The cause of the Army's general misconduct

The Army has appointed a three-star general to look into its sexual misconduct issues among senior officers and the recent suicide of MG John Rossi. Army Secretary Eric Fanning speculated "that the multiple combat tours over the last 15 years of soldiers like Haight, and their long absences from their families, may have contributed to their misconduct." [Source]

But I doubt that's really an issue. From what I've seen, deployments are a reason why marriages break up, but they don't contribute to misconduct. MG David Haight didn't lead a "swinging lifestyle" because he'd been deployed so many times -- he did it because of character issues and lack of discipline.

At its core, it's an organizational culture issue. What does the Army value? Who get promoted? Is it the person who has standout character, or the person who's tight with the boss? Assuming everyone's just as technically and tactically proficient as the next guy, it's the latter. In the Army, the people with the professional reputation for "getting things done" and the relationships to influence promotion boards are the ones who get promoted. It's not the guys who make it a point to know and follow rules.

As it is now, Army Regulations are what you apply to people beneath you; the only ones that apply to you are what your immediate superior pays attention to. Like China, it's "rule by law," not "rule of law." For example, one regulation requires tobacco users to go outside to a smoking area, but that doesn't stop people from chewing tobacco in their office.

This has led to an Army culture that leads people to sacrifice professionalism in order to increase accomplishments. It rewards personalities who demonstrate "presence" and de-values the ones who "measure twice, cut once." General officer misconduct isn't an anomaly -- it's symptomatic of Army culture in general.