That is true, mostly. Many of the OIF I leaders went again with us in 05-06, as did most of the Soldiers. For many of us, we did not forget the lessons of OIF I and were frustrated by some of the decisions of our leaders during the second tour. This mainly applied at the company level because that is where the continuity was. Most of the personnel changes were battalion level and above, where decisions are made.
Again, I disagree. There are only 3 layers (BDE/BN/CO). What Petraeus did was make his intent very clear to Bn leadership. I saw him on more than one occasion at our BN TOC. Our leaders at the BN level did an outstanding job briefing us at the Platoon level about what it was that the DIV doing, and in turn our CO made sure that the Rifleman understood the mission and plan.My only hesitation in agreeing is to imagine the role reversal of Odierno and Petreaus. If 4ID units were out of control, I don't see how that could significantly be attributed to the Div Cdr leadership (unless he actually endorsed and supported it). He might have been a minor catalyst, but there are layers of leaders between the General and the Riflemen.
True, but it is an important aspect of leadership to explain "why" to the Soldiers. It's only one aspect of their job, but it's an important one.Those leaders are not mere relay stations for the orders of the General.
No doubt.A good Div Cdr will have some bad platoons. A bad Div Cdr will have some good platoons.
I had the exact same situation. Bottom line was the the BN CDR recognized this CO was "less capable" and kept in very good contact with the 1sg, PLs and PSGs of our Company, to make sure we stayed on task until he changed command half-way through the deployment. My second CO was awesome.In OIF I, I had a Company Commander who I thought should have been relieved. He was all in favor of doing anything that 4ID was doing, or worse. It was only because the PLs and PSGs did not agree that those things did not occur. Now suppose the opposite were true - good CO and bad Plt leadership. He could not have prevented everything.
Disagree with the first half. I'd argue culture has far less impact on a unit "committing shenanigans and atrocities" than leadership. Take 101st for example. OIF I, there were no major issues. OIF IV...different story. Steele's Rakkasans had their issues and 2nd BDE of course had Steven Greene & Co raping teenagers and murdering families. Culture didn't have much impact there, but leaders sure did; leaders at all levels...so you are right on that one.Different cultures will be more or less prone to committing shenanigans and atrocities. Leadership can impact that, but I would argue that it needs to be leadership at all levels.
I can and have. BDE commanders will obey, as will all commanders and leaders all the way down, for the most part. Sure, there will be rogues along the way, but in most cases, people get "on board" with the CG's vision, intent and expectations (if he relays them). At platoon level, we understood that in OIF I. I can't say the same in OIF IV. Which is sad because even my lowly BN MiTT had "face time" with the CG, DCSM, ADCO and ADCS on almost a dozen occasions. I still came away confused on what the plan/intent was. Of course it's entirely possible that I'm a dummyOne guy with two stars on his hat? I just don't see it.![]()
Bookmarks