Word
In this age, I don’t care how tactically or operationally brilliant you are, if you cannot create harmony—even vicious harmony—on the battlefield based on trust across service lines, across coalition and national lines, and across civilian/military lines, you need to go home, because your leadership is obsolete. We have got to have officers who can create harmony across all those lines.
-- At JFCOM annual conference, May, 2010
posted by Concerned American | 3:30 PM
4 Comments:
I forget whether it was Iraq or Afghanistan, but:
An operation with U.S. troops was delayed by several hours because the local soldiers didn't show up, and when they did, they had no extra ammunition, food, water, and depended on the Americans to provide.
Another time, as they advanced through marijuana fields toward a target, the locals stopped to harvest some to take home. Big fun party time.
Two small examples.
We should leave them a few tons of 7.62, clap them on the shoulder and let them have at it. No more American coffins coming home.
As this particular post was aimed at those in the patriot community, at least, from my own inference, I offer the following:
IMHO, to do this (what the General stated), the first thing that has to happen is that the leaders in question must discipline themselves to focus solely on the strategems and logistics required for successful waging of a particular battle. Wars are won one battle at a time, usually at the platoon level. Political struggles a la' Patton v. Montgomery must be sloughed off, no matter how bad 'the other guy' deserves it because these personality fights will be used against both the leaders and the followers in a destructive manner by OPFOR psy-ops.
ANY differences between them must remain private, and when a decision is made, the dissenter(s) must STFU and carry out the intent of the commander to the best of their ability.
The leadership doesn't have to like each other; they must respect each other because if they don't, you can bet your last beer one of them will 'hesitate' in doing all they can to support each other during a fight. And that's how needless casualties are taken. It's also how battles are lost.
In the 'soft war' today, we face all sorts of logistical problems, the very least of which is the ability of any of our own 'troops' to say, "Well, I can do this better than you, so KMA!" And they do this whenever they see their 'generals' in a pissing contest. This disease runs rampant up and down the 'ranks' (so-called) with popularity being a litmus test of (for lack of a better word) effective 'generalship'.
Popularity can be useful, to be sure, but the popularity must be built upon the character of the leader(s) in question and their known achievements that provide their bonafides to the 'troops'. Ask a vet the difference between a
'combat commander' and a 'perfumed prince' and who they'd follow into a fight. I'm betting it wouldn't be "General Politicking Spit Shine & Regulation Quoter".
It's going to be the 'General' that has mud on his boots, callouses on his hands, and carries the same rifle the troops do. It's the 'general' that will stand up and not say 'yes' to every idea spouted during a brainstorm or who won't heap praise on every diatribe within the blogosphere that happens to support restoration of constitutional government.
The 'general' or 'officer' that does that is the one who helps create 'vicious harmony' within the ranks and across the 'coalition' or 'alliance'. Knowing that 'the old man' will go into hell with them, suffer the same privations, take the same risks, more or less, and collect his share of scalps if necessary (because generals do their fighting by getting inside the OODA loop of OPFOR, providing tactically sound instructions that clearly outline the 'commander's intent', and then getting out of the way so the junior officers, NCO's and troopers can use their own initiative). A book on General Robert E. Lee, "Lee on Leadership" provides superb insight on how to achieve this 'harmony'.
(Continued on next post)
As this particular post was aimed at those in the patriot community, at least, from my own inference, I offer the following:
IMHO, to do this (what the General stated), the first thing that has to happen is that the leaders in question must discipline themselves to focus solely on the strategems and logistics required for successful waging of a particular battle. Wars are won one battle at a time, usually at the platoon level. Political struggles a la' Patton v. Montgomery must be sloughed off, no matter how bad 'the other guy' deserves it because these personality fights will be used against both the leaders and the followers in a destructive manner by OPFOR psy-ops.
ANY differences between them must remain private, and when a decision is made, the dissenter(s) must STFU and carry out the intent of the commander to the best of their ability.
The leadership doesn't have to like each other; they must respect each other because if they don't, you can bet your last beer one of them will 'hesitate' in doing all they can to support each other during a fight. And that's how needless casualties are taken. It's also how battles are lost.
In the 'soft war' today, we face all sorts of logistical problems, the very least of which is the ability of any of our own 'troops' to say, "Well, I can do this better than you, so KMA!" And they do this whenever they see their 'generals' in a pissing contest. This disease runs rampant up and down the 'ranks' (so-called) with popularity being a litmus test of (for lack of a better word) effective 'generalship'.
Popularity can be useful, to be sure, but the popularity must be built upon the character of the leader(s) in question and their known achievements that provide their bonafides to the 'troops'. Ask a vet the difference between a
'combat commander' and a 'perfumed prince' and who they'd follow into a fight. I'm betting it wouldn't be "General Politicking Spit Shine & Regulation Quoter".
It's going to be the 'General' that has mud on his boots, callouses on his hands, and carries the same rifle the troops do. It's the 'general' that will stand up and not say 'yes' to every idea spouted during a brainstorm or who won't heap praise on every diatribe within the blogosphere that happens to support restoration of constitutional government.
The 'general' or 'officer' that does that is the one who helps create 'vicious harmony' within the ranks and across the 'coalition' or 'alliance'. Knowing that 'the old man' will go into hell with them, suffer the same privations, take the same risks, more or less, and collect his share of scalps if necessary (because generals do their fighting by getting inside the OODA loop of OPFOR, providing tactically sound instructions that clearly outline the 'commander's intent', and then getting out of the way so the junior officers, NCO's and troopers can use their own initiative). A book on General Robert E. Lee, "Lee on Leadership" provides superb insight on how to achieve this 'harmony'.
(Continued on next post)
(Continuation)
FWIW, the 'patriot community' might want to bone up on that sort of leadership ability...because there's a hell of a lot of 'disharmony' of late, and the troops see it.
In our case, the troops are going to put their asses on the line when the so-called leadership is at each other or are vying to see which can provide the most 'enlightened' prose to the masses via one way communications or conducting ad hominem attacks to further their own agendas, whatever they may be.
Now, take this FWIW, and don't bother with the flaming. If it fits, deal with it and corret it. If it doesn't, put it in the back of your mind so that if/when it does become an issue, you won't be totally unprepared.
And following that, we might stand a chance of actually achieving constitutional restoration.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home