Initial Officer Selection

[JMA]

The question you should have asked, based on your statement: "The troopie/the private soldier/the grunt still needs to 'do what he is told' without question." and my response to that should have been "Explain to me if you will what is the degree of flexibility soldiers (at the various levels) should have?"

...and I would ask you to define what you mean by flexibility in that context.

Obeying isn't the issue, obedience is necessary but "without question" is questionable.

My context for my original statement is the only one that really matters... combat.

If I give the command (which I did often enough) ... 'Prepare to assault' I would not have tolerated it (if it had happened) had some troopie asked/suggested/questioned/whatever: 'Excuse me sir, don't you think we should rather pull back to a safe distance and call in an airstrike then all go back to base for tea?'

Battle orders at that level must be carried out without hesitation and without question... even today.

I do, however, recall reading of a US company commander refusing to take his company into the attack citing the lack of fire support planned while knowing that additional fire support was indeed available. Not sure of the wording of that exchange (if it did indeed happen) but I sympathise. In the Brit tradition in such a situation one would request the oder to attack with a lack of fire support in writing as this avoids any counter accusation of insubordination. Know of a few instances where that happened in my war.

Out of combat a young officer should rarely issue orders without first discussing matters with his platoon sergeant (or in certain circumstances his company commander). In my three years as a operational (at war) Troop (platoon) commander it would be inconceivable to think that I ever issued orders for base routine/training/etc (other than in actual combat) without first discussing this with my sergeant. (And before the troopies were informed it is likely that the sergeant would have prepared the corporals and as such the troopies would have an idea of what was coming before the order group) So what is there for some troopie to question? If I have failed to elucidate my orders/instructions clearly a troopie may seek clarity but not question.

In training and in peacetime or less than full bore conflict, Troops should be encouraged to ask questions (which annoys the hell out of insecure NCOs and Officers ) simply because they will learn more and faster if they do so. I've watched a lot of Armies around the world at work. In all of them, the good units had NCOs and Officers who encouraged questions and who went to great pains to tell their Troops WHY they were doing certain things. The rationale is that if a Troopie gets used to one explaining things in a way that makes sense, he learns that there's a method to what often seems to be madness and that his superiors are not mental midgets then, when there is not time for questions, he will just act -- and do so with decent judgement. The NCOs and Officers also learn who will ask the best -- and the dumbest -- questions. It's a two way learning exercise and everyone and the unit benefit.

Maybe its semantics.

As I have stated above I am happy for anyone to seek clarity but not to question. The difference is obvious... and maybe can be discussed as a separate issue.

Finally, if you have a situation where officers and NCOs are issuing 'questionable' orders then you have the wrong guys in the job. Fire them!

In the Afghanistan thread a year or more ago when I suggested that seats on every flight out (back to the UK or Stateside) should have seats reserved for officers/NCOs who have been relieved (fired) I received the indignant response that in the US you don't fire people you reassign them. Maybe there lies the problem?