Although the report is disputed by some Army officials, I think there's a major political component to avoiding defending a $287M mistake. As the article notes, there are multiple reasons on why morale is low in today's Army (and I have to wonder about the other services too). It's not unusual for the military brass to defend a program once they invested heavily into it, although I often wonder how much of that can be attributed to "just following orders" due to the fact their CiC is the President and their funding comes from Congress.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/16/army-survey-morale/24897455/
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/04/16/army-survey-morale/24897455/
More than half of some 770,000 soldiers are pessimistic about their future in the military and nearly as many are unhappy in their jobs, despite a six-year, $287 million campaign to make troops more optimistic and resilient, findings obtained by USA TODAY show.
Twelve months of data through early 2015 show that 403,564 soldiers, or 52%, scored badly in the area of optimism, agreeing with statements such as "I rarely count on good things happening to me." Forty-eight percent have little satisfaction in or commitment to their jobs.
The results stem from resiliency assessments that soldiers are required to take every year. In 2014, for the first time, the Army pulled data from those assessments to help commanders gauge the psychological and physical health of their troops.
The effort produced startlingly negative results. In addition to low optimism and job satisfaction, more than half reported poor nutrition and sleep, and only 14% said they are eating right and getting enough rest.
The Army began a program of positive psychology in 2009 in the midst of two wars and as suicide and mental illness were on the rise. To measure resiliency the Army created a confidential, online questionnaire that all soldiers, including the National Guard and Reserve, must fill out once a year.