particularly in leadership, why would you single that one out?
squad leaders, platoon leaders, up to officers - they all lead people. all they rely on is their people. if you are out there in afghanistan all that can save your life is your people.
the days of WWI style large-scale battles are long over. ever talked to veterans? most i talked to confessed that it is pretty likely that more officers died by 'friendly fire' than enemy contact. if you suck as a leader in war, feedback is pretty direct.
the modern army is the outcome of a lot of field testing. it is a learning organization, they employ their own historians to assess past activities and learn from them.
leaders are actually being trained in leadership. practical training, you get your own team in a controlled environment and then exercise with them. which organization has such a process?
i particularly like the AAR. not even SCRUM has such a feedback loop, nothing is learned.
what's really great about the AAR process in the military is that it is set up as an open forum, where rank does not apply. it is time-limited, to be done right after the exercise. it is highly focused, not a bitching session.
Maybe I should have been clearer on that point. Yes, the leadership you mention certainly is there and hopefully good (I'm not american and didn't serve). What I meant was more the fact there arose quite some incidents where the leadership aparently failed. Not in a combat situation, mind that, but rather in a global scope, allowing the burning of korans for example isn't best pratice.
I don't want to into a political discussion so, it really is just an example.