You would expect a retired four-star Army general to be a better leader than a foreign monarch. Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin, after all, attended numerous military leadership schools during his 41 years in uniformed service. In contrast, while he is the nominal commander in chief of the British Armed Forces, King Charles III of the United Kingdom has spent most of his life attending public events, pottering around in his various gardens, and providing easy fodder for Netflix.
Surprisingly, however, Charles seems to understand basic leadership better than does Austin.
Consider the striking discrepancy in how each man has dealt with the difficulty of their respective prostate cancer diagnoses.
Austin hid his diagnosis from his subordinates, the people, and President Joe Biden, the commander in chief. In so doing, he put his own personal interest in privacy before the nation’s security. The risks Austin’s actions accrued for national security, especially in the nuclear domain, were far more significant than the Pentagon pretends. The defense secretary set an awful example for all those civilian and uniformed military leaders below him. That leadership example is worsened by the fact that Austin and Defense Department press secretary Maj. Gen. Pat Ryder (who misled the media over Austin’s condition) have failed to resign or be relieved.
King Charles? He has addressed his newly discovered medical condition with two key qualities of decision-making: speed and decisiveness.
In a short statement on Monday, Buckingham Palace explained why he had done so. He was sharing “his diagnosis to prevent speculation and in the hope it may assist public understanding for all those around the world who are affected by cancer.” The statement also provided clarification as to what this will mean in terms of the king’s performance of his ceremonial and other duties. While Charles will “postpone public-facing duties,” he “will continue to undertake state business and official paperwork as usual.”
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
There is a balance between privacy and disclosure here. The statement did not disclose the specific type or stage of the king’s cancer. That will foster some public concern and conjecture. Nevertheless, the statement provided the minimum information that the British public deserved. Charles has offered a difficult personal honesty in order to put the national interest first.
In contrast, Austin has only belatedly and half-heartedly apologized for failing to hide the truth. British monarchs haven’t always been easy examples for American emulation. But here, at least, Charles has set a fine form to follow.