Cumulative impact of low calorie intake and sleep deficit in combat
In a recent blog post, Bernard Finel takes the military, and government in general, to task for "a weird macho culture" where there is an assumption that "working more hours inherently boosts productivity." I agree that this assumption is not wise, but where I part ways with Bernard is where he critiques McChrystal's now well-known routine of 4 or 5 hours of sleep, lots of running, and one meal per day. He suggests that the impact of such a regimen may be on par with the impairment brought about by small quantities of alcohol.
He specifically states: "We essentially have a general running the war in Afghanistan probably with the impairment level of someone with 2-3 beers in him 24/7, actually worse since sleep deprivation is cumulative."
I disagree with this. My comment is excerpted below...
Quote:
When you are this immersed in something that you are obsessed with, fatigue becomes less of a factor in your ability to focus... If you legitimately think his routine is too much, I’d say there are thousands of other Officers pushing themselves much harder and, in hindsight, I don’t think it affected anyone’s ability to function.
He doesn't seem to agree. Just curious what the thoughts are from the council. I'm guessing that many here have had similar experiences and that many had experiences more demanding than mine.
We have all had the occasional, abnormal experience - whether in Ranger School, in combat, or in some other odd circumstance - where we knew that we had not had enough sleep and we were pushing ourselves beyond a reasonable limit, but sleeping simply was not an option. I am not asking about extreme, short bursts of no sleep, no food, etc. I am curious about the long-term, cumulative effect of less sleep, less food, more strenuous activity, and heightened mental activity.
Do any of you look back upon your deployments and think, "boy, I thought I was thinking straight, but in hindsight, I was way too tired."
I recall extended periods (weeks/months) of getting no more than a few hours of sleep per night - often going for days without sleep. The only time that it impacted me, imo, was when I was doing something that I absolutely hated and had no interest in - like reviewing the document control register or inspecting the always-substandard 5988E's that my crews would pencil-whip. If it was a tactical task, my head was in the game - regardless of the cumulated months of less sleep, less food, etc.
Thoughts? Comments?
Just to be clear, it is optional to begin your comments with "no sh--, there I was..."
I don't worry about much but I do know that
McChrystal's or anyone elses eating and sleeping habits are not among those few things. People are different, all have different food and sleep needs and all this foolishness about sleep deprivation is true but not an issue and is very much individual condition, experience, practice and metabolism related.
Carl is right that exhaustion kills and Intel Trooper is correct in noting that about 40 straight hours gets you to the point of non compos -- everyone's heard about Ranger students talking to trees...:D
Fuchs may be correct in stating that McChrystal is setting a bad example -- but I'm quite sure there are hundreds of 'leaders' over there setting far worse examples on many counts. A guy who sleeps little, doesn't overeat is probably one of the most benign bad examples I've run across. Not to mention that everyone in combat gets too little sleep and eats poorly --sort of goes with the territory.
That said, combat forces you to do without sleep at all levels from PVT to GEN; the body and mind adapt as best they can. Some do it well, some less so. It's a non-issue. Everyone adapts as well as possible and most get to the point where they can go 24-30 hours or so at a stretch without too much stress and can do that several times over the period of a week or so before they need an overnight sleep. It usually works out as things cycle. :wry:
Thus, to Schmedlap's question
Quote:
Do any of you look back upon your deployments and think, "boy, I thought I was thinking straight, but in hindsight, I was way too tired."
my answer is Sure, several times in all of them. Not much could have been done about them, though. Until we do combat as shift work (not unthinkable...) we're going to have that problem but as Slap says:
Quote:
"...all a GI needs is a cigarette and cup of Coffey now and then and everything will be fine."
That's still true. Unfortunate, not ideal, not even marginally good -- but then war is unfortunate and not an ideal situation and there's nothing good about it...
As for McChrystal and the automaton bit; Generals are people. People vary. Everyone doesn't make useless chit chat or idle comments answering inane questions at length without saying anything of substance (thank goodness!). Creighton Abrams was one of our better products, probably with Ridgeway the best post WW II type and he was not a chatterer -- his best line was "Generals should be noted for their silences." :cool:
Note lengthy answer with little substance. ;)
True -- but not the American way...
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Fuchs
Something is badly wrong in his staff if a theater commander needs to work for more than 60 hrs a week.
Needs to and does are different things...
Quote:
He's the guy who is supposed to be shielded from micromanagement and administration annoyances in order to free up his mind for thought.
Totally agree. Recall however that survey after survey says Americans put in more hours at work than do most other nations in all fields of endeavor. It's a national affliction... :rolleyes:
We have thus developed a military culture of micromanagement and our Generals, unfortunately, are gauged not on their strategic strengths and tactical and technical competence (though most are at least acceptable in those area; a few are quite sharp) but on how well they micromanage. They do tend to get too far down in the weeds. That's a bit on the simplistic side but not by much... :(