Hey Rob !
A great post, but nothing less than I expected from a person of your caliber
This would indeed be a good point for Tom to jump in, but I just so happen to have an opinion on Statesman/Soldier relationships. So, here's an NCO's view from the bottom of the pile
Given the fact that both of these men have has some time together in rather inhospitable situations, and were put together for good reasons (I hope), it's then no surprise they have worked out differences and concluded (based on their respective abilities) same. I would also submit, they've had some time to practice (speaches, et al), or both would not only be out of jobs, but look real dumb doing so.
The desks or COCOMS do in fact drive the train, but once far from the flag pole, State and DOD get to hash out differences on site. It really no longer matters who's (legally) in charge, and Tom will again tell you, it's leadership.
As the Ambassador, time to let some things go and permit your professional soldiers to do their job. Conversely, the Soldier must understand his/her limitations, financially as well as physically. Some things are better handled via diplomatic channels, some not.
We bridge the gap with understanding and trust. Tom and I never got to bridge the gap in Zaire, and our reporting fell on deaf ears. The mission suffered and the end state was never achieved. Decades later, Subject As Above. Only later would Tom receive a leader from State, not afraid of letting his troops perform.
Regards, Stan
Bookmarks