Quote:
Originally Posted by
Brihard
This seems to be the main thrust of your argument, most of the rest of it failing tests of reason or logic. That soldiers will be 'distracted' by the possible presence of gays or women in their midst.
heh heh heh... fails the test of reason and logic you should have added IMHO to that statement. But to dismiss something out of hand gets you off having to address those issues I suppose. Someone will buy that approach I guess... sorry I don't.
Quote:
As I stated earlier, I've worked with a number of people I didn't like to a variety of reasons, each one in and of itself as distracting as any other thing might be. I sucked it up and dealt with it. The 'distractions' argument is fundamentally no more sound than, again, the argument raised against letting blacks into the military, and then into the combat units.
So we just keep adding distractions and if the troops complain we just tell them to suck it up, right?
Quote:
I'll tell you the same thing I would tell my soldiers: deal with it.
OK, so we are back to leadership again and sadly it seems to be a problem among the other ranks as well.
Gen Bill Slim made an address to West Point in 1953. A quote from it is:
Quote:
You will soon have bars on your shoulders; I’ve got things on mine that you’ve never seen before - but they both mean that we are officers. We have no business to set ourselves up as officers unless we know more about the job in hand than the men we are leading. If you command a small unit, like a platoon, you ought to be able to do anything you ask any man in it to do better than he can. Know the bolts and nuts of your job, but above all know your men. When you command a platoon you ought to know each man in it better than his own mother does. You must know which man responds to encouragement, which to reasoning, and which needs a good kick in the pants. Know your men.
Telling your soldiers to deal with it is a leadership cop out. In my time I had to act against NCOs who for one or other reason had been promoted beyond the level of their competence. Never a pleasant task. I watched how my sections and later platoons operated to see two things. One, if the commanders/leaders we up to it and two, what I could expect from that particular group in combat. Certainly one does not put a dysfunctional, lacking in cohesion callsign up front in a critical attack or whatever.
So what am I learning about the modern Canadian Army's leadership doctrine?
Is "suck-it-up" and "deal-with-it" the way junior leaders lead their men?
Look PM me your email and I will email you by return that wonderful Brit Army publication on leadership they hand out at Sandhurst. Its called Serve to Lead. Outstanding, read, re-read and digest.
Thereafter get your hands on Sydney Jary's book "18 Platoon" form your library or buy it here. Buy it, read it, then leave it lying around in the hope your platoon commander will pick it up and read it.
Quote:
If, while doing the job, you are unable to focus yourself on being a member of my infantry section for no better reason than the personal life of the person next to you, then you have no business in my team. We have soldiers deployed overseas facing impending divorces at home. Sick family members. Kids who are getting in trouble. Hell, friends getting killed from time to time during the length of their tour. Soldiers have proven themselves remarkably good at shoving distractions aside and carrying on. There are more than enough people capable of doing so that if someone can't, tough cookies for them. A soldier who cannot compartmentalize themselves enough while on the job to focus wholly and solely on the mission at hand, the commander's intent, and the bigger picture within which he fits frankly lacks, in my opinion, the emotional maturity to be worth the risk. A soldier who cannot focus on their job is a liability. Shall I kick the black guy out of my section because my closet racist finds him 'distracting' or unpleasant to be around? No. So why would I any more cater to homophobes?
You got to read that book and Serve to Lead.Trust me, you need all the help you can get. I'll tell who are the first that should go... the bad leaders. Not reassigned (as someone told me the other day) but straight out the door (or down a rank or two).
A word from Sydney Jary:
Quote:
Unlike characters in novels and films, most men react nervously to real battle conditions. Discipline and regimental pride are supports but, in decisive moments of great danger, the grip of the leader on the led is paramount. Infantry section and platoon commanders must possess the minds and hearts of their soldiers. Strength of character is not enough. Successful leadership in battle, although complex and intangible, always seemed to me to depend on two factors. Firstly, soldiers must have confidence in their leaders’ professional ability and, secondly, they must trust them as men. It helps, too, if a leader has the reputation of being lucky.