing parents are responsible for the training of children, the next question that naturally presents itself goes something like, "But is it my fault if they stray?" 1 Samuel provides a helpful example of this concerning Eli and his sons.

"Then the Lord said to Samuel: “Behold, I will do something in Israel at which both ears of everyone who hears it will tingle. In that day I will perform against Eli all that I have spoken concerning his house, from beginning to end. For I have told him that I will judge his house forever for the iniquity which he knows, because his sons made themselves vile, and he did not restrain them. And therefore I have sworn to the house of Eli that the iniquity of Eli’s house shall not be atoned for by sacrifice or offering forever.” - 1 Samuel 3:11-14

It is evident here that God judges both children and parent. Eli's responsibility after having raised and taught his sons to fear the Lord was to restrain them from living in sin.

"We may learn from Eli how cruel paternal laxity is, and how fatal mischief may be done, by neglect of the plain duty of restraining children. -- He who tolerates evil which it is his province to suppress, is an accomplice, and the blood of the doers is red on his hands." - Alexander MacLaren

Fault is not a prerequisite for being held responsible. Laxity can be likened to the sin of passivity, and we know from the very beginning what comes from Passive men.

 

 

Intent

"Learning is developing knowledge, skills, and attitudes through study, experience, or instruction. It is a never-ending progression that includes understanding why something is important—the intent of learning." - MCDP-7 Learning

 Knowing that something is important is not as important as knowing why it is important. Simply knowing the fact is a foundation without the concrete, a defense without depth, a frontal assault with no use of combined arms, an infantry platoon with no logistical support. It will not last, it will not withstand repeated assaults, and make no mistake we live in the midst of an enemy that will never rest his attempt to win a war of attrition, and weightless facts will not hold the line. Knowing why you shoot the rifle allows you to orient on the correct target and is much more important than the simple ability to hit the target.

Too often we stop at the realization of a priority or of knowledge but fail to understand why it is a priority or what we can do with said knowledge. The intent of learning is similar to the commander's intent. If the plan goes awry, and as it is the first casualty of war it always does, you rely on the intent to accomplish the mission through decentralized violent decisions. If you are wrong, your world will not be shattered because you understand why you are learning in the first place, to what end you seek knowledge.

"Do not be conformed to this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, so that you may discern what is the good, pleasing, and perfect will of God." Romans 12: 2