trobinett
Senior Member
You can learn far more about practical psychology by studying the realities of military life than in a dozen academic courses.
Well put, and quite right..........
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You can learn far more about practical psychology by studying the realities of military life than in a dozen academic courses.
My opening post clearly spoke of internet chickenhawks as being the subject of my ire. I would NEVER suggest that active duty flag officers who disagree with Sanchez were Bush bootlickers. I would suggest that they were doing their job and owning the mission as delineated by their CinC.
If anyone misread my opening post to infer that that was calling active duty career military officers Bush bootlickers, I want to disabuse them of that interpretation. I never meant that and certainly retract any suggestion to the contrary.
I do, however, think that YOU are a butt licker for Bush...and that you don't truly understand the code of ethics in play for career military officers - regardless of any classroom training you may have had.
if that is the case, then why, pray tell, does RGS have such a difficult time understanding that ownership of mission is an integral part of being a good officer?
Ownership? I think doing everything one possibly can to ensure that the mission is accomplished in the most efficient manner is integral to being a officer. Claiming "personal ownership" is not necessarily required.
I can quite easily professionally support and carry out a mission while personally disagreeing with it or thinking it's retarded, and have done so on more than a few occasions, as I am sure we all have. But would never claim ownership of it. Only the responsibility of carrying it out.
not required? how motivated will any group of individuals be to tackle some life threatening task if they have an inkling that the person sending them to accomplish that task does not think it is wise?
Strangely, it happens all the time at the tactical level.
I cannot speak for the Navy folks but I KNOW that in the Army, there have been many, many many occassions where those charged with executing the task (yes, even life threatening tasks) perform in a stellar manner even though they believe with great certainty that those sending them on the mission are not only unwise but absolute and complete idiots.
The point is that motivation comes from many places and not just from the person sending them to do a task.
we are not talking about the tactical level, however.... this really boils down to the upper stratosphere of the strategic level. Do you honestly think that any flag officer is going to inspire confidence if he does not, himself, think the battle ought to be fought?
Do you think that Robert E. Lee or Patton or Montgomery or Kingston or Petraeus, for that matter, did not take ownership in their missions?
I know what you are trying to say but I am not certain that "ownership" is the right term (which may be causing some of the confusion) for it. I have seen many field grade officers (Army equivalent of Navy flag officers) inspire confidence, provide motivation and even foster enthusiasm for the mission without procaliming "ownership". Maybe the Navy is different but we were never taught that we had to have "ownership" of a decision to execute it.
In answer to your question in the first paragraph above....yes, I do. Apparently, I am correct given the crop of generals being trotted out currently who now proclaim that the strategy for Iraq was/is flawed and that they executed knowing this. Apparently they were able to inspire confidence despite their lack of "onwership" of the mission....something they are very quick to point out. Either that, or they are not only liars but damned liars!
isn't field grade in the Army O-4 (major)? Flag officers for all services start at O-7, I believe!
OK...not sure of Navy terminology. Field grade in the Army starts at O-4 and can mean any rank from O-4 on up. The point is, regardless of rank...
and in answer to your point about the retired generals.... I think we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. While on active duty, you never heard Batiste, or Swannack or Eaton or Odom or Sanchez ever say anything less than 100% supportive of the stated objectives of their CinC - to their subordinates or their peers.. They would not express doubts or misgivings about the judgment of the CinC - EVEN IF CONGRESS ASKED THEM FOR THEIR OPINION. Now, you can say that they all are - or were - liars, but I say they were just doing what the ethics of their profession required of them. Exactly my point. Supporting a course of action in the military does not necessarily imply "ownership". In my mind, they are two very distinct things.
isn't field grade in the Army O-4 (major)? Flag officers for all services start at O-7, I believe!
and in answer to your point about the retired generals.... I think we are actually saying the same thing in different ways. While on active duty, you never heard Batiste, or Swannack or Eaton or Odom or Sanchez ever say anything less than 100% supportive of the stated objectives of their CinC - to their subordinates or their peers.. They would not express doubts or misgivings about the judgment of the CinC - EVEN IF CONGRESS ASKED THEM FOR THEIR OPINION. Now, you can say that they all are - or were - liars, but I say they were just doing what the ethics of their profession required of them.
As minor point, the newest FM 6-22 (Army leadership manual) says that it is a leaders obligation to express misgivings in the decision making process....if they do not, then they are derilict in their duty. I can only assume that those generals now speaking out did exactly that. If they did so and the decision was made to execute anyway, then they should (and apparently did) support that decision.
exactly! We are all taught to speak our minds before the decision is final... and we are all taught to walk out of the decision making meeting and execute the decision as if it were our own (hence, "ownership"). We were to NEVER let on to anyone that we had EVER had any misgivings, but we were certainly free - and expected - to express our misgivings before the fact. I have no doubt that Batiste and Odom and Sanchez and all the rest of the flag officers now retired expressed their misgivings. I have no doubt that Casey did and Petraeus did as well, but since they both are still on active duty, we won't ever get a chance to find out until they retire - and maybe not even then. They may chose to hold their tongues even though they are free, ethically, at that point, from having to do so.
The captain tells the executive officer right before the ship pulls into port, that the motor whale boat's paint job is unsatisfactory and the boatswain's mates must not go ashore on liberty until it is chipped and repainted. The executive officer argues that the men have been at sea for a long time and that they could easily paint it the next day...The captain is adamant...... The exec turns...leaves...goes and looks at the motor whale boat, and then goes to the weapons officer and tells him that the paint job is unsatisfactory and that the BM's are to stay on board and use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off and then repaint it, then once it is satisfactory they can leave. The weapons officer complains to the exec but he is adamant. The weaps boss goes to the First Lieutenant and tells him "the damned exec says your BM's can't go ashore until the MWB is repainted and to use a rocket launcher to chip the paint off. The First Lieutenant goes to his chief and tell him that the damned exec is keeping the BM's onboard until the boat is repainted...and on down the line...everyone blaming the damned exec. The boat naturally is nothing but sawdust now. The exec rails on the captain that the boat should never have been repainted in the first place after he's dismissed.
The moral of the parable was: the only person in that scenario that did it RIGHT was......?
SR
not required? how motivated will any group of individuals be to tackle some life threatening task if they have an inkling that the person sending them to accomplish that task does not think it is wise?