S5:E139🎙️ LIVE with Major General Steve Lepper, USAF (Ret.) (MULTI TRACKS AUDIO)

Hi, I'm John Maxwell. When the top companies in the world are looking for trainers, speakers, and coaches, there's one name that stands above the rest, and that's Maxwell Leadership. Our certified team members have gotten proven results for companies all over the globe, and our reputation, I'm proud to say, is second to none. Some of our members have risen to the top of their profession, including the one you're going to meet today. I proudly introduce you to my friend, Bob Fabien Zinga.

Welcome to the Leadership and Success Podcast with your host, Coach BZ, where we help you lead with purpose and succeed with impact. If you're ready to grow into the kind of leader others want to follow, this podcast is for you. If you're determined to elevate your success and leave a lasting legacy, this podcast is for you. As my mentor, Dr. John C. Maxwell, reminds us, everything rises and falls on leadership. Our goal is simple, to inspire you, challenge you, and equip you with insights that can transform the trajectory of your leadership journey. Welcome aboard to Welcome to another episode of the Leadership and Success Podcast with Coach BZ.

Retired Major General Stephen Lepper, who is a former JAG Working Group member as well as a US Air Force and former Deputy Judge Advocate General. Welcome to the show, Major General. Good morning.

Can you talk a little bit about your background and in particular your legal work for the military?

Sure. Well, um, I come from a military family. I've been part of the military since I was born. My mother was actually liberated by the U.S. Army in Europe after World War II. My father served for 28 years as an enlisted NCO in the Air Force. I went to the Air Force Academy, graduated in 1979. The Air Force sent me to law school, and from that point onward, I served as a judge advocate I served for 35 years total in uniform, and my daughter is currently serving in the Air Force. So we have a long history and respect for the US military.

You're also a member of the former JAGS Working Group. When and why was that group formed, and what have you been doing?

We were formed in February of this year when Secretary Hegseth fired the Judge Advocates General of the Army, Air Force, and Navy. And we gathered together, we former and retired judge advocates, because we were concerned about both the messaging that was delivered at that time supporting the firing of the TJAGs, as well as the implications of those messages. The message, of course, was we don't want lawyers to stand as obstacles to what we want to do in military operations. We think lawyers actually detract from military operations instead of enhancing them. The larger implications of that message are essentially that, uh, we don't think the law or lawyers matter to military operations, and so we're not going to consider the law as we plan and execute future military operations. That's a dangerous message, and we as former judge advocates united in the common purpose to push back on that message.

All right, welcome to a very special edition of the Leadership and Success Podcast. I believe we have a living legend ready to talk to us today. Before I do, I'm reminded our moment of gratitude. This is the second show this morning. So you already know that today I am grateful for two things. One is freedom, right? We just celebrated Juneteenth 10 days ago, and July 4th is right around the corner. And we are so grateful for freedom. We live in a free country. And I think freedom isn't free. There are a lot of people who gave their lives in order for us to enjoy this freedom today. I am so, so, so grateful for that. And I'm also grateful for really great people, American heroes, I believe, people who really make a difference in the world, who are willing to come on this podcast and really share their knowledge and their wisdom with us. I'm so, so grateful for that. So let us know Really quick, where you are joining us from, what city, what state, and if outside of the US, since we are a global show now, which country. Let us know what you are grateful for today. And also, if you have a question for the General, please type it in the comments. So let me see if I can properly introduce our guest today. Today we are speaking to retired Major General Steve Leiper, US Air Force, former Deputy Judge Advocate General of the United States Air Force, military judge, trusted advisor to the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. I believe he worked for General Collins at one point, author, and lifelong servant leader. Over a remarkable 35-year Air Force career, the general advised America's senior military leaders during some of the nation's most consequential moments. Today, he continues to shape the conversation on military leadership. Constitutional service, ethics, and the rule of law through his writing, board service, and public advocacy. This conversation is not about partisan politics, it is about leadership. That's what we do, leadership and success. We talk about some of the toughest subject out there because we are leaders. So together we will explore what it means to provide honest counsel when the stakes are the highest, how leaders navigate complex ethical decision, and why character remains the foundation of trust in every profession. Part of what you're gonna be learning today is why the courage to give honest counsel is one of the leader's greatest responsibility, but also why character, integrity, and lifelong service remain timeless leadership principles. So without any further ado, please help me welcome to the Leadership Success Podcast, the one and only Major General Steve Leiper. Good morning, sir. How are you doing today, General?

Good morning. I'm fine. How are you? Great.

Such a great, great honor and privilege to be speaking to you today. I know we don't have much time, but I do want to start with what is something you are grateful for today, sir?

Well, I'm grateful for being an American. Your lead-in was inspirational, and I hope this conversation will continue in that vein.

Thank you. Thank you, sir. Is there something about you that most people may not know when they first meet you, sir?

Well, your lead-in had an interview that I had last year, I guess, with C-SPAN, and I revealed a lot of my background there. But, uh, you know, I, I started out as a military brat. My father was in the Air Force.

Wow.

I have been associated with the military my entire life, and, uh, amazing. Thanks for having me today.

And also, your daughter is also serving in uniform. Wow, that's incredible. I have two daughters here. I was hoping one of them would join the Navy or the Air Force, but that's not going to happen. That's okay. Wow, what a privilege it is. And also, not only thank you for your service, but your entire family, as I know from experience, it's not just a person, but it's really the entire family that serves all the time. So again, for everybody watching, our purpose today is not to debate partisan politics, but is to explore leadership, constitutional service, military ethics, and the responsibility of senior leaders during difficult times. We want our audience to understand the principles that guide professional military decision-making, and there is nobody more able to talk about that than our former JAG, Major General Steve Lepper. And so, sir, Before we discuss today's challenges, can you tell us about the young cadet at the Air Force Academy? What experiences shaped the leader you eventually became, sir?

Well, I mentioned that I grew up in the military. My dad was a noncommissioned officer, and so I looked at the military through his perspective, through his eyes, and I decided that I wanted to become an officer. I attended the Air Force Academy. And, uh, I was actually a mathematics major.

Wow.

Because math came easy for me. But what I found as a cadet was that the law was actually the most fascinating area of study that I was exposed to. Each service academy has a group of judge advocates who teach the law to cadets and midshipmen, and I was exposed to that early in my 4 years at the Air Force Academy, and I took every law class that I could because I was really—

that is really, really fascinating. When I started thinking about joining the military, of course I was attracted to the Navy for 2 reasons. One was JAG. I don't know if you remember that, that shows. I think it was back in the '90s, uh, but also, uh, the, uh, movie by Tom Cruise, um, Oh, it's gonna come, come back to me. But anyway, it was like the number, number one Navy movie in, in the world. I think it's probably got more people joined the Navy than any other Hollywood movie, uh, I think. But anyway, who were some of the people, sir, who really influenced your philosophy, uh, growing, growing up, or as, uh, you, uh, moved up the rank? In the Air Force?

Well, it started with my father. My father taught me respect for others and compassion.

Yes.

As your lead-in described, I also had an opportunity to work as a Deputy Legal Counsel to the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and one of the chairmen that I served in his last year as the chairman was General Colin Powell. Wow. He For me, it was a model of integrity. And then I told you that I looked at the Air Force through the lens that my father gave me as a senior NCO. I continued looking through that lens throughout my career. And during the last part of my career, I was able to work with a gentleman named Chief Master Sergeant Jeff Williams. One of the photos that you showed in the lead-in was a picture of me and Chief Williams. He was my senior paralegal manager at Air Mobility Command. And I admired the way that he was able to connect with airmen and hold them accountable. I admired him so much that I asked him to preside over my retirement ceremony in 2014. And that picture you showed was a picture from my retirement ceremony. Last but not least, I, uh, one of the most influential people in my leadership journey was Mr. Bill Crawford. Mr. Crawford was our janitor at the Air Force Academy.

Hmm.

Uh, nobody noticed him. He swept our floors, he cleaned our toilets, until one day one of my fellow cadets recognized him from a book he'd been reading about World War II. And after talking with him for a few minutes, he learned that Mr. Crawford was in fact retired Master Sergeant William Crawford, U.S. Army, who had been awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Italy. The lesson we all learned from Mr. Crawford was humility. If a Medal of Honor recipient could clean our toilets, I was determined to lead and serve my fellow airmen.

Wow.

To me, Mr. Crawford was the epitome of a servant leader.

Wow, that is, uh, quite something. And one thing I have noticed is for many people, they really only want to talk to the people in charge, the senior leaders and so forth, and they completely ignore people like janitor who might be at the, you know, at the bottom of the chain of command. But to me, I guess my mother is the one who taught me this. You have to treat everybody with dignity and respect no matter what they do. And sometimes the people you ignore might be the one who are gonna be opening big, big doors for you in the future. You just never, never know. Thank you so much for reminding us of that, General. And by the way, sir, I must tell you there's a lot of excitement in the live audience right now. I believe this is my mentor, Captain Rovciar. He's definitely gonna have a question for you, sir, watching to us from Cedar Point Park in California, Southern California. We have Daniel Young from Midland, Florida. I think it's close to Orlando. And we also have Lieutenant Commander Krista Guns Sully. So there's going to be some, some questions. We won't be able to take all of the questions from the audience, but we're going to take some of the questions from the audience. So I think what we're talking about today is really important, especially where our country is right now. But before we start, sir, Many people think that leadership is about making decisions. You've spent decades helping leaders make decisions. What's the difference?

Well, making decisions is part of leadership, but I think the most important decisions leaders must make are the ones that you might not think of. Certainly, as a leader rises in rank and responsibility, the decisions he or she makes are more difficult. And involve more complex and significant facts, circumstances, and consequences. But I believe the most important decisions a leader makes are the answers to questions they have to ask themselves before they assume leadership positions. Uh, they basically involve deciding what kind of leader you want to be, such as, do you want to put yourself or your people first? Do you want to be a leader whose ethics are the bedrock of your leadership, or are you okay with being ethically flexible so that you consider ethics just one of many factors? What does your oath to the Constitution mean? Does it mean you should lead in such a way that places obedience to unethical superiors ahead of your understanding of right versus wrong? And then lastly, where does honor fit in your leadership?

Yes.

As the Secretary of Defense described in his speech at Quantico last year, his concept of warrior ethos does not include the concept of honor. Will you include it in your leadership? And if so, where and how?

Wow, that is really powerful. And one question I have in, in mind, so you being a Jag, a lawyer, maybe you can give us the best definition. What is the difference between what's legal, moral, and ethical?

Well, um, legal obviously are the laws that constrain us, that, that we are all required to abide by. There's the Uniform Code of Military Justice. There are the laws that Congress passes that define when and where we can employ military force. And then there's ethics and morality, which I believe need to be part of every leader's core principles. You know, I mentioned honor just a minute ago. Honor is to me the idea that you understand right and wrong and are committed to doing the right thing always. Character has often been described as doing the right thing regardless of who's watching. Yes, those are the kinds of leaders we need, not only those who are obeying the law because if they don't they might be punished, but those who have a higher calling defined by morality, by ethics, by honor, who regardless of the consequences are committed to doing the right thing always.

Wow, so powerful. And for all of the sailors who are listening right now, as you know, our free core value is very simple: honor, courage, and commitment. And I think they are more important now in my entire career than they've ever, ever been. And we definitely need to live by our core values. That's who we are as sailors. So, sir, back to you. You have really spent your entire career advising some of America's most senior military leaders, including my mentor, General Colin Powell, just now, an outstanding human being, even beyond his service in uniform. But what makes someone an effective advisor, especially when the stakes are extraordinarily hai.

Well, I think the most important, um, attribute that you have to have as a leader is credibility.

Yes.

Unless you have credibility, no one's going to listen to your advice. And credibility is built on your competence, no matter what you do. In my case, I was a lawyer. My competence as a lawyer was always, a factor that bore on my credibility. My knowledge of the mission was something that bore on my credibility, because if I didn't understand what our unit's objectives were, then how could I advise our commander about the law that supposedly would help us and sometimes constrain us from achieving those missions? So, so those are the two things that I tried really, really hard to establish in my relationship with my superiors. I tried to convince them that I was always a credible source of legal advice, and I always focused on the mission so that I convinced my commander that I was just as committed to achieve it as he or she.

Yes, sir. And talking about credibility, how does a leader earn credibility, especially when you have to deliver advice to the boss that they may not want to hear?

Yes, well, you know, sometimes you do have to give your boss advice that he doesn't want to hear. But, but again, I think that bears on the issue of credibility. If, if all you are is a yes man, to your boss, then I think your boss will ultimately question whether you're giving the advice he wants to hear or the advice he needs to hear. And in my experience, very fortunately, I never encountered a boss who consulted me simply to hear me say yes to him. In my experience, fortunately, my bosses really wanted to know what I thought and what the law required him or her to do.

Yes, wow. So when legal advice and operational urgency appear to be in conflict, how should leaders think through those moments, sir?

Well, operational urgency is obviously critical, but, you know, we have to remember that the law, contrary to what Secretary Hegseth said when he fired the Judge Advocates General of the Army and the Air Force, the law actually, uh, enhances our ability to engage the enemy, to do whatever it is we need to do on the battlefield.

Yes.

And I say that because what the law does is it, it focuses military power on those things that matter militarily, that, that provide us a military advantage. It, it tells us that we can't target schools or hospitals because, quite frankly, destroying those doesn't provide us a military advantage. What it does say is that the targets that you need to focus on— things like ammunition depots and fuel depots and, and communications nodes— those are the things that are going to give us military advantage., and those are the things that the law allows us to target. So my role as a JAG was to balance operational necessity and urgency with the requirements of the law. And in, in all the cases that I'm aware of, not only those in which I participated, but also, uh, my fellow JAGs participated, uh, they were able to help their commanders do their jobs much more efficiently and effectively by telling them where the guardrails were.

And General, there is a question we got from the audience. Actually, it was even prior to us talking today. Most of the time I get those live, but they ask, you've written extensively about the increasingly political environment the military finds itself navigating right now. Clausewitz, I remember him from JPME, famously argued that war is an extension of politics by other means. Yet our system expects the armed forces to remain nonpartisan and loyal to the Constitution rather than to any political faction or a person. How do you then reconcile Clausewitz's insight with the American principle that the military must stay outside the political arena? And what risks emerge when the military begins to drift toward the political system it is meant to serve but not join?

Well, you know, I, I studied Clausewitz as well. I went to National War College, and, uh, and I know that, uh, he said what you described, that the war is an extension of politics. But, but I think we need to be very, very careful, um, not to confuse, uh, politics and military missions. Our Constitution established civilian control of the military for one reason, because it establishes, you know, civilian control of the military establishes a bridge between politics and policy. It puts civilian leaders in charge of the military because they're the ones who are connected with the political process. They're the ones who, uh, whoever was elected put them in those positions, and they're the ones who are supposed to represent whatever administration is in power, their policy to the military. The military, on the other hand, is then supposed to take those policies and transform them into what is necessary for the military to be able to achieve those policies. They should not be involved in the political process that resulted in the identification and installation of civilian leaders over the military. So as long as we understand that particular dynamic, we understand that not only did the— our, our founding fathers establish civilian leadership as a bridge between politics and policy, but they established the notion that the military should not be involved in politics. It's critical that every American be concerned about that because if we start politicizing the military, what we, what we end up doing is driving wedges between military members who may not have the same kinds of political perspectives as, as his or her fellow military member. We end up, um, creating questions about whether any particular military decision is based on the desire to enhance national security or the desire to satisfy a particular leader. The bottom line is we need to be absolutely convinced that our military is serious about its oath to defend and support the Constitution of the United States, not, uh, let their loyalty to any particular political leader guide them in the way that they perform their military duties?

Well, that is so critical because when I joined the military, the Navy, 21 years ago, I was an E-1, Seaman Recruit. So when I was enlisted, my first oath was to obey the orders of those appointed over me, including the President of the United States. But when I became an officer in September 2007, there was a big change in the oath. It was now to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. I always wonder why they put domestic. That didn't make sense to me back then. Now it makes a lot of sense. But, but, uh, just knowing that as an officer, especially as a senior officer, now my job is to support the Constitution of this country, not a party, not a, not a man, not, not even an institution. That's a really, really big difference. Why, why is that so critical, especially for officers, sir?

Well, you know, everyone, as you mentioned, raises his or her right hand when they first come into the military and swear an oath to the Constitution to support and defend the Constitution. It's critical that we continue to understand that oath. And every time we're promoted, at least in the Air Force, we repeat the oath so that we're reminded that our loyalty is to the law, to the Constitution, not to a particular individual. You and I both served under multiple administrations.

That's right.

Democrats, Republicans. And I would suggest that anyone who supports this particular administration would be very concerned if they believe that military members somehow supported, uh, you know, Democrats, uh, and, and, and let their decisions be guided by Democrat ideology. Uh, you know, we, we, we need to cut through all of this discussion of the mil— of politics when we talk about the military, because, um, if you really think about it, no American wants the military to be driven by the politics of the moment. We want the military to be focused on defending this nation against enemies foreign and domestic, as our oath describes, not on hitching our careers to any particular politician, civilian leader, who in the space of 4 years may change policies that, you know, are ideologically driven.

Yes, sir. That is quite powerful, very, very clear. But I must say, I want to take one more question from the audience. By the way, I started this podcast 5 years ago. It was just me, myself, and I. Nobody was listening to me. Now I have people logging in from all across the world. So when someone sends me a question, I definitely want to make sure I acknowledge them. But before I do, and then we're going to go back to the pre-arranged question I sent you, sir, about the rule of law and military leadership. But before I do that, I must ask, sir, so few senior officers, especially flag officers, speak up for what is right in this current environment right now. You are so courageous, and I think you are giving courage to a lot of other people like me to be able to speak up on what is right. Not political, not partisan, just what is right and wrong. Where does that courage come from, sir? You're almost like a lonely prophet in the desert and crying out, and it looks like the trend is to just not speak, be silent, and so that you will not be attacked. I guess the real question is, why do you feel the need first to speak up for what's right, and where does that courage come from, sir?

Well, you know, there is some risk with any military retiree speaking out publicly. We who served as regular officers are still subject to the Uniform Code of Military Justice, and as we've seen from the case involving Senator Mark Kelly, there is a risk that the Department of Defense may, uh, you know, hold us accountable in some way by trying to either prosecute us or, uh, reduce our grade, as they're trying to do with, uh, with Senator Kelly. But, but, you know, the, the, the question is, the, the question is, um, Do we sit in silence as we watch what is being done to the military, uh, and, and by using the military in the ways that are at, at the very least, uh, unprecedented, at the very most illegal? Or do we stand up and speak out? And in my particular case, um, my oath is something that still motivates me. I consider what I'm doing, speaking out, to be an extension of my 35 years in uniform. And I really do feel, and I know that many of my colleagues who are also speaking out feel, that if we sat silently, we would actually be no longer living up to that oath, no longer trying to defend this nation, no longer supporting the men and women we left behind who are still serving in uniform and who can't speak out the way that we are. So this is a, you know, this is an important thing for those of us who are speaking out because we know that there are many, many people in the military today who would speak out if they could. And in many respects, we consider our voices to be theirs.

Yes, sir. And where does that courage come from, sir?

Well, I mean, it started with my father. It continued with my service of many, many leaders who I respected greatly, including General Powell. It included my janitor at the Air Force Academy who was willing to give his life for his country and, and, uh, you know, engaged in heroics on the battlefield. That deserved his receipt of the Medal of Honor. I mean, wow. And we stand on the shoulders of so many generations of Americans who were willing to give their lives for their country. For me, if you're, you know, if you're willing to give your life, aren't you at least willing to raise your voice when you see that things are being done with the military and to the military are wrong?

Wow, so powerful. I know since last year I've had to really rethink myself. Who am I, right? Like I said earlier, our core values as a sailor are courage, commitment, right? I am not a mercenary. I didn't join the military to make money. That is not the motivation. It's to serve a country, a greater cause, right? I am not a criminal. I don't kill children.

I don't kill girls.

I don't kill— innocent, right? And it really means something to be a United States sailor. Even when you go back to our sailors' creed, I am a United States sailor, and it really, really means something. So one of the questions we got from the audience, they say President Lincoln famously dismissed generals who failed to execute his wartime strategy, decision rooted in battlefield performance, not political loyalty. But today, some observers worry that senior officers are being removed based on perceived political alignment rather than professional competence. So from your perspective, sir, how should we understand the difference between legitimate civilian oversight, which we talked about, and efforts that risk turning the military into a politically compliant institution?

Well, you know, when you talk about legitimacy of civilian control of the military, uh, We need to all understand that that's what our Constitution provides. So by definition, civilian control of the military is legitimate. Yes. Now, your question really focuses on, um, the kinds of things that our current civilian leaders are doing. Um, they are legitimately our leaders.

Yes.

But we need to understand and focus on the kinds of decisions they're making. Those are the things that I think we, uh, can and should be critical of if they are not designed and intended to advance national security. And with regard to many of the decisions that our civilian leaders are making today, I and my colleagues have spoken out criticizing those decisions criticizing those policies because we don't believe they are consistent with the objective that our civilian leaders should have, and that is to advance national security. Um, we believe that decisions to engage in boat strikes in the Caribbean are illegal. We believe that starting a war against Iran violates international law. We believe that using judge advocates to serve as prosecutors in the Department of Justice and immigration judges is a violation of the law, specifically the Posse Comitatus Act, which limits the ability of the military to be used to enforce law against civilians. So those are the kinds of decisions that our civilian leaders are making that our, our fellow citizens should be questioning. We should never question the idea that civilians should be in charge of the military.

Thank you so much for, uh, sharing, sir. Uh, some people, when they hear the phrase rule of law, which we've already mentioned a couple of times today, they think it limits military effectiveness. Uh, you seem to argue the opposite. Why, sir?

Well, I argue the opposite Uh, because I believe, as I said in my previous answer to a similar question, that the law actually focuses military effectiveness. I, I have taught the Laws of War not only to our own troops but also the militaries of many other nations. Uh, during my 35 years, I was an international lawyer, and part of my role was to reach out and engage in conversations about the law with other militaries. And when we talk to other militaries about the rule of law, about the laws of armed conflict, we focused on not only the, the, the fact that the law should be guiding our, our activities as militaries, but we focus on the practical effect of the law. The practical effects of the law suggests that you actually waste ammunition if you use it against targets that give you no military advantage. Yes, hitting a hospital doesn't give you a military advantage. Hitting a school doesn't give you a military advantage. What gives you military advantage is attacking and disabling those things that the enemy uses to conduct operations against you. The other piece of this, which many people don't think enough about, is that not only does the law make you more effective in war, but it also allows you to achieve a lasting peace afterward.

Hmm.

World War II is a great example. You know, we're in World War II, we followed the Geneva Conventions, we treated prisoners of war according to the laws that were established in international law at the time. And consequently, I believe that that led to— at least it was a significant factor in leading to our ability to establish a lasting peace, which lasts until today. If, if you don't follow the law, if you target civilians, if you kill survivors of boat strikes, if you mistreat prisoners of war, all you're doing is you're making the enemy angry, and if you do succeed in conquering the enemy, you're now going to be leading— you're now going to be trying to make peace with a population that is, um, you know, that harbors a significant amount of resentment against you. So think about the law in all of those ways. And when you come right down to it, the conclusion you have to have is not the one that Secretary Hagseth articulated when he fired the Judge Advocates General of the Army and the Air Force. It's not that law and lawyers are roadblocks, it's that the law and lawyers actually contribute to the effectiveness of military operations.

Yes, because our current Secretary of Defense, which I think is still what the Constitution says, uh, is the name of his organization, because only Congress can change that name. But anyway, one thing he did say that was very concerning to me was "no quarter, no mercy," which is— I mean, I guess I'm not a lawyer, but from what I've learned coming up through the rank, is it's really a crime, literally. Is that not so, sir?

No quarter basically means No mercy. It means if they surrender, shoot them. It means if they're wounded, shoot them. It means if they're clinging to wreckage of a boat that you've just destroyed, it means shoot them. It literally is a war crime, and it's an example that's used in the Law of War manual that the Department of Defense has used as its Bible for how to conduct military operations.

Wow, that is, that is crazy that we are at that stage, uh, today. Because the other thing I think about, sir, even if you didn't want to, to follow international law and all of that, is if we do it to them, they are going to do it to us. U.S. American service members are going to be murdered when they surrender, which is not acceptable. I don't think, you know, again, I chose to, to serve. My wife didn't, my kids didn't, and they wouldn't want their father to be dead for surrendering when we do have human rights and all of that in place. They'd rather have me alive, be a prisoner of war, than be murdered. And yeah, anyway, so I guess the other question I have for you, sir, is how do we define the difference? It might be a fine line between lawful disagreement and insubordination.

Well, there, there is. Now we have to be really careful here when we talk about lawful disagreement. Uh, you know, lawful disagreement in my view is the disagreement that you may have with someone who is, uh, giving you orders or is asking for your advice about pursuing a particular objective militarily. Lawful disagreement is having that conversation, and then once the conversation is done, saluting smartly and obeying the orders you're given, as long as those orders are lawful.

That's right.

Lawful disagreement does not include going public with your disagreement if you continue to disagree and are given orders to the contrary. So, so we need to, you know, sort of level set our definition. Um, insubordination is essentially showing disrespect to your superior. So you can have a disagreement with your superior and be respectful. If you have a disagreement with your superior and you're not being respectful, that's insubordination. And I think that, you know, disagreement and respect can coexist. It underlies the whole idea of being able to agree to disagree. But we as military personnel are taught from the moment we enter the service that there are two principles that ought to guide us in our relationships with our superiors, our peers, and our subordinates. And that is candor and respect. Candor, which drives our ability to disagree when we see that the things that are being discussed may be wrong, and respect, which means that we can talk respectfully to the people who we're talking to about any particular decision.

Yes.

Wow.

Thank you so much for making it very clear. We have another comment from Lieutenant Commander Krista Gonsoli. She says, If you are willing to give your life, aren't you willing to raise your voice?

Powerful.

All right, I guess the next question I have, sir, is how can military leaders provide independent legal advice while still supporting civilian control of the military as set up in our Constitution?

Well, those are again two very, very different things. As a lawyer, my job was to give independent military advice, uh, to both my military superiors as well as to my civilian superiors. Civilian control of the military is a principle that we need to accept because that's a principle that is enshrined in our Constitution. So, uh, I talked about that earlier, uh, you know, instead of asking why are civilians in charge, we should be asking what are civilians doing while they're in charge? What kinds of decisions are they making? I was able to influence those decisions as a lawyer in the military. I was able to provide that independent legal advice, which our law establishes as a principle. There is a statute, there are statutes for each military service that, that, that require judge advocates to give independent military advice and require our superiors to protect the independence of the advice that we give, protect the independence of the JAGs who give that advice. And so it's important that we continue to defend both the principle that civilians are in control, as well as the principle, both of which are in law, that JAGs and the advice they give must be independent. Unless you have both, unless you have civilians who are in charge and are able to act as that bridge between politics and policy, and lawyers who, who define where the guardrails are within which those decisions about policy need to be, uh, need to be constrained, then you've got, quite frankly, a situation like the one we're facing today, where you've got policies and orders that are being promulgated and given, uh, that at— like I said, at the very least employ our military in very unprecedented ways, and at the very most require them to do things that are illegal.

Wow. And so you have publicly expressed concern regarding the illegal framework surrounding the US military operation involving Iran, so it's Epic Fury. Without debating policy, what legal principle should military leaders always consider before the nation uses military force?

Well, the legal principles are the laws that apply to armed conflict. And, you know, we lawyers put the law into two buckets. We've got the what we call jus ad bellum, which is a, uh, legal— or is it Latin term— meaning the law that defines how you get into war in the first place. And then you've got the jus in bello, which is the law that constrains operations in war. That's the law of armed conflict. In the first bucket, you've got international law and domestic law that defines when any country— and in the case of U.S. law, when the United States— can actually enter into armed hostilities. We have argued, we former JAGs, that the requirements of international law and domestic law have not been satisfied by our operations in Iran. When you look at international law, there are only two ways that, um, international law allows states, nations, to engage in armed conflict. And these are two principles that were established by the United States and our allies after World War II. They're enshrined in the UN Charter, and they are: one, self-defense, and two, if the Security Council authorizes it. In the case of Iran, we did not have a situation where we could legitimately say that we were defending ourselves against an armed attack, even though one of our reasons for going to war was to neutralize the Iranian nuclear capability. We were told that that had been done the prior year when we attacked their nuclear facilities. And so there was no sufficiently imminent threat of an armed attack that would have supported the international legal requirement that we defend ourselves. There certainly, you know, we did not take this issue to the Security Council to seek Security Council authority, authorization. If you look at U.S. domestic law, we've got the War Powers Act, and our administration didn't satisfy those requirements either. So either way you look at it, uh, the, the facts that have been reported suggest that we did not have a legitimate basis for starting this war against Iran. When you, when you talk about the laws of armed conflict, you mentioned earlier the the admonition that the Secretary of Defense made that we should give no quarter to the enemy. That would call for a violation of the laws that apply to military members in war. So, you know, we have written and spoken about the various legal principles that apply to Iran, to Venezuela, to the boat strikes, and in each of those situations we believe that the law has not sufficiently constrained the ways in which our military are being used, and therefore the ways in which our military are being used are unlawful.

That is, that is quite powerful. And I know the war in Iraq, for example, back then I was an IT-3, so E-4 enlisted, and I knew it was definitely legal because, uh, President Bush went to Congress and then he went to the Security Council of the UN, so it was legal for, for sure. Although me personally, even as a junior enlisted person, I felt like it was immoral and unethical. Thank God for me, when I was sent to Iraq, that's when I was selected to become an officer. Therefore, my orders were canceled because I was now Instant Zinga, not IT Free Zinga. However, if I was forced to go, which is, you know, you join the military because you, you want to join the fight. I had no problem with Afghanistan, but definitely had some issues with Iraq, and we ended up not finding those weapons of mass destruction after all. But I guess as a, as a sailor or as a service member, you could use the conscientious objector, right, if you feel like you are being ordered to go to a conflict that you absolutely do not agree with as far as your faith or your conscience. Is that correct, sir?

Well, conscientious objector rules are not war-specific. You know, to be a conscientious objector, you need to be opposed to all war.

All, okay.

Not just the one you're being asked to participate in.

Okay, okay. Anyway, I am glad that I didn't participate in Iraq. Again, no problem with Afghanistan and everything else we did throughout my career. I guess it It gets me to another question from the audience. Lieutenant Commander Krista Gonsley asks, Major General Leiper, how can service members have confidence in the military equal opportunity system when an organization has no functioning MEU program, effectively leaving them without the administrative avenue for redress Congress intended? When even a congressional inquiry, an Inspector General complaint, or an Article 138 complaint fail, to provide meaningful relief, what accountability should exist? Could you talk to that, sir?

Great question. And I, I think the short answer is that you can't have confidence in the MEO process because, quite frankly, as your, your questioner points out, it's been decimated by this administration. I mean, we have, we have seen women being promoted flag and general officer. We've seen Black officers not being promoted to flag and general officer, and both women and men, uh, who are senior officers being fired. I mean, in the first salvo that, that, uh, fired the Judge Advocates General of the Air Force and the Army, we saw General, uh, C.Q. Brown, the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, a Black officer fired. We saw Admiral Lisa Franchetti, the Chief of Naval Operations, fired. And, and those, those acts send messages, uh, as does the Secretary of Defense's threats to remove women from combat roles. All of these things, uh, I believe have created significant morale problems among the women and minority officers who continue to serve and, and send a message not only to them but their fellow service members that, you know, if you're a woman or if you're a Black officer, the chances you hoped you would have to rise to senior leadership positions are no longer available to you. And that, again, ought to concern all of us, not just the people who remain in uniform, But it ought to concern all Americans because what we're doing here in the name of eliminating identity politics is establishing identity politics, which place people who are very, very talented at a disadvantage if they happen to be Black or female.

Thank you so much, Bob. Definitely a lot of concern. I do mentor at least some 2 dozen naval officers right now, many of them women and people of color. And it's— it seems to definitely affect the morale. I guess the question I have for you, sir, is what leadership principle then should commanders like myself, especially those on active duty now, should rely upon when navigating changes that affect morale, cohesion, and trust?

Well, You know, I begin and end my conversations about the kinds of attributes good leaders have with the idea that a character first and— a leader first and foremost has to have character. And I spoke earlier about character, at least in my mind, being defined as the desire to do the right thing no matter who's looking. And, and if we have leaders of character, if we have leaders who are committed to doing the right thing no matter who's watching, then those leaders presumably should step up whenever they or the people who rely on them for leadership are being asked to do things that are illegal, immoral, or unethical. As hell. So you start with the principle that our leaders need to have character. And I think, you know, consistent with that, you've also got the principles of integrity, telling the truth to the people who depend on them for leadership, humility. I mentioned Mr. Crawford, our janitor, who taught humility. You know, humility meaning that you admit that you don't know all the answers. But are willing to do the hard work to find them if you ask the questions. Uh, and lastly, hard work. Uh, that's a characteristic that we need to continue to rely on our military leaders to provide, and I don't doubt that any of them lack all four of those characteristics. The thing that continues to give me hope is that the leaders who I left behind when I hung up my uniform 12 years ago, uh, continue to have the character, integrity, humility, and capacity for hard work, uh, that, uh, leaders who I served with had when I served in the military.

Thank you so much. So as we wind this, uh, interview down, I want to speak a little bit about future leaders, right? Especially many of the junior officers I currently mentor. I guess one question, sir, if you could sit down with every newly commissioned officer in this current environment, what advice would you give them?

Oh, um, well, I would encourage them to remember why they joined the military. In my case, I joined because I wanted to follow in my father's footsteps to defend my country and serve my fellow Americans.

Yes.

The uniform meant a lot to me. It not only represented the sacrifices, courage, and honor of generations of airmen who preceded me, but, but it commanded the respect of everyone around me. So what I would do is I would encourage today's junior and field grade officers to ask themselves, if that's what the uniform and their military service means to them today. And if it does, that's great. If it doesn't, if they feel that their brass has been tarnished and their uniforms have been sullied by the dishonorable behavior— dishonorable behavior of their leaders, then they should stand up, adjust their uniforms, and fight to restore their honor, reclaim their pride, and re-earn the respect and confidence of their fellow Americans. Now, I know that's a lot to ask, but just as our predecessors sacrificed everything for our freedom, were willing to give their lives for our freedom, I don't think that it is too much to ask for them to be willing to do likewise now that we're facing these moments where we were at a crossroads. We're at a crossroads where our civilian leaders are in many cases being asked, are asking the military to do things that are immoral, illegal, or unethical. And they in uniform right now are faced with the very, very difficult decision to make. Do they disobey unlawful orders or do they obey them? And quite frankly, that is a question that none of us can answer. Only they can answer because they're the ones who will suffer the consequences if they push back. And I, you know, the one— again, one of the reasons I'm raising my voice is so they don't have to. Yes, because this is a very, very difficult position that they've been placed in, and it's very, very difficult for them to, uh, not have the courage— because I think all of them do have the courage— but the ability to push back on the policies that have been promulgated and the orders that have been given by this administration. It's— we all need to understand how difficult a position we have put our military in and the moral injury that I think is being inflicted today and that we as a country need to be committed to fixing after the dust settles.

Wow, thank you. Thank you so much, sir. I know we are quickly running out of time. I'd like to close with what we call here the goal segment. G is for goal. What kind of military leadership culture do you hope America has 20 years from now?

Well, I hope we can return to a concept of warrior that includes the concept of honor. Those concepts seem to be mutually exclusive for this Secretary of Defense, but I spent 35 years uniform, working and aspiring to be an Airman who possesses both.

Yes, sir. And in grosso, the R stands for reality. What do you believe is the greatest challenge facing today's officer corps?

Well, our officers know right from wrong and have taken an oath to the Constitution that requires them to always do the right thing. Today, however, we're witnessing leaders, both civilian and military, who are actively engaged in doing the wrong thing. The boat strikes, leaders advocating commission of war crimes, leaders ordering war crimes, the politicization of the military, the use of the military to regulate the conduct of our fellow Americans, and on and on and on. Yes, there— those are all putting tremendous pressure on our troops. The greatest challenges our officer corps faces today are to understand their duty, uphold their oaths, and lead their troops to do the right thing despite the outrageous acts they're witnessing and being ordered to perform.

Yes, and then the O is for options. If you were mentoring today's captain, major, lieutenant commanders, and commanders, sir, where would you encourage them to focus?

Well, again, I, I go back to encouraging them to remember why they joined the military and renew for themselves and for the people who rely on them for leadership, the reasons why they join, presumably to serve our nation, to defend our nation, and to do the right thing regardless of who's looking.

Yes, sir. And finally, Grow is W, that's Will. What is one commitment every leader listening today can make before tomorrow morning?

Well, I mentioned General Colin Powell, who I had the honor to work for in his last year as the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. He had 13 rules that he lived by, one of which, the 13th, quite frankly, is that, quote, perpetual optimism is a force multiplier.

Yes.

Every day I wake up and recommit to making a positive difference in the lives of everyone around me. And if our leaders, the leaders who truly care about the people they lead, and the people they've sworn an oath to protect remain optimistic and committed to excellence despite the enormous challenges they face, I believe we'll overcome those challenges, fix the damage that's been done, and emerge even stronger than we were.

Well, General Leiper, thank you, thank you so much for your time. I really, really do appreciate that on this podcast. If I can ask one last question before we close, sir. You've spent a lifetime defending not only America's security but also the legal and ethical foundation upon which that security rests. When history remembers your career, what do you hope it says about the kind of leader and servant you were, sir?

Well, I hope I'll be remembered as somebody who cared, cared about the people I worked with, cared about the Constitution and the American people that we took an oath to serve and defend, and, and cared about justice enough to call out and fight against injustice whenever and wherever it occurs and appears. Wow.

Thank you so much for your time, sir. Normally when I speak to a flag officer, I make sure to end by exactly within the hour. We went 5 minutes over. I'm sorry for that, sir, but thank you so much for speaking to us and for mentoring all of our junior officers and the listening, uh, really listening to you today. Thank you, sir.

Thank you. Good luck to you and everybody listening. Wow.

Well, this was, I believe, a historic podcast. Uh, this was pretty frank when we talked about leadership. Again, it's not about politics, and I think it's, it's really important for all of those listening out there. But, but I do think it is important to know exactly who we are. As a sailor, my core values: honor, courage, and commitment, right? And again, my oath as an officer is to support and to defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic. That is who I am. That is what I stand for. So, uh, thanks again for, uh, watching today, uh, This has been quite a podcast today. I want to remind you, a little bit later today, in a couple of hours, I will be speaking to Scott Zuckerman. Uh, he's a financial expert. We're going to be talking about From Financial Disaster to Financial Freedom: Leadership Lessons in Wealth, Resilience, and Entrepreneurship. And, uh, tomorrow I will have a great pleasure of speaking to another Maxwell Leadership Certified Coach. That's going to be Coach Richard Vickers. He's the bestselling author of a newly released book, Getting Smarter Every Day. That's going to be for tomorrow. And right after him, I'm gonna be speaking to Dr. Elizabeth Adams. She's a bestselling author of Artificial Intelligence in the Edge of Artificial Intelligence, Leading Humanity in the Age of AI, Purpose Before Code. I really look forward to that. And finally, tomorrow I'm gonna be speaking to our Command Sergeant Major, Jason Schmidt. Actually, we've been trying to set this up for almost a year now. I'm so glad we finally were able to schedule it. We're going to be talking about the backbone of leadership inside the noncommissioned officer corps. As all of you guys know, I came in as enlisted 21 years ago. My entire career, I've really been favored by our chief mess, right? E-7, E-8, E-9. And I believe they do run the Navy. I think they run the military and They've mentored me throughout my entire career. So even when I became a senior officer, I still very much rely on them. So that's going to be for, for tomorrow. Again, let us know in the comments 3 to 5 takeaways from today's leadership and Frank discussion. And I really appreciate you following the show. Subscribe, like, and add comments wherever you guys watch your podcast. It's going to be immediately available on YouTube. And on LinkedIn. And it should be available on all major podcast platforms by tonight. Thanks again for watching and hope to see you in a couple of hours when we speak with Scott Zuckerman. Thanks again and bye for now.

Thank you for tuning in to the Leadership Success podcast with your host, Coach BZ. If today's episode added value to your leadership journey, be sure to subscribe, share, and join us again for more wisdom nuggets on how to lead better and achieve greater success. Remember, leadership is the most critical skill of our time. The world will always need leaders to inspire others, drive innovation, and execute meaningful strategy. So why not count yourself among the bold leaders shaping the 21st century? Until next time, stay inspired, stay committed, and keep leading with excellence.