Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 71

Thread: I'll take decisions that confuse me for a $100 Alex

  1. #41
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Posts
    1,457

    Default

    I just read MG Hammond's bio. The only thing that jumped out at me is that his masters is in special education. That just seems like an odd degree choice for an arty officer.

    jkm 101 - I sure hope no one gets hurt before the policy is changed.

  2. #42
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Is there an online text of MG's order or policy ?

    First, my Art. 92 post was specifically addressed to Schmedlap's body armor example - it didn't address the mask removal flap because I do not have all of the facts. Thus, my question in this post's header.

    It makes a difference legally whether it is an order or a policy - both terms have been used in this thread. The legal issue of unlawfulness of an order will be decided, if pushed to a CM, by the CM's military judge.

    -----------------------------
    My movie reference to unlawful orders is Paths of Glory (Kirk Douglas, in the movie, a lawyer as well as a soldier), which is usually said to be an anti-war flick. Rather, it is a story of one idiot general with a reckless disregard for life; another higher level general who is adept at politics - and also cares not for his troops; and a lot of lower level poor b...tards who react in different ways.

    And, while we are talking about "reckless disregard", chew on this one. "Culpable negligence is a degree of carelessness greater than simple negligence. It is a negligent act or omission accompanied by a culpable disregard for the foreseeable consequences to others of that act or omission." (MCM 2008, IV-65). If someone dies as a result, that is the basis for an Article 119 charge of involuntary manslaughter.

    So, if the general's face mask removal order is that, the MG and each officer who executed the order could be charged under Article 119. That is the legal argument for it being an unlawful order.

    ------------------------
    The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.

  3. #43
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    That is a very limited and legalistic way to look at it. As a commander, at any level, I reserve the right to disobey any "order" I choose to, based on two criteria.
    ...
    Second, as the commander on the ground, I have the power to disobey any order I don't agree with for tactical or technical reasons.
    I suspect that 120mm is correct on this one. Granted, this was 12 years ago, but I recall reading an incident in Hackworth's autobiography in which he was tried for disobeying an order in combat. He writes about how flabbergasted he was at his lawyer for not saying a word throughout the proceeding until, finally, after lengthy arguments by the prosecution, his lawyer stood and simply quoted some regulation that says, in effect, "the commander on the ground gets the last call." And that was all it took. He was free as a bird. And that bird did not change.

    Quote Originally Posted by jkm_101_fso View Post
    I think an important question is:

    Who will be held responsible if an interpreter or their family are harmed as a direct result of this policy?

    My vote is MG Hammond.

    What should his punishment be?
    An accurate and well-informed bullet in his OER. And by "well-informed" I make the optimistic assumption that there is more to this decision than what is in the public record.

  4. #44
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.
    I apologize for coming off that way, but I think the point is still valid. And I think it applies equally to the face-mask OR the body armor issue.

    I've encountered two basic kinds of commanders at BCT and higher levels. The first type is of the majority, and they are the ones who pass legal opinion straight down to their subordinates without even adding flavor to it. They tend to be "yes-men" or "there's nothing I can do about it-men". They basically elevate the JAG section to command of their unit.

    The second type, which appear to be in the minority, develop a fundamental command philosophy which, while they DO consult with, and listen to the advice of legal council, they have the wherewithal to balance legal opinion with command responsibilities. And that includes having the backbone to disregard legal council when it stands in the way of moral issues and mission accomplishment.

    If we, as leaders, just followed orders and policy, there would be no need for commanders. Unfortunately, the Art of Command is a rare skill. One hopes it's not a dying skill.

    I'm sure that Jack Fletcher at Midway wouldn't have been particularly interested at what JAG had to say on the issue. Of course, I'm of the opinion that he was right to launch his deckloads at a beaten and out of range enemy. And that he was properly exercizing command authority.

  5. #45
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default Missed this yesterday.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    ...The chant of "JAG-driven, risk-averse micro-manager types" is not particularly useful to any sort of reasoned discussion.
    A very valid point.

    However, 120mm also has a valid point as he explained later. Reasoned discussion is good but emotional reaction to extreme provocation is hard to suppress.

    Let me assure anyone who hasn't experienced them that Commanders who are "JAG Driven, risk averse, micromanager types" (any one or two or all three) are definitely an 'extreme provocation.' I disagree with 120mm on one point; I think they're in the minority, slightly -- but they're out there...
    Last edited by Ken White; 12-07-2008 at 06:58 PM. Reason: Typo

  6. #46
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default End of this specific story ...

    or so it seems.

    Page last updated at 08:03 GMT, Saturday, 6 December 2008
    Iraq translators' mask ban dropped
    By Humphrey Hawksley
    BBC News, Baghdad

    The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks.

    The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.
    ...
    Col Willoughby said the mask ban had now been lifted and that decisions could be made at an operational level.

    "We ask them not to wear masks," he said. "But troop commanders can make that determination."

    Zeeman does not give his real name and does not want his face filmed.

    He has worked without a mask for some time, realising that it helps the hearts and minds campaign. "But the decision needs to be in my hands, not in the hands of someone in Washington who knows nothing about how we work."
    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/7768041.stm

    Two points:

    1. If the story is accurate, the removal policy was based on a PR idea "to reflect the improved security situation" - in short, political spin motivated an order or policy which adversely affected operations. That is a form of "micro management", which has plagued us since Korea and Vietnam in my lifetime.

    2. The revised order or policy specifically allows commander discretion within the "commander's box" - which has been the thrust of this thread.

    Thus, sometimes the system doesn't work, but manages to correct itself - which seems the case here.

  7. #47
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default It generally does

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    ...1. If the story is accurate, the removal policy was based on a PR idea "to reflect the improved security situation" - in short, political spin motivated an order or policy which adversely affected operations. That is a form of "micro management", which has plagued us since Korea and Vietnam in my lifetime.
    Far, far more likely, the issue was really about a dumb order given without regard to anything but one Flag Officers personal preferences and the spin involved is in trying to save said Star child from excess embarrassment. He embarrassed himself and no one else by issuing the order but the Army does not like to second guess or countermand its Generals publicly (else others might start to do the same thing... ) unless they can wiggle it so they had to get him out of it this way.
    2. The revised order or policy specifically allows commander discretion within the "commander's box" - which has been the thrust of this thread.
    More spin, same rationale -- though there is a slight possibility a senior person is trying also to send a subtle 'don't micromanage' rocket to his Colonels and Generals...
    Thus, sometimes the system doesn't work, but manages to correct itself - which seems the case here.
    I'd say too frequently the system doesn't work and that it usually manages to correct itself. The real issue is just that, the self correction. There's no way we're ever going to preclude human folly. I've seen bad orders issued by Corporals, Captains and Colonels as well as Generals; that's never going to be avoidable. The good news is that system generally works and it works better now than it ever did because of the interchange of information by everyone as in this thread -- and the fact that interchange gets surfaced to the top and forces them to fix the stupid stuff more rapidly than in the past...

    I think it's noteworthy that this thread started with a bad thing; the dumb order. Yet it should be a reassuring thread to all because the majority sentiment -- as you said -- was opposed to the order which is now history.

  8. #48
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default No apology required

    Hey, 120mm - "Don't apologize, Mr. Cahill; it's a sign of weakness."

    Seriously, if I were wounded by comments unfavorable to lawyers, my "Purple Hearts" would fill up my house and office. And, truth in lending, I'm a very harsh critic of lawyers (myself included) when they screw-up.

    One of my clients gave me a "lawyer joke cartoon" when he moved away (it still is up on my office "cartoon board"), he saying: "You're the only lawyer I've met who has a sense of humor, particularly with respect to lawyer jokes."

    Now, briefly, as to your substantive comments:

    1. I've encountered two basic kinds of commanders at BCT and higher levels. The first type is of the majority, and they are the ones who pass legal opinion straight down to their subordinates without even adding flavor to it. They tend to be "yes-men" or "there's nothing I can do about it-men". They basically elevate the JAG section to command of their unit.

    2. The second type, which appear to be in the minority, develop a fundamental command philosophy which, while they DO consult with, and listen to the advice of legal council, they have the wherewithal to balance legal opinion with command responsibilities. And that includes having the backbone to disregard legal council when it stands in the way of moral issues and mission accomplishment.
    I leave it to the players to sort out which is majority or minority.

    1. I suspect, that in many cases, this is a cop-out, with the JAG being used as a convenient excuse. That kind of guy is simply a "yes man" prone to make excuses. But, there are types who do slavishly follow legal advice (which is only a "from better to worse" WAG). An example from my world is a client who lets his lawyer negotiate a contract. My clients negotiate their own contracts - unless they are completely untrainable and unteachable. My process is to go over the contract with the client line by line - and drill every legal pitfall into his or her head. Then, my client, having been briefed on all the pitfalls I can see and tricks I know, goes forth to do battle - usually successfully. After all, it is the client's money (not mine); and the client's line of business (about which I usually know little).

    2. This guy is basically my kind of client (see preceding paragraph). In fact, the first guy probably will not survive the first interview. Another type who will not survive that interview is a client who (1) knows more law than I do; or (2) is going to go ahead with what he wants, regardless of what I say; or (3) treats me like a mercenary (you will do this), even if I totally agree with what he wants to do. Fortunately, I've been in a position over the course of my somewhat specialized practice to reject clients of those types. Not all lawyers are that fortunate.

    Now, a serious question to you. You covered your degrees of freedom re: orders coming from on high. Let's say you are a company commander. Does that same freedom of action apply to your platoon, squad and fire team leaders - and to the guy who is ordered to be the tip of the spear on point - as to your orders ?

    Another truth in lending: Besides ranting about lawyers (usually for incompetence, sometimes for ethics), I also can easily turn to ranting about "micro-management" in military matters. As a kid, I read of it in Korea (especially as the lines stabilized); as an adult, the same as to Vietnam - except more so. On that point, you are preaching to this choir.

    -----------------------------------
    Now, to Ken

    Reasoned discussion is good but emotional reaction to extreme provocation is hard to suppress.
    Another truth in lending: My personality is such that I don't get emotional about most generalized aspects of a situation. Individual aspects, yes - e.g., people I knew killed or chopped up in Vietnam, etc. - which extends into more generalized areas related to that. I am now to the point where I can recognize that others have those generalized emotions, but they are usually foreign to how my mind ticks.

    Part of that is suppression of "emotional reaction to extreme provocation" - cuz, yours truly has a horrible temper; and gets very bad thoughts about what to do with the provoker. Had that "anger management" issue since I was a kid. So, I'll often come across as cold - and "legalistic" is a good term for it.

  9. #49
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Thumbs up Ban Lifted

    Back O/T, it seems the ban is now lifted.

    The Pentagon has rescinded a controversial decision that banned Iraqi interpreters working for US troops in Baghdad from protecting their identities by wearing ski-masks.

    The ban was meant to reflect the improved security situation - in which interpreters were no longer afraid of retaliation. But that is not the case.
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  10. #50
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default JMM beat you to it

    Quote Originally Posted by Cavguy View Post
    Back O/T, it seems the ban is now lifted.
    early today. It's up thread.

  11. #51
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    3,169

    Default Public flogging

    I just want to add to the chorous of WTF over? This is beyond stupid. I sure would hate to be in country when this decision was made, and then have to tell my terp that it is now safe (all the bad guys surrendered or simply went away), so you must remove your mask when you're out with us, because we're a professional army and we don't hide behind masks, and neither should you. Yea, I know you have family in country, and I know we can't protect them if you're compromised, but, but, O.K. I'll call the idiot who made this decision and let him explain it to you.

  12. #52
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,444

    Default

    My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.

  13. #53
    Council Member jkm_101_fso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Kabul
    Posts
    325

    Default End of Mask Ban...Common Sense Prevails!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.
    I think I know who you are talking about. Yeah, he was a legend alright. Not the kind you want to be.

    As for the Ban, I am glad this is finally over! For those of you that contacted me PM/email and let me know that you wrote or called your Senators/Representatives in regard to this, thank you for the support!

    Maybe we helped, maybe not; but the endstate is where it should be. I hope those involved with the formulation and implementation of this policy are sorry and will someday publicly admit they were wrong.

    I hope that no Iraqis were harmed because of this.

    We may never find out.
    Sir, what the hell are we doing?

  14. #54
    Council Member 120mm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Wonderland
    Posts
    1,284

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    Now, a serious question to you. You covered your degrees of freedom re: orders coming from on high. Let's say you are a company commander. Does that same freedom of action apply to your platoon, squad and fire team leaders - and to the guy who is ordered to be the tip of the spear on point - as to your orders ?
    Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.

    Which makes it necessary for the commander (as well as those subordinates' peers) to be prepared to act in accordance with his/her subordinates' actions, should they succeed or should they fail.

    I hear a chorus of "yeah-buts" every time I broach this subject, followed by protests of soldiers' inherent stupidity and inability to be trusted from a large portion of those who object to the concept, but I've seen it work in various organizations to good effect.

    I'm reminded of the scenario in "Ender's Game" where Ender decides to not do formations and coordinated maneuvers, but instead trains small groups to act independently, and to recognize and exploit other small groups' successes, without top-down direction.

  15. #55
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Thumbs up Not one 'yeah but' from me. Good on yer, I say!

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.

    Which makes it necessary for the commander (as well as those subordinates' peers) to be prepared to act in accordance with his/her subordinates' actions, should they succeed or should they fail.
    Absolutely!
    ...but I've seen it work in various organizations to good effect.
    Likewise. Good units invariably operate in that mode in my observation. Invariably.

  16. #56
    Council Member J Wolfsberger's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    806

    Default Yeah (and no "buts")

    Quote Originally Posted by 120mm View Post
    Yes. Because, in reality, the guy at the tip of the spear is either going to do what he wants, anyway, (and then lie about it) or default to doing nothing, (in the spirit of self-preservation) if he or she isn't fully empowered and developed to understand mission-type orders.
    I've always made the effort to lead my teams by establishing technical goals, constraints on achieving them, and providing as much as I can get in the way of requested resources. After that, I let them plan out who, what, when, where, how, etc. I.e I try very hard to follow the principle of Auftragstaktik.

    Besides, people who give orders they know won't be obeyed, or worse, ought to be disobeyed, only succeed in undermining their own authority.
    John Wolfsberger, Jr.

    An unruffled person with some useful skills.

  17. #57
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Thank God this nonsense has ended. Hopefully no one was killed because of it.
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

  18. #58
    Council Member RTK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Wherever my stuff is
    Posts
    824

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.
    Aside from the obvious force protection issues, that's in complete violation of every rollover drill protocol I've ever seen. Nametag defilade is the standard so that the poor truck gunner, tank commander, loader, Bradley commander or Brad Gunner don't get squished by the massive vehicle when it ends up track side up.

    That's about 6 ways to stupid and not taking care of Soldiers.
    Example is better than precept.

  19. #59
    Council Member Cavguy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Honolulu, Hawaii
    Posts
    1,127

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Schmedlap View Post
    My unit was replaced in 2005 by a Brigade commanded by a notorious O-6, whose career has since ended. A Brigade policy that he implemented was that turret gunners would STAND in their turrets AT ALL TIMES. Brigade policy! Our "policy" (formulated at the lowest level) was that you remained low until the shooting started so as to make it a little more difficult to give the enemy the initiative. His rationale for his Brigade policy? I paraphrase: "We're American Soldiers and American Soldiers don't hide from the enemy!" Brilliant.
    Lemme guess ... a certain 101st commander who commanded a ranger company in Somalia?
    "A Sherman can give you a very nice... edge."- Oddball, Kelly's Heroes
    Who is Cavguy?

  20. #60
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    489

    Default

    Who has been the Chief of Training at FORSCOM post-BCT command? Hmmm....
    "Speak English! said the Eaglet. "I don't know the meaning of half those long words, and what's more, I don't believe you do either!"

    The Eaglet from Lewis Carroll's Alice in Wonderland

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •