Quote Originally Posted by JMA View Post
...and I would ask you to define what you mean by flexibility in that context.
Flexibility was your word, not mine. You asked: "Explain to me if you will what is the degree of flexibility soldiers (at the various levels) should have in obeying orders?" As I wrote, obedience is not an issue or in question IMO -- as to an answer to your question as nearly as it applies, he should have the flexibility to ask questions. How much is dependent upon the circumstances and the people involved; some kids should be encouraged to ask questions, some should be discouraged. Many questions in training , few to none in combat. The old "depends on the situation" applies, as always...
My context for my original statement is the only one that really matters... combat.
I thought that's what we were discussing, combat or training for it. That last is when the questions should be encouraged, if that occurs and decent answers are given, then there will be no questions in combat...
...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?'
Nor should you, nor would I or would I even suggest that -- nor would most anyone else suggest it and I doubt many if any Troops would ask that -- other than to pull your leg, which I suspect happened a bit...
Out of combat a young officer should rarely issue orders without first discussing matters with his platoon 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.
I don't disagree with any of that, nor did I suggest anything to the contrary. It's during that {{ * }} time (as well as in all training) that questions should be encouraged. If you were successful and I suppose you were, then your NCOs did that -- whether you approved or knew or not.
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.
While I agree in principle, we used different strokes, I never objected to questions or suggestions -- some Privates can come up with amazingly good ideas if one just listens.
I received the indignant response that in the US you don't fire people you reassign them. Maybe there lies the problem?
I recall the exchange. I do not recall any indignation directed at you or the suggestion, rather a resigned 'we don't do it that way.' Whether we should or not is another story...
For counterinsurgency warfare you are looking for characteristics in officers which better equip them for the type of 'decentralised' warfare. They specifically require independence of thought and spirit and initiative to operate outside direct control. If officers who display these characteristics are grouped in units which are deployed into such a theatre then the best result will be achieved.
It makes no difference how good, how capable they are or how they are grouped. If they are not trusted, they will not be allowed by their superiors to exercise much independence. The obvious flip side is, as I wrote, better training promotes more trust. As I've written many times, our training is marginal and Congress and the senior leadership of the US Army are not much interested in improving it a great deal. Bad cess to them and you and I can complain about it but that won't fix the problem.
It is little wonder that 'counterinsurgency' has developed a bad name because the stuff produced off a Henry Ford type production line gets rotated through these war theatres in rapid succession whether they suit the requirements of the type of warfare or not.
That's partly true but there are other negative factors. It's simply an idea whose time has past. You were on the cusp as that era passed. Enjoy your memories but don't grouse at others who are precluded from doing many things you and I could do.