Your Brain In Combat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by KenWats

On Ranger School:
For me, as a brand new Engineer 2LT, Ranger School was a good leadership exercise (my Ranger School time dates back to '97, so ymmv). I saw what worked and what didn't work and had to do all the troop leading procedures under the most stress I faced in my relatively short military career. I got to see how different folks reacted differently to stress and learned a little about how much nudging folks needed. I saw firsthand one of the most physically tough and intelligent officers from my OBC class fall apart under the strain. I fell apart under the strain a little myself.

While the troop leading procedure training and giving an operations order Ranger School style was all done in the Benning phase, there were tests of your ability to lead, plan, organize, and control under stress throughout the school.

Was Ranger school a necessary or sufficient check for "good leaders"? No. I saw some idiots with the Ranger tab. One of my best ROTC cadre was an infantry captain who didn't make it, and he's a man I learned much from and a big reason why I developed into (I think) a fairly decent Platoon Leader.

As an Engineer, who had to work with Infantry companies that rotated leaders fairly frequently, showing up with the Tab I think at least showed that I had a shared experience with the Infantry folks. There was some value in that. I think the NCOs who got stuck with me at least respected that I had tried to take every opportunity to make myself a better leader before I showed up at the Platoon.

As far as folks joining ROTC for the scholarship money, I think that can end up working in a couple ways. Some folks show up for the scholarship money and find comraderie and a sense of service and dive in. Other folks just do the minimum to get the scholarship money. So, I think an incentive to "try it" may not be out of line. But somehow you need to weed out the folks who are only there for the incentive.

All of this is just from my own (limited and out of date) experience. One data point does not a trend make.

---

Ken, I believe your experience confirms Bumperplate's concerns about officer training (in the US). If you needed the Ranger course to "find yourself" what do you suggest was wrong with your officer training course in that it failed to apply the necessary "stress tests"?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stan

Hmmm, correct me if I'm wrong, but the leadership portion of the Ranger course is but part of the 21 days at Benning. Correct ? This is why I think most of the young troops at both Bragg and Benning are so worked up about those tabs you spoke of. Benning is the start and stop for more than 50% of Ranger and SOF (at least for me it was way back when). I was once of the opinion that wearing any tab or CIB was something to be proud of (not bling... We didn't have bling back in the 70s :confused: )



You got me on this one. Since I'm part of the GI Bill era and constantly hear about me getting a free education for my 23 years of service (as if I wouldn't have joined without some financial Bennie), I have to wonder what would entice a future leader with an education and ability to endure and lead in combat ? Hell, I can barely sell my sister on the fact that being military is noble.

---

As to your first comment...I'm talking about the culture within the operational Army. I say Benning but it could apply to Riley, Campbell and some other posts - but in my experience - not to Bragg. To simplify (too much perhaps): when my buddy tells me about his time with 3/82, it's about schools, tabs, and checking the block in order to "earn" credibility to be placed in a leadership position. When I speak to my buddies and evaluate my experiences at other places, it's more focused on the performance and not the uniform attachments. I do think people should be proud of their accomplishments. However, that is too often supplanted by pride with what they wear. Too very different things. What you accomplished yesterday does not provide a strong correlation with your performance tomorrow. In an ideal world, yes it does. However, we have placed so much importance on that, that it's the school and the tab that have become important - not the accomplishments, lessons learned, and capabilities developed.


Not sure what you're getting at with the second comment, although I'm guessing that you want to know what our sales pitch should be. Well....it needs to be related to service and not to the benefits granted. Will people take the benefits into consideration? Yes, naturally. But we need to appeal to those people, with those characteristics of leaders. Nowhere in SLA Marshall's writings, for instance, does it say that a good leader seeks personal benefits, or selects jobs because of the GI Bill, SRB, etc.

If that's the message we send: come to us and we'll give you things for showing up, how can we be surprised at the caliber of people entering the service. Many of our newest Soldiers want likership and not leadership.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bumperplate

However, that is too often supplanted by pride with what they wear. Too very different things. What you accomplished yesterday does not provide a strong correlation with your performance tomorrow. In an ideal world, yes it does. However, we have placed so much importance on that, that it's the school and the tab that have become important - not the accomplishments, lessons learned, and capabilities developed.

---

I would tend to agree with you even as far back as 1974. Everything was about schooling and the uniform accoutrements you wore. Perhaps not lessons learned, but certainly personal accomplishments. However, had little to do with leadership potential !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by bumperplate

Not sure what you're getting at with the second comment, although I'm guessing that you want to know what our sales pitch should be. Well....it needs to be related to service and not to the benefits granted. Will people take the benefits into consideration? Yes, naturally. But we need to appeal to those people, with those characteristics of leaders. Nowhere in SLA Marshall's writings, for instance, does it say that a good leader seeks personal benefits, or selects jobs because of the GI Bill, SRB, etc.

---

Yep, our sales pitch to potential leaders. I'm sure there are some just in it to serve our country but I sadly doubt that without some benefits attached many potential leaders would join out of simple patriotism today.

I left Bliss in 75 and wished I had the chance to meet Marshall as I had read about his research and opinions. But much later I would also read about what the CGSC and others had to say about the General's findings. Back when Marshall was writing the benefits as a soldier were fairly miniscule and/or the soldiers conscripts. That doesn't say much for his theories IMO.