This probably going to get me into hot water but I had a somewhat visceral reaction to this post.
After thinking about it, some thoughts came to mind...
I’ve always enjoyed BT’s posts. He’s a perfect example of a prescient, articulate NCO upon which we’ve built the most impressive military force in the history of the world. If you find this an exaggeration, tell me who was better.
That said, I think, as an NCO he has an obligation to reflect before he goes public on how he feels about what he’s doing and why. Because he is what he is—a leader in a position that by its nature can have a profound effect on those he leads—what he says has much greater weight, and effect for good or ill, than he may realize.
Having found myself in similar situations, I hope that I never gave my charges the impression that I was in as blue a funk about the campaign, as BT seems to be. Had that been the case, I think I would have been sacked, and rightly so. At the risk of sounding cruel, let me just say that life is hard. It's harder when you're a soldier, but we are (were) all volunteers and so, if we can no longer take it, we should bail.
If one ever finds oneself in any kind of leadership position at all, not to mention having access to the entire planet to air one’s thoughts, be a rock for our troops and our fellow citizens. That’s your job. Bottom line, if you’re a non-com or a senior commander, those rockers and/or eagles have to be re-earned every day.
It’s obvious to me that BT is a thoughtful guy and I’d be delighted to have him in charge of people under my command…at least I think so. Being thoughtful is NEVER a hindrance in this business unless you're in a firefight (ground) or IVR-close-enough-for-heaters-and-guns (air) engagement. In that case, be aggressive, and a little crazy, too. Thoughtful is good...ask Patraeus. But there’s a difference between thoughtful and maudlin.
Now, I know BT’s a Guardsman on his second deployment, and these guys and gals are doing things they probably didn’t think they would do when they signed up. Well, how about those Regulars on their fourth? Again, at the risk of sounding a little harsh, last time I checked, ARNG service was voluntary. If you can’t hack it, get out…for both your own sake and those for whom you’re currently responsible. There is no dishonor in this. ANYONE who’s signed up, ESPECIALLY after 9/11, can hold his or her head high...ALL service should be appreciated and lauded. BUT, while you're in and we're in a shooting war, keep your game face on unless you're alone, alone with family or downloading to your therapist...period.
Let me clear…I would never want a sycophant in a subordinate. Telling me I’m AFU (respectfully, of course) is one of the biggest favors a good NCO could do me when I was still serving. And they did. Often. Because I asked. Often.
However, comma…
I can't help thinking I'd probably offer him a mid-course correction if, as his BDE CO, if I saw that post. I wouldn't tell him to stop bloggin' but I would tell him to sleep on it before he hits "publish" on shite like that.
After thinking about it, some thoughts came to mind...
I’ve always enjoyed BT’s posts. He’s a perfect example of a prescient, articulate NCO upon which we’ve built the most impressive military force in the history of the world. If you find this an exaggeration, tell me who was better.
That said, I think, as an NCO he has an obligation to reflect before he goes public on how he feels about what he’s doing and why. Because he is what he is—a leader in a position that by its nature can have a profound effect on those he leads—what he says has much greater weight, and effect for good or ill, than he may realize.
Having found myself in similar situations, I hope that I never gave my charges the impression that I was in as blue a funk about the campaign, as BT seems to be. Had that been the case, I think I would have been sacked, and rightly so. At the risk of sounding cruel, let me just say that life is hard. It's harder when you're a soldier, but we are (were) all volunteers and so, if we can no longer take it, we should bail.
If one ever finds oneself in any kind of leadership position at all, not to mention having access to the entire planet to air one’s thoughts, be a rock for our troops and our fellow citizens. That’s your job. Bottom line, if you’re a non-com or a senior commander, those rockers and/or eagles have to be re-earned every day.
It’s obvious to me that BT is a thoughtful guy and I’d be delighted to have him in charge of people under my command…at least I think so. Being thoughtful is NEVER a hindrance in this business unless you're in a firefight (ground) or IVR-close-enough-for-heaters-and-guns (air) engagement. In that case, be aggressive, and a little crazy, too. Thoughtful is good...ask Patraeus. But there’s a difference between thoughtful and maudlin.
Now, I know BT’s a Guardsman on his second deployment, and these guys and gals are doing things they probably didn’t think they would do when they signed up. Well, how about those Regulars on their fourth? Again, at the risk of sounding a little harsh, last time I checked, ARNG service was voluntary. If you can’t hack it, get out…for both your own sake and those for whom you’re currently responsible. There is no dishonor in this. ANYONE who’s signed up, ESPECIALLY after 9/11, can hold his or her head high...ALL service should be appreciated and lauded. BUT, while you're in and we're in a shooting war, keep your game face on unless you're alone, alone with family or downloading to your therapist...period.
Let me clear…I would never want a sycophant in a subordinate. Telling me I’m AFU (respectfully, of course) is one of the biggest favors a good NCO could do me when I was still serving. And they did. Often. Because I asked. Often.
However, comma…
I can't help thinking I'd probably offer him a mid-course correction if, as his BDE CO, if I saw that post. I wouldn't tell him to stop bloggin' but I would tell him to sleep on it before he hits "publish" on shite like that.
I agree. I also agree with BT's post. I know exactly how he feels and why.
That being said, it is incumbant upon those in leadership positions of any sort to put on the brave face and lead by example. If the troops sense any sort of discomfort on the parts of the NCO's or Ossifer types, they will muckle onto those ideas like a racoon on a garbage can and it will take exceptional effort to realign those thoughts.
Respects,
Simply: I agree. Not ours to reason why and all that, and to put a personal face on it, I left the Army after 14 years, mostly (but not entirely) because I had come to utterly despise the stupid crap we were doing every day in the mid '80s--nothing that had anything to do with combat readiness and everything to do with bored CGs' ideas about 'managing' troops (anyone here familiar with Gen Saint? and his 'Iron Soldier' time, to mention just one of the more aggravating dumb things I had to deal with).... Other good reasons for leaving--like Ralph Peters, and having to take my shirt off to roll up my sleeves--come to mind easily.
Suffice to say, the Army had become un-fun in a real big way, and when I realized that, I decided to leave--and I did so--in spite of having a VERY good career, being on the ANCOS list for my 14th year, and every expectation of making 1SG or possibly SGM if I stayed. I've never really looked back, and I've never regretted it more than a little. I still don't.
Which means squat to some, but to be honest, I do agree with John, entirely. Complain to Senators (I've done that several times, even when I was on active duty), complain through the chain-of-command, complain to a chaplain, complain to those above, or in dire circumstances to right a wrong, but don't complain to subordinates, and don't complain in the open among people who don't know the details and may take things out of context, and don't tell subordinates they are doing stupid things for stupid reasons, even if they are. I know, I know, I'm not there, I don't really have a clue, and I accept that. Even so, I still think John is right.
V/R
SangerM
I had the same sort of experiences with the Navy in the 70's and 80's. Lots of craptacular programs and decisions made by those who were either bored to tears or looking for something to justify their billets. Petty stuff with no bearing on readiness or mission training.
Respects,
I don't fully agree with Dusty here. Closer to disagree actually. It may be best policy for the military for morale etc but the essence of what Dusty is pushing for and supporting is misrepresentation and selective information and/or spin and I simply see that as lying. This open support for it confirms some of my views.
So now when we think of Petreus or whoever says it's going well should we readjust this? Perhaps he's misrepresenting it for the sake of morale appearances. And this then is the reason the sucess of the surge took so long for media and others to accept. Media believe military leaders lie. Perhaps that's a fair viewpoint given this article. And ironic indeed.
I know government doesn't believe in honesty. Espionage, intelligence and politics go quite the other way but the overall distrust in the government and military is so high it has made it very difficult for the military to make headway in the propaganda war and to stem to lies of the media.
You don't build trust on a network of lies, misrepresentations, selective information or spin.
Yes, that was a raw bit of writing by BT. But the only fault I find with him is what Sanger wrote:In context, I don't believe he's guilty of anything else. The context is that he's declared repeatedly he writes about his feelings in a particular moment. In context, he has been removed from his platoon and is currently at a new base and without a job. In context, I don't believe he's saying he doesn't believe in the mission or that it's being mishandled.
One of his commenters in response talked about how there is always war, much as there is always poverty--that in this era if we win/disengage from Iraq, there is still Afghanistan, if we settle those wras staisfactorily there are still other hots spots that will pop up; war is just a cancer that is at times temporarily dormant. And that's the realization that has been eating him, i think--that despite his best efforts the odds are pretty good his beloved son whom he misses so much will have to fight somewhere down the line...
So, I don't think he's doing any more than sharing his temporary blue funk. Out of context, it gives "enemies" some ammunition. But in context I think it gives him nobility (the very nobility he so often refuses to accept). War sucks, in all the wrong ways, and BT's feeling that right now. Considering that he currently is responsible to no one for morale or leadership, I don' begrudge it.
*hoping the above communicates what I intended it to among the Castle Denizens*
I've told this story before here, but it is pertinent I think: I used to tell jew jokes to anyone, figuring since I'm Jewish I had the right if anyone did. In the early '90s, a Jewish woman on a fidonet BBS upbraided me for doing that, and said I should stop! She said I didn't need to give the jew-hating b'tards ammunition and even though it may be only humor to me and other people who know better, the haters of the world would just use it as more proof--they would turn it against us. After a fair bit of thought, I found I agreed with her, and I stopped (except when I'm around people I really trust). Since then, I've found that the principal applies to a number of situations, and that context and audience are everything.
The bottom line: I'm not asking the man to be silent or to say only good things about the war. I'm saying he shouldn't be writing bad things about the war that some people will take out of context and spin into an un-clever rant about a network of lies, misrepresentations, selective information...
BTW, since the 90s, I have been persuaded that most ethnic jokes are, while funny, a plague of sorts, and that we should generally not abide them because they propagate negative stereotypes. If you think not, consider: Jokes about cheap Poles, or stupid Scots, or drunk Asians, or overly studious Italians aren't funny, and blonde jokes are not funny to smart blondes, who tend to really get torqued at being called stupid all the time. (though I can't imagine why)
V/R
Russ, your boss never has to tell you to go get shot at, or kill people. Dusty's point should be taken in the context that every E-4 and above is on a long leadership journey (or a short trip back to civilian status if they can't hang). Therefore, many of those subordinates of which Dusty speaks have already been taught these principles concerning how you handle yourself in front of subordinates. And you don't have to be always positive: you can criticize support personnel e.g. supply, finance, etc. for not supporting and everybody agrees and you feel better for the vent. I read BT's musings and I don't think they would have the same effect on morale as more precise complaints (e.g. a particular officer's battle tactics or leadership ability) but they certainly could put a young E-3 on his/her first combat tour into a funk that could effect their ability to perform.
I also forgot to mention (in response to other commenters) that he used to be regular army and probably would be again were he able to provide his family the life to which they've become accustomed. He's definitely of the warrior class and is NOT a non-hack (not his first wartime deployment)--It took some attitude adjustment for him to be comfortable moving from straight infantry to what seemed to be a Headquarters company during pre-mobilization (he doesn't say where he is now other than that he's got no job). This is why I said that it's my opinion he's just in a bit of a funk, and that he's not the type to share that funk with his soldiers
For those who haven't, check out his archives--lots of well-written posts about whether or not he's being the NCO his soldiers need, being a warrior and the contrast between his civilian and military lives, motivating his soldiers, etc.
[Don't know exactly why I'm defending him so much other than that he's a good writer, seems to be a good soldier, and that I hate to see someone unjustly impugned by either statement or implication.]
My understanding of leadership (both mil and non-mil) is not that one is always chirpy and "everything's great," but that one walks the line between acknowledging at times that things look like they're seriously screwed up while still transmitting the belief that the "team" can accomplish the mission in spite of it. In the military when you've got a young soldier who is discouraged by what he sees around/above him, you can't deny his reality; but you can give him an alternate way of thinking about it and show him how to cope with it and succeed in spite of it. You don't complain to him about your sucky leadership or tell him it's worse than he knows, but you motivate him to overcome. I don't consider that happy talk by any stretch of the imagination, but it doesn't get bogged down in The Suck, either.
Perhaps FbL says it best. Going for a more inspirational focus rather than bogging down in negativity. Or I guess it's like the old saying 'embrace the suck' but that doesn't mean being bogged down by the suck. I don't think it means ignore or lie about the suck either though. I thought Dusty crossed the line from a push for positivity, to encouraging misrepresentation. I think that does a disservice to the military which is already struggling with perceptions among US and world civilians.
Clearly, having been through the curtain to the other side, at least in this group, changes your perspective, whether it's from a "drinking the kool-aid" to a "understand how it works, in context, and why it's important" perspective.
And your perspective on *that* is oft-times driven by the prejudices you bring to the table.
I was surprised by the tone of BTs post, and dithered about linking it, but decided to do so. And I suspect, were I his commander, I'd do much as Dusty suggested - sleep on it before you publish it - but save it for your post-deployment memoir.
The reality is that being in a combat zone is a roller-coaster, just as Kaboom, My War, Armorgeddon, and others have shown. There are up days, and down days, depending on what's going on in the here and now. And many things are both simplified and exaggerated when living in that fishbowl.
And war is like a cancer. But sometimes the only way to treat the cancer is to... win.
Not everything is happy, happy, joy, joy. He's not telling his troops (of which he has none) to just say to hell with it. He's being honest about his feelings.
If he was being a Beauchampien fabulist, then we can talk about reigning him in. Not till then.
XBradTC, I strongly disagree. "Being honest about your feelings" is not always a good idea, and not just in the military. I've worked for the same company for quite a while, and if I just started venting about how the place I'm currently at sucked, or the whole approach stinks, or that there's something wrong with my immediate boss -you know, being honest about my feelings- not only would I encourage the less-experienced and the newbies to get negative, I would be throwing metaphorical sand in the allegorical gears of our work. I've seen just that sort of thing happen, when one of the long-term folks start, well, bitching too much.
It's a regular PITA for me, but what I say and do, how I express myself at work has an effect, just because I've been with the company so long. Sometimes it seems unfair as Hell, but it's still true. There are things I Just Can't Say in public, although my bosses do encourage my opinion in private.
It's also one reason I've been quiet.