Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
Let me know what I missed again please.
a.) You cannot have a "Strategic Corporal." Everything a Corporal does is tactical. Yes, tactics must serve strategy, but that's true for everybody. Did anyone ever say "Strategic Soldier?" No? Why? Cos it would be dumb to say it.

b.) At best you have a Corporal who "does not undermine Policy by doing something stupid." - my favourite example being the sinking of the Lusitania - OK, not a Corporal but an example of minor tactical action that changed Policy, and had strategic implications, but its actually very hard to find good examples of where decisions by NCO's have ACTUALLY changed Policy and had a real strategic effect. It's extremely rare at best.

c.) Poor concept because it explicitly aimed to put an un-realistic burden on the Corporal, when what it was really meant to do was raise the bar to a useful minimum level. - so "We have to be a lot better." - or "Doing stupid stuff, will always be stupid." The implications for training men to believe that their every action might weigh on Policy was and is horrendous.

The British Army never took it seriously - at least no one I know. BUT Gen. Krulack, did do some good stuff with the "Three Block War." I used to "um and err about that", but actually the idea can be made into something useful.