The officer as a leader [Archive]

Javelin66

01-02-2009, 03:32 PM

I was prompted to start this thread by a comment made on another thread:

“…Ossifers are "managers", let them manage, but it doesn't take an Ossifer to turn a yoke or handle a HOTAS. The entire concept of the Ossifer Corps is a holdover from the days where the "noble" were the Officers and the "commoners" were the enlisted men, and frankly it's just as much garbage today as it was then…”

What struck me about this statement was not only the over simplistic reduction of commissioned officer leadership to ‘management’, but also the erroneous notion that the concept of the commissioned officer was a holdover from the days of nobility.

The statements may have been off the cuff and not intended to misinform or offend. However, it seems to me that a grossly inaccurate statement like this (and many other similar statements throughout the forum) would tend to paint a false and negative (albeit clearly biased) picture of the commissioned officer as a leader, and could therefore improperly impact those who are studying the military to make a decision about the best way for them to serve.

For the purposes of this discussion, I would like to restrict the discussion to the US Military (at least initially), not only to keep the discussion focused, but also because the original comment was made in the context of the US Military.

The concept of the officer as a mere manager ignores the very large breadth and depth of the duties and responsibilities of a commissioned officer, which leads to the reasons behind the existence of an officer corps. Here’s how the Army defines it in FM 6-22, Army Leadership:

“Serving as a commissioned officer differs from other forms of Army leadership by the quality and breadth of expert knowledge required, in the measure of responsibility attached, and in the magnitude of the consequences of inaction or ineffectiveness. An enlisted leader swears an oath of obedience to lawful orders, while the commissioned officer promises to, “well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office.”

This distinction establishes a different expectation for discretionary initiative. Officers should be driven to maintain the momentum of operations, possess courage to deviate from standing orders within the commander’s intent when required, and be willing to accept the responsibility and accountability for doing so. While officers depend on the counsel, technical skill, maturity, and experience of subordinates to translate their orders into action, the ultimate responsibility for mission success or failure resides with the commissioned officer in charge.”

Note that the word ‘manager’ is not included here. I will not deny that officers do manage; I am simply asserting that management is a small part of the job- in fact, one that most officers delegate in whole or part to non-commissioned officers for day to day activities.

The roots of the US Military officer corps are clear in our foundation documents, and have nothing to do with the concept of nobility:
The origins of this go back to the formation of the Continental Army on June 14th, 1775, when Congress decided to raise 10 companies of ‘skilled marksmen’ as well as adopt many of the existing colonial militia forces. Washington, as the first commander in chief, was chosen because he was the most skilled and experienced soldier available who was also a native born American. No reference was made to nobility- in fact; American officers were often not recognized as such by their British counterparts precisely because they were not nobility, which had major implications in terms of how captured officers were treated.

When ratified, the Constitution gave congress the power to:
“…lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts and excises, to pay the debts and provide for the common defense and general welfare of the United States; …” “…To raise and support armies…” as well as “…To provide and maintain a navy…”;

It also appoints the president as the commander in chief, with certain authorities:

“…The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, “; with the power to appoint officers ”; “… and all other officers of the United States, whose appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by law: but the Congress may by law vest the appointment of such inferior officers, as they think proper, in the President alone, in the courts of law, or in the heads of departments.”;

However, the Constitution gives no specific instructions as to how the military should be organized, trained or equipped. This is done in Title 10 of the US Code. Title 10 defines the ranks of commissioned officers, but does not discuss non-commissioned ranks. This is left up to the services in their own regulations.

In other words, from the perspective of congress, the leadership of the Armed Forces is delegated to the president, who appoints (or commissions, subject to congressional approval in many cases) officers who carry out this leadership. The services, in turn, each have their own systems for developing a corps of non-commissioned officers who carry out the orders of the commissioned officers.

NCOs can lead and manage, just as officers do, but they cannot command. The distinction is great, and when a duty requires a commander, it must be a commissioned officer. The size of the command does not matter- it can be a rifle company, a single aircraft, or it can be an Army Group, command is command.

None of this should be seen as diminishing to the role of the NCO, often referred to as the 'Backbone of the Army'. Any commissioned officer will tell you that his NCO counterpart not only served as his 'right arm', but was in most cases a key advisor if not mentor.

NCOs also lead at all levels, even if it is in an office or shop setting. They are the bearers of the standard at the individual and team level, and the absolute expert in those necessary skills. More importantly, they lead in those 'last 100 yards' to the objective, when all the planning and preparing is over and the difference between victory and defeat comes down to the force of will and personal courage.

No military organization can succeed without a solid NCO corps. In fact, it is widely recognized that it is the existance of a trained, empowered, and professional NCO corps that sets Western militaries far above their Eastern counterparts.

reddog

01-03-2009, 07:51 AM

A thoughtful post and I enjoyed the read. I've been privileged to have had a few Officers who walked (or ran) that 'last 100yds to the objective' by my side. I know that's not always possible, but by doing so, the added respect given by his men is unmeasurable and not soon forgotten.
Easy Brother,
Reddog...

Javelin66

01-03-2009, 09:04 AM

Kipling said it best:

If you can fill the unforgiving minute
With sixty seconds' worth of distance run,
Yours is the Earth and everything that's in it,
And – which is more – you'll be a Man, my son!

-If

If your officer's dead and the sergeants look white,
Remember it's ruin to run from a fight:
So take open order, lie down, and sit tight,
And wait for supports like a soldier.
Wait, wait, wait like a soldier . . .

-The Young British Soldier

RogueNavy

01-04-2009, 08:56 AM

In my opinion, officers and NCO's are supposed to be defined as leaders. Far too many of the ones I met were directors. Not many knew how to lead, but most knew very well how to point at what needed to be done.

Leadership, in my book, is all summed up in two words..."follow me". You cannot lead your people if you're looking at their backs.

Javelin66

01-04-2009, 01:42 PM

Officers and NCOs are specifically designated as leaders in all of the services; the fact that you saw some poor leaders was the fault of those individuals (and their leadership).

All of the services have leadership development programs designed to train and develop leaders at all levels. Sadly, there are elements and organizations in all of the services that do not put enough of an emphasis on leadership and leadership development.

The stereotype is that the combat arms develops the strongest leaders, and it is generally true. However, I have run across strong leaders in the support and services area as well- it comes down to the 'Be, Know, Do' ethic.

RogueNavy

01-04-2009, 04:03 PM

Very true, Javelin. Despite the training, some shoddy people become "leaders".

SlightlyCatholic

01-04-2009, 07:03 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-04-2009, 07:30 PM

Well Javelin, that's a very well constructed essay on the theoretical mission of Ossifers, but it was my experience that only 1 in 5 actually met your standard, and the rest were overpaid Airmen with delusions of adequacy, who were best suited to polishing a chair with their backsides and pushing papers from this stack to that (IOW, managing).

Of course, that's just my opinon, based on my own experience, yours may vary.

EDIT: As to your notice of Washington, I notice you failed to mention that one of the reasons Washington was chosen was the fact that he was RICH, and could therefore afford to originally raise and support his Army out of his own pocket, just like the various Knights, Lords, and other Nobles of Great Britain had been expected to do, so the end result was the same, the "nobles" managed and the "serfs" did the actual fighting.

SlightlyCatholic

01-04-2009, 08:56 PM

One thing I find interesting is in Plato's Republic, where he states that service in the military is for those who have spirit (translated as patriotism or zeal) but not enough intelligence to make laws or govern. I wonder what Plato would say if he spoke today with an Air Force Staff Sargeant who has a Ph.D?

Javelin66

01-04-2009, 09:09 PM

wukong

01-05-2009, 04:04 AM

One thing I found interesting as a Sea Cadet was leadership training. I went to a ten day leadership school a few years ago and one point they stressed was the difference between a leader and a manager and how the best leaders are able to do both. Leaders are individuals who can take care of people, while managers are individuals who can take care of peripherals and material in relation to personnel. Ultimately, "leader-managers" are the ideal leaders.

What is often lost in this debate is the fact of military life that at some point a leader has a mission and despite all the hoopla of care and concern he/she will have to point a finger at some and decide that they have to die. This is the essential difference between Grant and McClellan.

For those of you out there in cyberspace that imagine yourself as a leader or future leader you must be able to live with this fact. Just because the finger was pointed at you does not necessarily mean that you were "thrown under the bus."

Javelin66

01-05-2009, 07:37 AM

Great point, in the Army we use METT-T (Mission, Enemy, Terrain, Troops Available, Time, and Civilian considerations) as the first step of mission analysis.

Tim, keep in mind that in the military construct, management is an implied task of leadership.

SlightlyCatholic

01-05-2009, 08:38 AM

Tim, keep in mind that in the military construct, management is an implied task of leadership.

So leadership encompasses management? We were taught that leadership and management are two different things that needed to be brought together to make a complete leader. Interesting difference in philosophies...

03_SHOOTER

01-05-2009, 10:51 PM

Shooter, rather than succumbing to the great temptation of brining your experience into this argument I will stick with the facts. Of course, I didn't serve in your career field, but if you feel that most Airmen were overpaid and inadequate back then you are certainly welcome to that opinion. I have nothing but the highest opinion of my brothers in arms in the Air Force.

Cute attempt at mischaracterizing what I said Javelin. I was very specific that it is my opinion that most Ossifers were overpaid, inadequate, and unworthy of the respect their rank demanded. If that situation has changed, then this is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the situation at that time.

(I am confused, however, because from your previous posts I assumed that you were out at the pointy end of the stick where there is no room for desks, much less people to polish the chairs with their backsides. I guess they could afford to rest easy with you out on the flightline rolling around on the ground with random strangers.)

I can assure you that your would much rather have me, and those like me, rolling random strangers around the flight line and outside the perimeter fencing of thermonuclear ICBM sites, rather than allowing them to saunter around at will damaging Priority "A" assets and degrading our nuclear deterrent capability. The very few Officers we had that were worth their pay did an outstanding job, unfortunately they were the exception rather than the rule.

None of this is theoretical, it is reality today and has been since the beginning of American military experience. Beginning with Washington, through Jackson, Pickett, Winters, Cole, and on through today, commissioned officers have led by example.

<snip for brevity.

For you to imply or assert otherwise is not only damaging to the character of the military service in general and misleading to those who are trying to learn about the military, but is also a grave insult to men who have served and are serving today.

Sir, with all due respect, you can be as insulted by my observations as much as you wish, but suffice to say, aside from my own personal experiences, the conduct of the United States Army Officer Corps in relation to the incident at Abu Grabass serves as yet another exemplar for my contempt for the Ossifer Corps in general. As soon as what happened came to light, every one of the Ossifers involved, from the CG on down, closed ranks, denied any culpability for their roles in what happened after ORDERING those troops to comply with the instructions of the civilian CIA interrogators, and promptly threw the troops under the bus to protect their own careers. Now, if that suits your definition of "leadership", then we learned the word from two entirely different dictionaries. At least in the Air Force when Ossifers screw the pooch as spectacularly as what happened at Abu Grabass (as evinced by the recent spectacular pooch screwings concerning Priority "A" assets), THEY are the ones thrown under the bus, not the EM who were following their lawful orders.

Oh, and BTW, Pickett was an IDIOT, and so was Lee for ordering him on that damned charge, but again, if you choose to use them as an example of excellent "leadership", and particularly in that needless bloodbath at Gettysburg, we learned the definition from two entirely different dictionaries.

Finally, I would love to see the factual basis for your implied assertion that Washington paid the Army out of his own pocket, as well as your contention that he did not lead the Army in combat.

Firstly, when Washington first went to Philadelphia (29 May, 1775), prior to the Declaration of Independence, he offered to bring 1000 men of the Virginia Militia, at his own expense, to the defense of Massachusetts. At the end of the War, and after reviewing Washington's own records, the Comptroller determined that Washington had spent in excess of $160,000.00 (just under $2 MILLION in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars) for himself, his Headquarters Staff, spies and intelligence gathering, traveling expenses for his Headquarters, guards, etc. If you would care to review Washington's own Expense Accounts, they can be located at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.

Secondly, again you resort to mischaracterization of my words in that I never even implied that Washington did not lead his men in Combat. That does not however in any way alter the fact that he was a MANAGER. Would you care to try again?

PhilK

01-05-2009, 11:03 PM

Yeah...I guess those officers who were court martialed, demoted, and forced to retire just got "slaps on the wrist".

You have no idea how much laughter you bring to my life.

wukong

01-05-2009, 11:19 PM

Cute attempt at mischaracterizing what I said Javelin. I was very specific that it is my opinion that most Ossifers were overpaid, inadequate, and unworthy of the respect their rank demanded. If that situation has changed, then this is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the situation at that time.

I can assure you that your would much rather have me, and those like me, rolling random strangers around the flight line and outside the perimeter fencing of thermonuclear ICBM sites, rather than allowing them to saunter around at will damaging Priority "A" assets and degrading our nuclear deterrent capability. The very few Officers we had that were worth their pay did an outstanding job, unfortunately they were the exception rather than the rule.

Sir, with all due respect, you can be as insulted by my observations as much as you wish, but suffice to say, aside from my own personal experiences, the conduct of the United States Army Officer Corps in relation to the incident at Abu Grabass serves as yet another exemplar for my contempt for the Ossifer Corps in general. As soon as what happened came to light, every one of the Ossifers involved, from the CG on down, closed ranks, denied any culpability for their roles in what happened after ORDERING those troops to comply with the instructions of the civilian CIA interrogators, and promptly threw the troops under the bus to protect their own careers. Now, if that suits your definition of "leadership", then we learned the word from two entirely different dictionaries. At least in the Air Force when Ossifers screw the pooch as spectacularly as what happened at Abu Grabass (as evinced by the recent spectacular pooch screwings concerning Priority "A" assets), THEY are the ones thrown under the bus, not the EM who were following their lawful orders.

Oh, and BTW, Pickett was an IDIOT, and so was Lee for ordering him on that damned charge, but again, if you choose to use them as an example of excellent "leadership", and particularly in that needless bloodbath at Gettysburg, we learned the definition from two entirely different dictionaries.

Firstly, when Washington first went to Philadelphia (29 May, 1775), prior to the Declaration of Independence, he offered to bring 1000 men of the Virginia Militia, at his own expense, to the defense of Massachusetts. At the end of the War, and after reviewing Washington's own records, the Comptroller determined that Washington had spent in excess of $160,000.00 (just under $2 MILLION in 2007 inflation adjusted dollars) for himself, his Headquarters Staff, spies and intelligence gathering, traveling expenses for his Headquarters, guards, etc. If you would care to review Washington's own Expense Accounts, they can be located at the Library of Congress in Washington D.C.

Secondly, again you resort to mischaracterization of my words in that I never even implied that Washington did not lead his men in Combat. That does not however in any way alter the fact that he was a MANAGER. Would you care to try again?

Now high praise of Air Force Officers?

A general characteristic of this persons response in this forum lends one to gather that he is a psychopath.

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Handouts/PsychopathicPersonality.htm

The psychopath is one of the most fascinating and distressing problems of human experience.

The following is a list of items based on the research of Robert Hare, Ph.D. which is derived from the "The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, .1991, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems." These are the most highly researched and recognized characteristics of psychopathic personality and behavior.

glibness/superficial charm
grandiose sense of self worth
need for stimulation/prone to boredom
pathological lying
conning/manipulative
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow emotional response
callous/lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
promiscuous sexual behavior
early behavioral problems
lack of realistic long term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for their own actions
criminal versatility

I can assure you that your would much rather have me, and those like me, rolling random strangers around the flight line and outside the perimeter fencing of thermonuclear ICBM sites, rather than allowing them to saunter around at will damaging Priority "A" assets and degrading our nuclear deterrent capability.

You seem to gather pleasure at what a normal person would consider a distasteful duty. Perhaps you manufactured too many incidents of amusement much like our amateur photographers at Abu Gharib.

HairyEyeball

01-06-2009, 01:29 AM

http://www.oregoncounseling.org/Hand...ersonality.htm

Quote:
The psychopath is one of the most fascinating and distressing problems of human experience.

The following is a list of items based on the research of Robert Hare, Ph.D. which is derived from the "The Hare Psychopathy Checklist-Revised, .1991, Toronto: Multi-Health Systems." These are the most highly researched and recognized characteristics of psychopathic personality and behavior.

glibness/superficial charm
grandiose sense of self worth
need for stimulation/prone to boredom
pathological lying
conning/manipulative
lack of remorse or guilt
shallow emotional response
callous/lack of empathy
parasitic lifestyle
poor behavioral controls
promiscuous sexual behavior
early behavioral problems
lack of realistic long term goals
impulsivity
irresponsibility
failure to accept responsibility for their own actions
criminal versatility

Sounds suspiciously like the selection criteria for AF pilots...

wukong

01-06-2009, 08:43 AM

Are you referring to the parasitic lifestyle or criminal versatility? This may be the only areas where Air Force pilots differ from Marine pilots. Criminal versatility is where we may differ from Navy pilots, but that is debatable. Of course Army pilots are heavy on lack of realistic long term goals. The military pilot with the greatest reputation of being a con artist was Boyington. As a matter of fact a Marine Squadron Commander has to have a little larceny in order to survive in his service. Overall I see little that is specifically unique to Air Force pilots and of course we airlifters are of angelic temperaments.:salute:

JohnP

01-06-2009, 11:55 AM

In my opinion only, the following is the epitome of a military leader. It was not only his leadership in direct combat but his actions in garrison.

Lieutenant General Lewis Burwell "Chesty" Puller

(June 26, 1898 – October 11, 1971) Marine Corps combat leader
Born in the peaceful village of West Point, Virginia, where his father had a wholesale grocery business, Puller was reared on tales of Confederate glory. His grandfather, Maj. John Puller, a heroic cavalryman, was killed in 1863. Determined on a military career, Puller completed one year at the Virginia Military Institute (VMI) before enlisting in the U.S. Marine Corps in August 1918. VMI may have given him the exaggerated military bearing for which he was nicknamed, but it was during more than four years as a Marine NCO and concurrent lieutenant of the Gendarmerie d’Haiti (1919–23) that Puller developed his distinctive leadership techniques: perfectionism; mission overachievement; and fearless, inspirational conduct under fire. Varied assignments followed his commissioning in 1924, including two tours in Nicaragua, in each of which he was awarded the Navy Cross. His third and fourth Navy Crosses came during World War II at the Battle of Guadalcanal and at Cape Gloucester on New Britain Island; and the fifth in Korea where Puller commanded the 1st Marine Regiment in the assault landing at Inchon, the seizure of Seoul, and the fighting at the Chosin Reservoir.

Puller was promoted to brigadier general in 1951 and to lieutenant general upon retirement in 1955. During the 1950s, the colorful and outspoken Puller gained attention as a champion of tough, realistic training; a defender of the basic soundness of American youth; and a critic of higher leadership. His legend continued to grow; photographs of his bulldog visage hung in homes and service clubs across the country as a symbol of invincible heroism and fidelity to traditional military standards.

Anthony Herbert quoted in his book "Soldier" of a Medal of Honor recipient he and other ROTC cadets had met during training, "When everything around you is a disaster; when you can't move because there are so many bullets and shrapnel flying around you that nobody can move without getting hit; that is when you have to stand up walk to your men and get them to ignore the fears and follow you into the maelstrom. When you do this, you then and only then, have earned every salute ever been given you."

I live in my own world. I have seen the best and the worst of the Officer and NCO Corps. This should be a discussion and not arguments of how to improve the 2 Corps. One can't operate without the other. These arguments are about as futile as who is the best organization, the Air Force, Army, Navy or Marines. Each have their strengths and their limitations, none can survive as sole entity.

Quit your bickering, quit you snide comments, put your predjudices aside and improve or else STFU!

Again, as always, this is my opinion and I may be wrong.

PhilK

01-06-2009, 12:10 PM

One can't operate without the other.

Quoted for truth!

There is a reason the Army calls the Company Commander and First Sergeant, or Battalion/Brigade/Division/Corps Commander and Command Sergeant Major and "Command Team".

The two work in tandum to ensure their unit is taken care and are ready to meet whatever mission they get head on. When I was a Troop Commander, my First Sergeant and I always ensured that we were on the same sheet of music so that I knew he would back me up, and he knew I would back him up.

I have seen units torn apart when the command team was no team whatsoever. All you can do then is fire the two of them and start over.

JohnP

01-06-2009, 04:17 PM

Okay, let's do a test. On the Web site military.com there is a leadership profileand I quote:

Which Historical Military Leader Are You Most Like?

What is your leadership style?

Great military leaders have different leadership styles. Some of the most celebrated generals, like George S. Patton (left), were flamboyant and daring. Others, like the Duke of Wellington, were reserved and cautious in battle.

How do I take the test?

It's easy. You will be asked to make a series of four decisions, each one meant to determine a certain behavioral trait.

This test borrows from the field of psychology. By asking some simple questions, key characteristics that help define character types can be determined. With this body of knowledge and historical research, Military.com's editors have attempted to match these characteristics with well-known generals.

Is this a contest?

No. This is just meant to be an entertaining way to examine your personality and see what great military leader you may have the most in common with. Enjoy – and tell your friends!

http://www.military.com/LeaderShipTest/1,16183,main.htm,,00.html

Copy and paste to your url. After the test, discuss your feelings. According to this profile, I have the same leadership skills as William Tecumseh Sherman. Sorry about that '03.

Javelin66

01-06-2009, 04:58 PM

Shooter, I am not at all insulted personally by what you have to say, mainly because it is obvious to anyone reading your words that your opinion is biased by a negative experience you had years ago. I was struck by this statement, though:

“I was very specific that it is my opinion that most Ossifers were overpaid, inadequate, and unworthy of the respect their rank demanded. If that situation has changed, then this is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the situation at that time.”

Are you now attempting to limit your commentary to your own experience, or is this meant to be an apology?

As to the question of where I would rather have you, admittedly, the mere suggestion of you armed is bad enough; the realization that they let you outside the wire is very unsettling. Now I see what you mean about the competence of your officers at the time.

I won't address your overgeneralizations and inaccuracies about Abu G, since they are not only par for the course with you but should really be the subject of another thread, as is your discussion of Pickett and Lee’s leadership. Of course, I for one didn’t learn about leadership from a dictionary like you did, so I will disagree with your characterization of them as idiots.

We do seem to agree that management (of resources, time, and personnel) is inherent to leadership.
I am confused, however, about a few points you just made:

First, with regard to your indictment of Washington for submitting an account of his personal expenses, doesn’t that essentially prove that he did not ‘raise and support’ the entire Continental Army out of his own pocket, as you originally asserted?

“…to originally raise and support his Army out of his own pocket,”

Regardless, I think his scrupulous accounting and recordkeeping should be lauded- I myself recently submitted a travel voucher in which I was reimbursed for my rental car and lodging but was stuck with my airport parking fee because I lost the receipt. Maybe I would have had better luck if I had claimed that same amount in horses and espionage fees.

Also, what did you mean by this-

“…the end result was the same, the "nobles" managed and the "serfs" did the actual fighting…”

if you did not mean to say that Washington did not lead his men in combat?

Finally, allow me to introduce you to some of the ‘inadequate’ officers for whom you have such contempt:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7794
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_jackson
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/abdr-A10/0664/Decorated%20pilot%20gets%20dream%20job.htm
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_yoakum.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_cooper.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_mitchell.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_chontosh.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_morel.html

PhilK

01-06-2009, 04:59 PM

I came out lined up with Wes Clark.

Not really sure how I feel about that.

JohnP

01-06-2009, 06:12 PM

Finally, allow me to introduce you to some of the ‘inadequate’ officers for whom you have such contempt:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7794
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_jackson
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/abdr-A10/0664/Decorated%20pilot%20gets%20dream%20job.htm
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_yoakum.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_cooper.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_mitchell.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_chontosh.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_morel.html

Very good sites and very good reading. They remind me of others whom I served with, officers and enlisted alike, who moved forward with clear heads when all others were losing theirs.

Javelin66

01-06-2009, 08:38 PM

I came out as T.R. -I like his 'stache, so I'm happy. Has anyone been to the bar of the Menger Hotel in San Antonio?

03_SHOOTER

01-06-2009, 09:42 PM

Shooter, I not at all insulted personally by what you have to say, mainly because it is obvious to anyone reading your words that your opinion is biased by a negative experience you had years ago. I was struck by this statement, though:

“I was very specific that it is my opinion that most Ossifers were overpaid, inadequate, and unworthy of the respect their rank demanded. If that situation has changed, then this is a good thing, but that has nothing to do with the situation at that time.”

Are you now attempting to limit your commentary to your own experience, or is this meant to be an apology?

All any of us have to go on are our own experiences Javelin. I have made it perfectly clear throughout this discussion that there are good OFFICERS, and then there are Ossifers, a distinction obviously missed by those who are too entirely too quick to be offended. As I have also repeatedly said, I had the honor of serving under a select few very good Officers, but I also made it clear that the vast majority of the others I had the displeasure of either serving under, or around, IMNSHO were hardly worth the respect their rank demanded.

As to the question of where I would rather have you, admittedly, the mere suggestion of you armed is bad enough; the realization that they let you outside the wire is very unsettling. Now I see what you mean about the competence of your officers at the time.

Javelin, you know less about me than I know about you, so your quite frankly infantile attempt at a very personal attack against me, when I have given none to you makes me wonder if perhaps my words haven't struck a bit closer to the target than I intended. If you have any questions about my competence in the performance of my duties, I suggest you take that up with JohnP, as we served together for over 2 years, and he was my Reporting Official (immediate supervisor) for most of that time.

We do seem to agree that management (of resources, time, and personnel) is inherent to leadership.
I am confused, however, about a few points you just made:

First, with regard to your indictment of Washington for submitting an account of his personal expenses, doesn’t that essentially prove that he did not ‘raise and support’ the entire Continental Army out of his own pocket, as you originally asserted?

“…to originally raise and support his Army out of his own pocket,”

Reading comprehension got you down? I specifically said "HIS" Army, not the Continental Army, as they are two entirely different things. Perhaps if you had spent a bit more time studying history instead of "Being Offended 101", you'd understand what I'm talking about.

Also, what did you mean by this-

“…the end result was the same, the "nobles" managed and the "serfs" did the actual fighting…”

if you did not mean to say that Washington did not lead his men in combat?

Again, reading comprehension must be a challenge for you, as I specifically preceded the carefully cherry-picked words you presented with "just like the various Knights, Lords, and other Nobles of Great Britain had been expected to do...". Also, if you'll carefully review your history, you'll find that during the Revolution, Washington "led" the Continental Army on the field in very few battles, as was the standard of the era. If it ever became necessary for a Senior Officer to actually LEAD his men in battle, then something dreadfully wrong had happened, and his entire order of battle had just turned to s**t in his fist, as in the Battle of Monmouth when General Charles Lee (no relation to Richard Henry, or Robert E. Lee) actually LED a general and disorganized retreat in the face of the enemy which compelled Washington to personally rally the troops and re-engage the British forces.

Finally, allow me to introduce you to some of the ‘inadequate’ officers for whom you have such contempt:

http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/read.php?story_id_key=7794
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_jackson
http://www.pats-world.com/gulfwar/abdr-A10/0664/Decorated%20pilot%20gets%20dream%20job.htm
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_yoakum.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_cooper.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/dsc_mitchell.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_chontosh.html
http://www.homeofheroes.com/valor/08_WOT/nc_morel.html

Nice list, but extraordinarily short considering the 200+ year history of our nation, and specifically the 90+ years of the Air Corps/Air Force. I note that you failed to include George Kenney, Kurt LeMay, Chuck Yeager, Richard Bong, and a slew of others. Given the fact of the hundreds of thousands of "O's" that have served in the Air Corps/Air Force in the past 90+ years, and the millions that have served in all of the services combined, the fact that there is such a very short list of "Outstanding" examples only serves to prove my point, and that IS the point of all of this.

It's incredibly easy to be a paper-pushing, chair polishing, micro-managing wonk of an Ossifer, but it takes something "special" to be an Officer worthy of the respect that that little bit of plated pot metal on your collar demands. Entirely too few take the "easy road", and it is that select few that actually make a difference in the military. It's the rest of the "Ossifers" who give those select few a bad name by engaging in activities like beating their men to death in the pointless "dog and pony shows" to try to show their bosses that they're "worthy" of their next promotion (especially when they get "stars" in their eyes), or worse yet, throwing their men under the bus to cover their own sorry a$$ when they screw the pooch.

03_SHOOTER

01-06-2009, 09:48 PM

After the test, discuss your feelings. According to this profile, I have the same leadership skills as William Tecumseh Sherman. Sorry about that '03.

Don't feel too bad JohnP, I got U.S. Grant.

03_SHOOTER

01-06-2009, 10:32 PM

Yeah...I guess those officers who were court martialed, demoted, and forced to retire just got "slaps on the wrist".

You have no idea how much laughter you bring to my life.

Exactly ONE Officer was Courts Martialed Phil, and he got a fine! Only one other Officer was even charged, and those charges were dropped after which he was given an LOR. So how many of the Ossifers who are truly responsible for what happened at Abu Grabass are sitting in Ft. Leavenworth PhilK? ZERO! NONE of them were "forced to retire", and Karpinski is the only Officer to receive a reduction in rank. Where are the Majors? Where are the Captains? Where are the Lt's? Where were ANY of the Officers who were supposed to be "leading" their Soldiers? Were they all hanging out in the "O" club, drinking colorful umbrella adorned cocktails and spinning tales and bragging about the Bronze Stars they earned for "Meritorious Service" fighting in brutal combat with piles of paperwork while their Soldiers were allowed to engage in those atrocities? Is that your idea of proper "leadership"? Are we to believe that NONE of the Ossifers there had any idea of what was going on inside Abu Grabass, or what their Soldiers were doing? If that's the case, then every one of them should have been Courts Martialed under at least a half a dozen Articles of the UCMJ. If on the other hand they DID know what was going on, and did nothing about it, then there's another half a dozen charges that should have been filed.

Were it up to me, that twit Karpinski would be in Leavenworth at least as long, if not longer than any of her troops, along with their Company Commanders, Platoon Leaders, and every SNCO who was obviously NOT doing their jobs of supervising their Soldiers. When Officers abrogate their responsibility of LEADERSHIP, and turn undertrained/untrained Soldiers over to civilian control, those Officers have no business being in the military at all, much less in command of troops.

Oh, and if you find ANYTHING about this even the slightest bit entertaining, then I can only presume that you really are blissfully ignorant of the facts of what caused the debacle at Abu Grabass.

PhilK

01-06-2009, 10:51 PM

Oh, I'm more then aware of what went wrong. Officers failed, NCOs failed, and Soldiers failed. That is what happened. Obviously those involved with this incident lacked the moral and ethical fortitude that was needed to say "no". They did not enbody the Army Values and will be used as examples during every OPD and NCOPD for the next 50 years of how NOT to be a Leader.

And while not every officer or NCO that was involved was charged, I guarantee you that they did not enjoy extended careers in the Army.

The Army does not take kindly to personnel that give the organization as a whole a black eye.

Just like I'm sure the Air Force didn't like "misplacing" a nuke or two. A few people made the headlines, but how many people will be shown the door at thier next ETS or be denied promotion?

I would hope you had served long enough to know how the "behind the scenes" works.

Javelin66

01-06-2009, 11:07 PM

Shooter, all I know about you is what you have written in this forum. Normally you invoke a young Bill O’Reilly in your outrageous indignation when challenged.

Based on that, I am pleasantly surprised by the humor piece you have just posted. Resisting the temptation to be arrogant and patronizing, you have chosen instead to use the Socratic Method to lead me down the path to wisdom.

Your use of irony in stating that you meant no offense in your repeated use of the clever malapropism ‘ossifer’ is simply brilliant, as is your deliberately farcical and pompous charade as the noble crusader for the truth. What makes it absolutely sublime, however, is your clever use of every condemnation of ‘the brass’ that ever appeared in an episode of M*A*S*H. I’m sure that Alan Alda is proud (did you have to pay royalties?).

All the while, however, you still managed to weave in the subtle yet helpful self improvement hints for which I and so many others on the forum are so grateful. You can bet that I will enroll in some English Composition and History courses online as soon as I complete Being Offended 101.

In short, like most readers I’m sure, I found the break for a hearty laugh refreshing, and I am ready to get back to the discussion of the officer as a leader. Thanks.

03_SHOOTER

01-06-2009, 11:31 PM

And while not every officer or NCO that was involved was charged, I guarantee you that they did enjoy extended careers in the Army.

I'm going to assume that you meant to say that they did NOT "enjoy extended careers in the Army", but that's not the point now is it? One Ossifer was convicted, one was demoted, NONE of the SNCO's were even charged, but 9 EM's are or were serving sentences in Leavenworth! That's not leadership at any level, that's playing "throw the troops under the bus", and that IS the point.

In my business, it doesn't matter WHO screws up, I'm in charge and I take the hit. Even if one of the guys fails to follow my direction and messes up really badly, I'M in charge, I'm the one who is responsible, and I'm the one who has to make it right. I don't hide behind "well, I told him so and so", or "I didn't know", or any of that sophistry and prevarication.

I'm in charge, it's my responsibility. That's my definition of leadership. Yours may vary.

Just like I'm sure the Air Force didn't like "misplacing" a nuke or two. A few people made the headlines, but how many people will be shown the door at thier next ETS or be denied promotion?

Being denied a promotion or being denied further service is hardly a PRISON SENTENCE! In case you missed it, a prison sentence destroys your LIFE, which is exactly what happened to the troops who were under the impression that they were following their "lawful" orders, but of course the Army isn't going to ruin the lives of it's Ossifers and SNCO's like that, they'll just let them slip their responsibility, leave the service with their names, and their infamy, conveniently concealed from any future employers, because if they were to play "hard ball" with them, I suspect that the Junior Officers and SNCO's would have been MORE than happy to reveal exactly which Senior Officers (like General Sanchez) and government functionaries were really responsible. As I said, it's "cover your ass" and "throw the troops under the bus", and that is not "leadership" by any stretch of the imagination.

I would hope you had served long enough to know how the "behind the scenes" works.

I know exactly how it works, which is why I have such a lack of respect for the vast majority of the Ossifer Corps. They have absolutely no problem ruining their troops careers, and sometimes their entire lives, in order to protect themselves from their own Mongolian Clusterf***s. As I said before, at least in the Air Force, when an Ossifer seriously screws the pooch, THEY generally take the hits, as in the recent spate of screwups with the nuke force. Oh, and just as a reminder, and so that you don't think I'm just picking on the Army, I hope you'll note that I called for heads to roll in each of those incidents as well.

03_SHOOTER

01-06-2009, 11:40 PM

Shooter, all I know about you is what you have written in this forum. Normally you invoke a young Bill O’Reilly in your outrageous indignation when challenged.

Jav, you haven't "challenged" me yet, and any indignation on my part is shock and disbelief in the utter and complete inability of an allegedly intelligent and educated "Officer" to comprehend the basic monosyllabic verbiage used in my posts. Perhaps in the future you would prefer if I included colorful PowerPoint presentations so that can follow along?

HairyEyeball

01-07-2009, 01:38 AM

Here's a thought: Instead of making it personal - when, as has been repeatedly pointed out, damned few of you know any more about each other than you have read here and formed opinions on, or taking it personally, when the initial impression may have been other than intended, how 'bout we get back to the subject?

In my experience, military and civilian, there have been some 'leaders', many 'managers' and bean-counters, and a chitload of 'place-holders'. I may have been fortunate in that most of the officers and almost all of the SNCOs I served with were, to some extent, 'leaders', and I learned a good deal of what, precisely, 'leadership' is from them. I also learned that unless one has a 'leadership gene', or whatever fosters the talent, he cannot be 'taught' to be a leader, if one does, it can be cultivated to whatever level the individual is capable of.

One problem I see in assessing 'leadership' in this discussion is the lack of examples - of both leaders and managers (or 'place holders') in equivalent situations - to provide the perspective our younger members need to develop their potential leadership skills - Lord knows it's not being taught in the majority of schools. Both our military and the nation in general would benefit if potential leaders were identified earlier, and those qualities that make them leaders nourished.

And for the record, I scored 'Teddy Roosevelt' in the 'game'.

wukong

01-07-2009, 02:17 AM

03_SHOOTER

01-07-2009, 09:54 AM

For you young soldiers and cadets reading this thread you need to understand the difference between responsibility, authority and criminal liability.

As a superior in a chain of command you are always responsible for what happens on your watch. Criminal liability attaches to those who commit crimes and only extends to those who are responsible when they become aware of crimes and do nothing to correct the problem.

In the case of Abu Gharib was the President responsible? Yes!!! Was he criminally liable? No! if he took action to correct the problem. The same paradigm applies to those between the President and our amateur photographers at Abu Gharib. Was General Sanchez responsible? Yes. Was he criminally liable? No. He took steps to correct the problem. You work this down the chain of command to determine criminal liability and direct personal responsibility (non judicial).

And that is exactly why I have so much heartburn about it, because there is no doubt that the Ossifers and SNCO's WERE aware of what was going on, and not only did NOTHING to stop it, they actively participated IN it. They allowed their Soldiers to remain under the direction of CIA interrogators, they allowed their Soldiers to continue in the abuses we have all become aware of, and that makes them criminally liable. The fact of the matter is the Colonel Pappas was PRESENT during the beating death of one inmate by the "prison intelligence officers", and he got an Article 15 and an LOR, but Lynndie England got 3 years and a DD for putting a leash on one of them and allowing her picture to be taken.

Look at the various trials of Nazi leadership, Officers, and Soldiers following WWII. Were the guards charged, tried, convicted and sentenced? Of course they were, as they should have been, but so were the Officers and civilain leadership who were ultimately responsible, and it was the Officers and civilian leadership who paid the highest price. If you want to wear the brass on your collar, if you want to be in charge, then you not only get the highest glory when things go well, but you have to be expected to pay the highest price when they go bad, and that is not what happened following Abu Grabass. The "powers that be" closed ranks and threw their Soldiers under the bus to protect themselves, and there's no other way to characterize it.

We in the US military establishment give junior officers and enlisted soldiers enormous responsibility thru delegation of authority. You can delegate authority but not responsibility. When authority is delegated to you, you are liable for the use of that authority. If you are delegated authority and abuse it, you cannot excuse yourself by pointing your finger up. You are never delegated authority for your own personal amusement. Some never grasp this concept.

Nobody is even attempting to relieve those involved for responsibility for their own actions, what IS being questioned is the fact that so many Ossifers and SNCO's were NOT held to account for THEIR actions, and in the few cases where they were, their punishments were hardly in line with their offenses, especially when compared to the sentences their Soldiers received for far lesser offenses. Some never grasp THAT concept.

And my own personal note to the younger members, service in the military can be a wonderful thing, but if you EVER have ANY questions about your orders, demand that they be put in writing, along with your objections, and witnessed. The military will protect itself, but it's up to you to protect yourself, because they won't.

wukong

01-07-2009, 10:26 AM

More outlandish caterwauling,

And that is exactly why I have so much heartburn about it, because there is no doubt that the Ossifers and SNCO's WERE aware of what was going on, and not only did NOTHING to stop it, they actively participated IN it. They allowed their Soldiers to remain under the direction of CIA interrogators, they allowed their Soldiers to continue in the abuses we have all become aware of, and that makes them criminally liable. The fact of the matter is the Colonel Pappas was PRESENT during the beating death of one inmate by the "prison intelligence officers", and he got an Article 15 and an LOR, but Lynndie England got 3 years and a DD for putting a leash on one of them and allowing her picture to be taken.

Your usual one-sided misstatement of fact on this forum does not equate to truth or acceptance. (Well, maybe in your universe) What you appear to state as fact comes from the likes of Rosie and Rikki, et al. If you can prove your current unsupported theories with sworn testimony (criminal proceedings are public records) you may be believable and considering the current political environment a cause for a Congressional investigation. What you currently lack is credibility in other parallel universes.

As a Constitutional scholar and master of criminal law you seem to have forgotten (you seem to be habitually inflicted with CRS) that in order for a crime to exist there needs to be criminal intent. Prison guards at Nazi death camps knew what was happening to the people being "processed." There is no established record that Pappas or the Guards intended to kill. What I understand from Rosie and Rikki, is that Lynndie England did more than merely allow her picture to be taken. A pattern of which would show intent.

It may come as a shock, but there are rare occasions where those "thrown under the bus" deserve to be "thrown under the bus." From what you have previously disclosed concerning your orgasmic rapture from the exercise of delegated authority, one might reasonably conclude that you may be that rare occasion.

03_SHOOTER

01-07-2009, 02:00 PM

More outlandish caterwauling,

wukong, if you wish to take exception with my research based chronicle of some of the events at Abu Grabass (gleaned primarily from media reports and FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS), as opposed to your alcohol impaired version, then by all means present opposing evidence in support of your position, but your standard "liar, liar, pants on fire" objections have worn thin.

As I've told you repeatedly, put up or shut up.

SlightlyCatholic

01-07-2009, 07:34 PM

Shooter, just out of curiosity, what was your paygrade when you retired from the Air Force?

You have the anger and resentment of somebody who was turned down for a slot at OTS or something...

Javelin66

01-07-2009, 08:03 PM

Shooter, you really have to stop with the humor pieces or no one will take you seriously anymore.

I really want to get into this Abu Ghraib issue, but first I would like to establish our respective positions on the subject of this thread: The officer as a leader.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I have it wrong), your position is that most officers are actually incompetent and contemptuous ‘ossifers’. In addition, you contend that all officers are merely managers, not leaders. You are basing this on your personal experience, the historical record, and recent events, most notably the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It would be awesome if you could do this in PowerPoint (even better if it was shiny-do you know how to use sound effects?)

Just to be clear, my contention is that commissioned officers, along with their non-commissioned counterparts, are in fact leaders, and have served honorably and with distinction throughout the history of US military service. I freely submit that not all officers have lived up to the task, some with infamous results. I too am basing this on my personal experience, the historical record, to include the events at Abu Ghraib.

In the interest of brevity, I’ll address Abu Ghraib in a separate post.

Javelin66

01-07-2009, 09:16 PM

As promised, my thoughts on Abu Ghraib:

The events at Abu Ghraib were horrible and will have long lasting impacts on US and US military credibility in the world. Those that committed the acts and those that either condoned them or created the conditions that allowed them to occur should have been investigated and (if found guilty) punished, and that is precisely what happened.

After the investigation, the entire chain of command, from BG Karpinski on down to the PLT Sergeant involved (which included another brigade commander, two battalion commanders, a company commander, a platoon leader, two primary staff officers at the brigade and battalion level), were relieved, received GOMORs (effectively ending their careers), and ‘asked’ to leave the Army. LTG Sanchez was simply ‘asked’ to leave. BTW, the investigating officer, MG Taguba, claims he was pressured to retire after his report was published.

COL Pappas elected to accept non-judicial punishment in lieu of court martial, received a GOMOR, was fined, and pressured to retire.

LTC Steve Jordan, the officer actually in charge of the interrogation and debriefing center, was relieved for poor leadership, received a GOMOR, and brought before a court martial, initially for lying to investigators, allowing unauthorized interrogation techniques, and failing to obey a lawful order.

In addition, several senior NCOs, to include two CSMs, a SGM, a 1SG, and a few MSGs and SFCs were found to be deficient leaders in that they failed to train soldiers, instill and maintain standards, and supervise execution (the CSM lied multiple times to investigators, including about his presence at key daily events like shift change).

No allegations were made that any of these individuals had anything to do directly with prisoner abuse. In fact, only two (Jordan and Pappas) were physically present at the time of the abuses and had direct involvment with interrogations.

Of the 13 enlisted soldiers and Jr NCOs charged, all of whom were personally involved with abuse, assault, conspiracy, or other criminal offenses, 1 was cleared and one is still under investigation. The remaining 11 were all convicted and received various punishments. Only 3 (Graner, Frederick, and England) were confined for more than a year (10, 8, and 3 yrs, respectively). These are the three in the pictures, and they were convicted of abuse, assault, indecent acts, adultery, etc. Frederick pled guilty, or he would have faced additional charges.

The other 8 received BCDs, reduction, forfeitures, and confinement ranging from 90 days to 1 year (Cardona, who did 90 days at hard labor, is still in the Army).

Other than the horrible leadership displayed at the battalion and company level (by both officers and NCOs), the senior leadership failed to resource the units for success with appropriate manning, training, equipment, or guidance. Karpinski and the other MPs were absolutely atrocious, but the senior MI commander (Pappas) allowed the use of unauthorized techniques, to include the dogs.

On top of that, the command relationship was extremely confusing. The 800th was a CFLCC asset DS to CJTF-7, and Pappas had TACON of the MPs in charge of the prison, in direct contradiction of Army doctrine (and common sense). This, along with the fact that another MI unit (165th MI) was providing perimeter security, created the impression among the MPs that MI was in charge of the prison, which Karpinski and her subordinates did nothing to correct.

This helped to create the greatest myth of this whole thing - the ‘MI made me do it’ legend. All of the troops charged were MPs (from the 372nd MP CO). Although they all claimed that ‘MI or OGA’ gave them instructions to ‘set the conditions’ for interrogations, no one can seem to remember who did it.

Frederick and Graner claimed, essentially, that an unidentified MI soldier and OGA ‘operative’, never seen before or since, came through and issued instructions on how to ‘soften up’ detainees. Rather than check with their chain of command for confirmation, they took this as authority to use increasingly barbarous techniques on the detainees, to include those we’ve all seen in the now famous pictures (if only stupidity was a crime, they would gone away for life).

Interestingly, they themselves say that ‘MI and OGA’ only asked them to use sleep deprivation and stress positions- they made the rest up on their own. This does raise some issues, though:

If an MI soldier did in fact issue such instructions, those orders were not only against doctrine and procedures, but were also immoral and illegal. In addition, neither MI nor ‘OGA’ had the authority to issue such orders. The MPs receiving such instructions (if properly trained andled) should have refused to comply and reported the incident to their leadership.

wukong

01-07-2009, 09:17 PM

...if you wish to take exception with my research based chronicle...
If you posted that the midnight sky was pitch black on a moonless night, my first reaction would be to run outside and check for myself.

wukong, if you wish to take exception with my research based chronicle of some of the events at Abu Grabass (gleaned primarily from media reports and FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS), as opposed to your alcohol impaired version, then by all means present opposing evidence in support of your position, but your standard "liar, liar, pants on fire" objections have worn thin.

As I've told you repeatedly, put up or shut up.

As our resident expert on jurisprudence you should be well aware that the party that makes the charge bears the burden of proof. Media reports? You are the most vociferous lambaster of the "lamestream media." FIRST HAND ACCOUNTS? who are these mysterious beings and have they been sworn under the criminal threat of perjury? Liar? Where has anyone called you such? You indict yourself by your own words.

Javelin66

01-07-2009, 09:47 PM

They allowed their Soldiers to remain under the direction of CIA interrogators, The fact of the matter is the Colonel Pappas was PRESENT during the beating death of one inmate by the "prison intelligence officers", and he got an Article 15 and an LOR, but Lynndie England got 3 years and a DD for putting a leash on one of them and allowing her picture to be taken.
Simply not true. At no time were the guards under the control of CIA (or even Army) interrogators. This is the incident to which you refer: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact?currentPage=1 . Pappas was not present during the beating death, which took place under the hands of a CIA interrogator and his 'terp.

Although he did come in after the fact, his words and deeds at that point were not exemplary (although the testimony of what he said came from a self serving statement by another suspect), and are no doubt part of the reason he was relieved of command and punished under Article 15 (ILO CM).

Lynndie England, on the other hand, was found guilty (after trying to plead guilty) to maltreatment, indecent acts, and conspiracy.

Nobody is even attempting to relieve those involved for responsibility for their own actions, what IS being questioned is the fact that so many Ossifers and SNCO's were NOT held to account for THEIR actions, and in the few cases where they were, their punishments were hardly in line with their offenses, especially when compared to the sentences their Soldiers received for far lesser offenses. Some never grasp THAT concept.

Again, simply not true. As I posted elsewhere, the entire chain of command was relieved. Again, those charged and convicted (vice administratively punished through relief and GOMOR) were found guilty of actually commiting crimes such as abusive and indecent acts and engaging in conspiracy to cover it all up.

03_SHOOTER

01-07-2009, 10:49 PM

Shooter, you really have to stop with the humor pieces or no one will take you seriously anymore.

Then Sir, you have a very warped sense of humor, because there's nothing remotely funny about anything I've written.

I really want to get into this Abu Ghraib issue, but first I would like to establish our respective positions on the subject of this thread: The officer as a leader.

If I understand you correctly (and please correct me if I have it wrong), your position is that most officers are actually incompetent and contemptuous ‘ossifers’. In addition, you contend that all officers are merely managers, not leaders. You are basing this on your personal experience, the historical record, and recent events, most notably the abuses at Abu Ghraib. It would be awesome if you could do this in PowerPoint (even better if it was shiny-do you know how to use sound effects?)

That would be dependent upon each of our understanding of the words "incompetent" and "contemptuous" wouldn't it. Also, ALL Officers are, by definition, managers, but damned few are actual leaders, that is a fact. As for the PowerPoint, I'll have to check with Grunt and see if the software will allow for it, but I don't believe it does.

Just to be clear, my contention is that commissioned officers, along with their non-commissioned counterparts, are in fact leaders, and have served honorably and with distinction throughout the history of US military service. I freely submit that not all officers have lived up to the task, some with infamous results. I too am basing this on my personal experience, the historical record, to include the events at Abu Ghraib.

In the interest of brevity, I’ll address Abu Ghraib in a separate post.

Again, we apparently have different definitions of what a "leader" is. You seem, and feel free to correct me if I am mistaken, to believe that a "leader" is simply the person in charge.

To me however, a "leader" is someone who is not merely "in charge", but who instills confidence in their people, and instills a desire in those people to willingly follow their directions, without having to resort to "ordering" them to do so, because their people know that 1) he/she will never ask them to do anything he/she isn't willing to do themselves, 2) will never ask them to do anything unlawful or against regulations, 3) will never needlessly or recklessly endanger them, 4) will take FULL responsibility for anything that happens under his leadership, and 5) will NEVER sell them out to cover his own ass. In other words, a true Leader is one who has EARNED the Right and ability to lead his/her men, regardless of the rank on their collar or sleeve. I was taught these principles by my Grandfather who was an Officer and a Fighter Pilot. He was at various times in his career a Flight Leader, Test Pilot and eventually Squadron Commander before being Medically Retired.

As I have repeatedly said, I had the honor of serving under 3 Outstanding Officers, but the vast majority of the others were, to one degree or another, simply "empty suits" who were filling a slot that the DoD decided required someone in that slot who wore their rank on their collars instead of their sleeves, and who didn't give a damn about anyone or anything except themselves and their next promotion. Those were the days following Vietnam, so we had the few "hard chargers, nail biters and bullet spitters" in both the Officer and NCO Corps, but we also had more than our fair share of the worst element too, including the drunks, the druggies, the "ladder climbers" who would stab you in the back if you had a higher number than them on the promotion roster, and possibly worst sort of all, ones who had gone R.O.A.D., who didn't really give a sh** any more and were simply marking time until retirement who would screw anyone over who did anything that would expose exactly how AFU they really were. It is that "don't really give a sh**" attitude on the part of the Ossifers in Senior "leadership" positions that allows things like unauthorized shipments of nukes being sent across the country, or to foreign countries, or any of the other crap that caused almost every Priority "A" unit in the Air Force to lose their ratings, and it's the same attitude that allows things like what happened at Abu Grabass to happen in the first place.

The fact is that the military, like any other major institution has a very select few true leaders, and a very select few true screwups, and the vast majority are "middle management warm bodies" who are doing nothing more than filling a slot until the next "warm body" comes along to take that "warm body" slot, when they are promoted for no other reason than they didn't get caught screwing their Commanders pooch (or his daughter), in the middle of the 'O' Club, during lunch hour. It is these "middle management warm bodies" however that during prolonged periods of peace invariably rise to the highest levels of Command in our military, and not unlike WWI, WWI, Korea, and Vietnam, once a real "shooting war" starts, it takes a while for these losers to be exposed for what they are, and replaced by real Leaders. We are now just over 7 years into GWOT, and as a result we now have a good start on building that Leadership again, at least at the Company level, but at the Flag level, we're still dealing with some "peace time leaders" who at least seem to be operating under the "CYA" methods that got them to where they are today. Now, as I said in my earlier posts, if all of that has changed, GREAT, but I've got that whole "Show Me" attitude, and when I see things like I've been seeing over the past few years, to say it's somewhat less than inspirational would be the understatement of the century.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 12:31 AM

Simply not true. At no time were the guards under the control of CIA (or even Army) interrogators. This is the incident to which you refer: http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2005/11/14/051114fa_fact?currentPage=1 . Pappas was not present during the beating death, which took place under the hands of a CIA interrogator and his 'terp.

Although he did come in after the fact, his words and deeds at that point were not exemplary (although the testimony of what he said came from a self serving statement by another suspect), and are no doubt part of the reason he was relieved of command and punished under Article 15 (ILO CM).

MP Captain Tells of Efforts to Hide Details of Detainee's Death (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A2755-2004Jun24.html)
By Jackie Spinner
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, June 25, 2004; Page A18

BAGHDAD, June 24 -- The company commander of the U.S. soldiers charged with abusing detainees at Abu Ghraib prison testified Thursday that the top military intelligence commander at the prison was present the night a detainee died during an interrogation and that efforts were made to conceal the details of the detainee's death.

Capt. Donald J. Reese, commander of the 372nd Military Police Company, said he was summoned one night in November to a shower room in a cellblock at the prison, where he discovered the body of a bloodied detainee on the floor. A group of intelligence personnel was standing around the body, discussing what to do, and Col. Thomas M. Pappas, commander of military intelligence at the prison, was among them, Reese said.

Reese said an Army colonel named Jordan sent a soldier to the prison mess hall for ice to preserve the body overnight. Lt. Col. Steven L. Jordan was head of the interrogation center at the prison, but it was unclear whether he was the officer to whom Reese referred.

No medics were called, Reese said, and the detainee's identification was never recorded.

Reese testified that he heard Pappas say at one point, "I'm not going down for this alone."

(you can read the rest of the story via the link provide)

Col. Pappas' name was also mentioned 125 times in the Fay Report (http://www4.army.mil/ocpa/reports/ar15-6/AR15-6.pdf), and the results of the investigation resulted in the following finding;

Finding: COL. Thomas M. Pappas, Commander, 205 MI BDE.. A preponderance of evidence supports that COL Pappas did, or failed to do, the following:

Failed to insure that the JIDC performed its mission to its full capabilities, within the applicable rules, regulations and appropriate procedures.
Failed to properly organize the JIDC.
Failed to put the necessary checks and balances in place to prevent and detect abuses.
Failed to ensure that his Soldiers and civilians were properly trained for the mission.
Showed poor judgment by leaving LTC Jordan in charge of the JIDC during the critical early stages of the JIDC.
Showed poor judgment by leaving LTC Jordan in charge during the aftermath of a shooting incident known as the Iraqi Police Roundup (IP Roundup).
Improperly authorized the use of dogs during interrogations. Failed to properly supervise the use of dogs to make sure they were muzzled after he improperly permitted their use.
Failed to take appropriate action regarding the ICRC reports of abuse.
Failed to take aggressive action against Soldiers who violated the ICRP, the CJTF-7 interrogation and Counter-Resistance Policy and the Geneva Conventions.
Failed to properly communicate to Higher Headquarters when his Brigade would be unable to accomplish its mission due to lack of manpower and/or resources. Allowed his Soldiers and civilians at the JIDC to be subjected to inordinate pressure from Higher Headquarters.
Failed to establish appropriate MI and MP coordination at the brigade level which would have alleviated much of the confusion that contributed to the abusive environment at Abu Ghraib.
The significant number of systemic failures documented in this report does not relieve COL Pappas of his responsibility as the Commander, 205th MI BDE for the abuses that occurred and went undetected for a considerable length of time.

Recommendation: This information should be forwarded to COL Pappas' chain of command for appropriate action.

He then "broke the faith" by accepting a grant of immunity in exchange for his testimony against one of his own Officers, namely Lt. Col. Jordan. The case of Lt. Col. Jordan also shows a pattern of complete incompetence (yes, I used the word) in that the Trial Judge had to dismiss the two most grievous counts against him because Major General George Fay, the lead investigator in the Abu Grabass investigation, failed to properly inform him of his Article 31 Rights prior to questioning him, and his conviction for Failure to Obey a Lawful Order was redacted from his jacket in January of last year and he is still serving to this day. For his part, General Fay had previously testified that he had in fact read Lt. Col. Jordan his Article 31 Rights, which means that Fay LIED, but was never charged for that lie.

Pappas also testified that Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geoffrey_D._Miller) is the one who gave him the idea for using MWD's on prisoners because "they used military working dogs at Gitmo [the nickname for Guantanamo Bay], and that they were effective in setting the atmosphere for which, you know, you could get information" from the prisoners,..."source (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A55703-2004May25.html), but General Miller was not only not charged with any crime (including his admission that MWD's had been used on prisoners at Gitmo), he was allowed to retire.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 12:31 AM

(continued from above)
Lynndie England, on the other hand, was found guilty (after trying to plead guilty) to maltreatment, indecent acts, and conspiracy.
She tried to plead guilty so that she wouldn't have to spend the REST OF HER LIFE IN PRISON for FOLLOWING HER ORDERS! That plea was thrown out when testimony revealed that she honestly believed that she was in fact following LAWFUL orders, but of course, she had already been convicted before she ever set foot in the Courtroom.

In a May 11, 2004 interview with Denver CBS affiliate television station KCNC-TV, England reportedly said that she was "instructed by persons in higher ranks" to commit the acts of abuse for psyop reasons, and that she should keep doing it, because it worked as intended. England noted that she felt "weird" when a commanding officer asked her to do such things as "stand there, give the thumbs up, and smile". However, England felt that she was doing "nothing out of the ordinary".[7]Source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England)

You also might want to read THIS (http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/2005-06-06-turley-edit_x.htm), but I'll post a few of the highlights for you, just in case you're in a hurry.

Military scapegoats walk a well-worn path
By Jonathan Turley

In Fort Hood, Texas, the latest grunt will soon face charges of prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib. As with six other GIs, Pfc. Lynndie England will carry more than her individual responsibility for torture into her trial. She will carry the hopes of one of the world's smallest and most exclusive clubs: the 870 star-studded admirals and generals who command the military services.

It may be the U.S. military's longest unbroken tradition. When scandals occur, scapegoats are gathered from the lower ranks and offered for the sins of their superiors. Indeed, the term "scapegoat" originates from Mosaic law where a rabbi would select a goat to be brought to the tabernacle altar on the Day of Atonement each year. The rabbi would then confess the sins of all over the head of the goat, which is then sent into the forest — taking away all sins with it. Of course, the rabbis had one great advantage: The goat could not speak.

When the goat talks

The problem of the speaking goat occurred a few weeks ago when England pleaded guilty to an array of charges. It was an obvious fiction. Few seriously believed that England had either the wherewithal or independence to engage in a criminal conspiracy to abuse prisoners. Yet, for a shorter sentence, she agreed to carry away the sins of the generals with her to prison.

At her sentencing hearing, however, England's former co-guard and boyfriend, Charles Graner, went disastrously off-script by stating the obvious: She was following his orders and those of military intelligence at the prison.

Bad goat; no deal.

Generals may be retired early or demoted in rare cases, but jail time is largely the province of the lower ranks. Indeed, it took a captured English major to seal the fate of Gen. Benedict Arnold in the first known crime of a U.S. general. (Fittingly, Major John Andre was hanged, and Arnold went on to serve as an English general.)

True to tradition, promotion rather than punishment has been the fate of most torture-tainted officers in the Abu Ghraib scandal:

• Army Maj. Gen. Geoffrey Miller has been implicated in the abuses at both Guantanamo Bay and Iraq. He actually ordered Abu Ghraib personnel to "soften up" the prisoners. He was made an assistant chief of staff.

• Maj. Gen. Barbara Fast had knowledge of the abuses in 2003 as the head of military intelligence in Iraq and was accused of pressuring the interrogators. She was given a new position as the commander at the Army Intelligence Center at Fort Huachuca, Ariz., where U.S. and foreign troops are taught interrogation techniques.

• Lt. Gen. Ricardo Sanchez was the ranking officer in Iraq and approved many of the interrogation techniques now deemed abusive. He was returned to his command in Germany of the prestigious Army V Corps.

• The officer who oversaw interrogation at Abu Ghraib, Col. Thomas Pappas, was given a light administrative punishment.

Military history is rife with investigations that seemed star-struck when the potential culprits include generals and flag officers.

One of the most extensive military investigations occurred after the My Lai massacre in 1968, when as many as 500 Vietnamese civilians were murdered. One officer, Army Lt. William Calley, was court-martialed and convicted.

Soon after My Lai, the division commander, Maj. Gen. Samuel Koster, was given the prestigious command of the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. All criminal charges against Koster alleging a coverup of the massacre were dropped. Koster ultimately retired after receiving only a letter of censure and a reduction of one star.

Again, simply not true. As I posted elsewhere, the entire chain of command was relieved. Again, those charged and convicted (vice administratively punished through relief and GOMOR) were found guilty of actually commiting crimes such as abusive and indecent acts and engaging in conspiracy to cover it all up.

"Relieved of Duty" is NOT a PRISON SENTENCE Javelin, and the fact remains that anyone above the rank of Sgt. got a slap on the wrist and the "snuffies" got crapped on for in many cases doing far less.

Lt. Saville ordered his men to throw two Iraqi prisoners into the Tigris River resulting in the drowning death of one of them got 45 days confinement, a $12,000.00 fine, and was allowed to remain in the Army.

Captain Martin who physically assaulted prisoners, and even threatened one of his own men, AT GUN POINT, not to say anything got 45 days, a $12,000.00 fine, and was allowed to remain in the Army.

Captain Fulton got 6 months and was allowed to remain in the Army.

CPT Cunningham, MAJ Gwinner, Lt. Col. Sassaman got Article 15's, no criminal convictions, no time served, and they REMAINED IN THE ARMY!

Lt. Col. West, assaulted detainees, supervised the assault of detainees, discharged a firearm near the head of a detainee to scare him into talking was fined 1/2 months pay for 2 months and retired with full benefits.

Now, you tell me where the "Honor" in the Officer Corps is when the very men who not only ordered the abuses, but participated in them are tapped, very lightly, upon the wrist, but the EM's are literally thrown in prison for following the orders of those same said Officers, in a foreign country, in a combat zone, during a time of War (which, if they had refused could have resulted in them being SHOT)?

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 12:37 AM

If you posted that the midnight sky was pitch black on a moonless night, my first reaction would be to run outside and check for myself.

<Snip usual drivel>

wukong, either disprove what I have said, or sit and spin, but your continual horse-puckey has gone well beyond boring. The mere fact that you can't present anything other than Ad Hom attacks only serves to prove that you've got nothing, including credibility.

wukong

01-08-2009, 02:05 AM

Just post the sworn testimony. Allegations by news reporters (Washington Post?) and self serving news releases have no weight in a court of law. Perhaps you should watch the movie Shawshank Redemption. Everyone there was innocent.

The significant number of systemic failures documented in this report does not relieve COL Pappas of his responsibility as the Commander, 205th MI BDE for the abuses that occurred and went undetected for a considerable length of time.

No one is going to defend Pappas as to his failed responsibilities, however there is no evidence here of criminal actions on his part or criminal intent in his failures. If there are no actionable crimes, the only procedures left are administrative.

Faye, failed to properly inform him of his Article 31 Rights prior to questioning him How does this indicate Faye lied? Faye had a huge task at Abu Gharib. An error of not properly informing Article 31 rights does not mean that Faye made no attempt. The law will always give a criminal defendant the benefit of any doubt. Would you want it otherwise?

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 08:39 AM

Just post the sworn testimony.

I already told you, if you are going to question the veracity of what I've posted, it's up to YOU to refute it, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

No one is going to defend Pappas as to his failed responsibilities, however there is no evidence here of criminal actions on his part or criminal intent in his failures. If there are no actionable crimes, the only procedures left are administrative.

Horsehockey. The charges that SHOULD have gotten Pappas sent to Leavenworth had to be dismissed because Fay screwed up and failed to properly Article 31 Pappas prior to questioning him. Thrown out on a technicality is not innocent.

Faye, How does this indicate Faye lied? Faye had a huge task at Abu Gharib. An error of not properly informing Article 31 rights does not mean that Faye made no attempt. The law will always give a criminal defendant the benefit of any doubt. Would you want it otherwise?

Fay had previously testified that he HAD properly Article 31'd Pappas, but then recanted and admitted that he had not, that means he LIED, and should have, at a minimum, been charged with Perjury and Conduct Unbecoming, because his error resulted in a scumbag walking. Oh, and if your beloved Ossifer Corps is so infallible, perhaps you can explain how a General Officer, who is the lead investigator in a criminal investigation of this type can screw up reading someone their Article 31 Rights? It's not like it's hard to do, and the military even prints out these nifty neato cards for you to carry in your wallet in case you're suffering from CRS and can't remember the words.

wukong

01-08-2009, 09:47 AM

I already told you, if you are going to question the veracity of what I've posted, it's up to YOU to refute it, I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Just because you ALLEGE something leaves this reader somewhat doubtful of your veracity. You offer no sworn testimony as proof of your charges, no rebuttal of your unsupported allegations are due on my part. I have no interest in debating what God whispers to you in a swoon, what you read in the National Enquirer or what you believe.

You do seem to be of the opinion that failure on some part by a superior creates a license on the part of a subordinate which absolves a subordinate of all liability for abuses of authority that may have either been delegated or usurped.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 11:04 AM

Just because you ALLEGE something leaves this reader somewhat doubtful of your veracity. You offer no sworn testimony as proof of your charges, no rebuttal of your unsupported allegations are due on my part. I have no interest in debating what God whispers to you in a swoon.

So rather than rebutting, or even bothering to read the links I already provided, you're still content to sit back and drone your usual chant of "liar, liar, pants of fire". Frankly, from our dealings in the past, your estimation of me mean less than nothing, and your credibility on any issue we have discussed at all has left your credibility dangling precariously between slim and none.

You do seem to be of the opinion that failure on some part by a superior creates a license on the part of a subordinate which absolves a subordinate of all liability for abuses of authority that may have either been delegated or usurped.

And you seem to be of the opinion that if someone under your command, who follows what they believed to be a lawful order, preferably a low ranking enlisted man who isn't knowledgeable enough to contest the lawfulness of the order in the first place, can easily be thrown under the bus to cover up your crimes that it absolves you of your responsibility for your abuse of authority in issuing the unlawful order in the first place. Using your logic, following WWII the guards at the Concentration Camps should have been the ones imprisoned for long periods, if not executed, and the Officers and politicians who issued the orders in the first place would have enjoyed long and prosperous lives and careers.

"Taking one for the team" is one thing, but an Officer or SNCO who would intentionally screw over his subordinates because he's a worthless POS and too much of a gutless blunder to take responsibility for his own decisions and actions is something entirely different, and that is precisely and exactly what happened in the aftermath of Abu Grabass.

Billyd

01-08-2009, 12:19 PM

Javelin66

01-08-2009, 12:40 PM

Shooter, I see that you would rather avoid clearly articulating your position on this issue. That’s perfectly understandable. In fact, I would do the same if I was in your position, why set yourself up for ridicule.

I find it amusing that a person who a mere week ago was advocating a scorched earth policy in Iraq is now decrying the abuses of Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib. Where are you finding your sources? I have this mental picture of you surreptitiously reading ‘The Daily Kos’ or ‘Huffington Post’, then deleteing your 'history' file so no one will know.

As to Abu Ghraib, I assumed that since you posted the article that you also read it, which does not seem to be the case. COL Pappas was not present during the interrogation of the detainee brought in by SOF personnel and the OGA interrogator. He came in after the detainee was dead. His actions at that point are questionable to be sure, but he had nothing to do with the death. None of the witness statements from the investigation (to include CPT Reese’s self-serving statement) allege that Pappas was present when the detainee was brought in or when he was interrogated. In fact, there is no evidence that Pappas, Jordan, or anyone gave an order to comply with 'MI or OGA', or to do anything like what England, Frederick, and Graner did.

In other words, they were guilty of (and punished for) poor leadership.

In her self-serving statement, Lynddie England was mistakenly referring to SSG Frederick (supervisor of her then boyfriend and now baby-daddy SPC Graner) as her ‘commanding officer’, who ordered her to pose with the detainees for the now infamous photos. Ms England, who by the way was neither an MP guard nor an MI interrogator, was also featured in several other photos that were the basis for the adultery and indecent acts charges. Of all the people you have discussed in this thread, she is most deserving of the title ‘idiot’- she was ignorant of the army values, general orders, specific instructions, chain of command, and common human decency (not to mention common sense).

She, along with Frederick and Graner, were found guilty and sentenced to such long terms because they actually committed repeated abusive acts and engaged in a conspiracy to cover them up.

BTW, it was Jordan that got away on a technicality, not Pappas.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 12:59 PM

One of the things that I heard, don't recall sources, was that the soldiers that were entrusted with the care of the prisoners had little or no training in how to handle them. This tells me that either the CoC was negligent in assigning unqualified personnel to a task, or the CoC was negligent in not ensuring the required training was completed and kept up-to-date. I tend to lean towards the later as I understand that the personnel assigned were MP's. And since one of the duties that we expect of MP's MAA's, and SP's is that they know how to handle prisoners. And some manager somewhere falsified official records that stated that these troopers were fully trained and qualified to perform the duties assigned. Whether that manager was a SNCO or a Capt looking to make Major, matters not one bit to me.

I'm sorry to have to break this to you Billyd, but the former is in fact the case.

Background (http://www.supportmpscapegoats.com/background.html)

Background

As a Combat Support Unit, the 372nd MP Company was sent to Abu Ghraib to perform the mission of an EPW unit, many of which were doing Combat Support missions in Kuwait during the same time frame. We received none of the training that the DoD Directive 2310.1 (http://biotech.law.lsu.edu/blaw/dodd/corres/pdf2/d23101p.pdf) says that the Secretary of the Army shall ensure that we receive before we were sent to a war-time situation.

We were not given any training except that we were told many times that Military Intelligence (MI) was in charge of Tier 1, and that MI would say how things would be run. From the very first day they were there, and the previous Military Police (MP) unit was still running the Tier, some detainees were in their cells naked and some were wearing female underwear. Again, we were told that this was an MI tactic for breaking detainees.

As far as following lower ranking MI soldiers, the MI soldier did not wear their tops and so we did not know what rank they were. Even when they did where their tops, they did not wear their rank (http://www.supportmpscapegoats.com/files/DSC00117.JPG). There are lots of young looking Captains, Majors, Staff Sergeants, Sergeants First Class, so it would be impossible to tell just by looking at someone what their rank was. The prosecution said we should have automatically known by looking that not all of the interrogators were higher ranking, but it didn’t matter anyway, They were in charge.

Their detainees, Their rules, Their tactics, Their techniques, our help.

SSG Frederick and CPL Graner sought confirmation about who was in charge from many sources including CPT Brinson, the Officer in Charge of the Hard Site that housed Tier 1; CPT Reese, the MP Company Commander; 1LT Raeder, the 3rd PLT MP Leader, COL Phillabaum, the MP Battalion Commander; COL Pappas, the Abu Ghraib Forward Operating Base Commander and 205th MI Brigade Commander; LT Col Jordan, the Joint Intelligence and Debriefing Center (JIDC) Commander; CPT Wood, the 519th MI Commander and 2nd in Command of the JIDC, and various others. In the investigation of the detainee abuse that lead to 2 detainee deaths, CID recommended that CPT Wood be charged with Maltreatment, False Statements, and Conspiracy, which has not happened in over 3 years since the deaths. CPT Wood wrote the list of unauthorized interrogation techniques that were brought and used at Abu Ghraib with the help of MP’s.

The responses were always the same, “Do what MI tells you to do,” and “MI is in charge”.

Javelin66

01-08-2009, 01:22 PM

PhilK

01-08-2009, 01:29 PM

To try and bring us back on topic of officers being leaders or managers, from my time in uniform (1985 to 2005), I served under a number of officers that were indeed managers and were more concerned with how an action made them look rather than whether it was right or wrong. I also served with a small number of officers that I would have followed to the very gates of Hell because I knew that he/she would do everything in their power to make sure that we would make it home. There were also SNCOs that same way. From a First Sergeant at a deployed location that was obviously looking to make SMSgt to a MSgt at home station who didn't care if he made SMSgt as long as his people were taken care of.

Most people who have served any significant amount of time in uniform would have seen exactly what you have seen Billy.

One thing that springs to mind is, what makes an Officer or NCO think of themselves as a Manager or as a Leader? If you ask some Officers or NCOs they will flat out tell you that they are managers first and might consider themselves leaders. While others will tell you straight out that they are leaders.

I know in the Infantry community from the day you arrive at Ft. Benning to the day you leave the Army you are told that you are a leader. Not just any kind of leader, but a combat leader. The lives of those men in your Platoon are your responsibilty. While the Platoon Sergeant helps you keep them fed, clothed, armed and trained, when the shit hits the fan and you are engaging the enemy, you are the one who needs to have situational awareness and know the best course of action to keep them alive.

That is the mentality that you will find in most Infantry officers and NCOs. As the Platoon Leader and Platoon Sergeant you are to set the example and ensure that you are doing what is necessary to keep those Soldiers alive during battle.

As you move up, the same thought process continues except your scope beings to increase. As a Platoon Leader you have around 30 Soldiers, as a Company Commander around 100, as a Battalion Commander around 500.

All the while the same thoughts are rattling around, "Am I doing everything I need to do so that these Soldiers have the greatest chance of success in combat?"

When a unit is told to take a hill, we have to come up with the best plan possible, and even with all the artillery support, air support, and even armored support, that hill is not taken until the Infantry hold the ground. That means no matter what, Soldiers lives will be at risk. Soldiers that we have trained with, gotten to know and seen develop into the future leaders of the Army will be risking their lives based on the orders that we give.

Maybe this whole thing comes down to a culture difference, but unless an officer or NCO comes to terms with the fact those serving under them are their responsibilty and that the only important thing is for them to get home to see their families and live.

Some officers and NCOs do not understand this because they have never been placed in that position. They have never been expected to lead anyone anywhere.

Just some random thoughts I had this morning on this topic.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 01:49 PM

Shooter, I see that you would rather avoid clearly articulating your position on this issue. That’s perfectly understandable. In fact, I would do the same if I was in your position, why set yourself up for ridicule.

Javelin, failure of comprehension on your part is not a failure of articulation on mine. Also, the only ones who have opened themselves up for ridicule are you and wukong, because you two obviously have no comprehension of what Honor really means.

Perhaps the words of a West Point graduate who served with the 82nd Airborne in Iraq, at that very time, will solidify in your mind what I've been trying to say;

On Failure of the Officer Corps (http://74.6.239.67/search/cache?ei=UTF-8&p=%22Human+Rights+Watch%22and%22Volume+17%22&fr=slv8-&u=www.oldamericancentury.org/us0905.pdf&w=%22human+rights+watch%22+%22volume+17%22&d=MIufakfiSFpz&icp=1&.intl=us)

It’s unjust to hold only lower-ranking soldiers accountable for something that is so clearly, at a minimum, an officer corps problem, and probably a combination with the executive branch of government.

It’s almost infuriating to me. It is infuriating to me that officers are not lined up to accept responsibility for what happened. It blows my mind that officers are not. It should’ve started with the chain of command at Abu Ghraib and anybody else that witnessed anything that violated the Geneva Conventions or anything that could be questionable should’ve been standing up saying, “This is what happened. This is why I allowed it to happen. This is my responsibility,” for the reasons I mentioned before. That’s basic officership, that’s what you learn at West Point, that’s what you should learn at any commissioning source.

That’s basic Army leadership. If you fail to enforce something, that’s the new standard. So I guess what I’m getting at is the Army officers have overarching responsibility for this. Not privates, not the Sergeant Jones, not Sergeant Smith. The Army officer corps has responsibility for this. And it boggles my mind that there aren’t officers standing up saying, “That’s my fault and here’s why.” That’s basic army leadership.

I guess you were on sick call the day that taught that at whatever Commissioning institution you graduated from.

As to Abu Ghraib, I assumed that since you posted the article that you also read it, which does not seem to be the case. COL Pappas was not present during the interrogation of the detainee brought in by SOF personnel and the OGA interrogator. He came in after the detainee was dead. His actions at that point are questionable to be sure, but he had nothing to do with the death. None of the witness statements from the investigation (to include CPT Reese’s self-serving statement) allege that Pappas was present when the detainee was brought in or when he was interrogated. In fact, there is no evidence that Pappas, Jordan, or anyone gave an order to comply with 'MI or OGA', or to do anything like what England, Frederick, and Graner did.

You read, yet you fail to comprehend. If Col. Pappas wasn't involved, and had nothing to do with it, then why would he say "I'm not going down for this alone"? Why would he not say "YOU PEOPLE ARE UNDER APPREHENSION" and read them their Article 31 Rights, right then and there, on the spot? The only logical conclusion is that he WAS involved, and he was actively trying to COVER HIS ASS. His statement became a self fulfilling prophesy when he turning "states evidence" against one of his own Officers in exchange for a lesser sentence. Not only did he not go down alone, he abdicated his duty as an Officer to accept full and complete responsibility for the actions of everyone under his Command.

In other words, they were guilty of (and punished for) poor leadership.

No, they are guilty of MURDERING a prisoner (among other things), but were only CHARGED with what you call "poor leadership". I suppose you think that what happened at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Ravensbrook, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen, was nothing but "poor leadership" too?

In her self-serving statement, Lynddie England was mistakenly referring to SSG Frederick (supervisor of her then boyfriend and now baby-daddy SPC Graner) as her ‘commanding officer’, who ordered her to pose with the detainees for the now infamous photos. Ms England, who by the way was neither an MP guard nor an MI interrogator, was also featured in several other photos that were the basis for the adultery and indecent acts charges. Of all the people you have discussed in this thread, she is most deserving of the title ‘idiot’- she was ignorant of the army values, general orders, specific instructions, chain of command, and common human decency (not to mention common sense).

Oh, so it's your contention that an NCO is not authorized to "command" a PFC? Damn, I guess a lot has changed in the 25 years since I got out. As to your assertion that she was an "idiot", and ignorant of everything you mentioned, I have no issue, but that's not really the issue now is it? In fact, it's nothing but another lame attempt at a Red Herring. The REAL issue is that she, and everyone else up and down the line was ORDERED to do what they did, and they followed their orders, because to do less in a combat zone can get you SHOT (or has that changed too?), but once the feces struck the rotary oscillator, the "O's" closed ranks and threw anyone they could to the wolves so that they wouldn't have to accept responsibility for their own actions. The other REAL issue here is the very "Army Values" you talk about so much. Is it not "Army Values" for those in Command to take FULL responsibility for their actions? According to the West Point Officer I quoted earlier, it's supposed to be, but from reading all of your equivocations, obfuscations, and sophistry it would appear that "Army Values" is something that you can use like a condom, just put it on when you HAVE to, and then discard it when you've gotten what you want.

She, along with Frederick and Graner, were found guilty and sentenced to such long terms because they actually committed repeated abusive acts and engaged in a conspiracy to cover them up.

The only "conspiracy" to cover anything up that I'm seeing is on the part of the Officers. Deal with it.

BTW, it was Jordan that got away on a technicality, not Pappas.

Charges against Pappas were thrown out because he was not properly informed of his Article 31 Rights, and was therefore not charged with the most serious crimes, meaning he got off on a technicality.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 02:06 PM

Don't get used to this Shooter, because you are almost exactly right.

You are spot on with regard to the training and assignment of the unit to the mission. If you read the Taguba report, it is a detailed description of why leadership is critical to mission success. At every level, from the brigade commander down to the shift NCOICs, the unit failed establish, train, and maintain standards. You had troops that were in no way trained, resourced, or otherwise enabled to perform their mission.

Ms Karpinski (she started as BG, made her way to COL, and is now a civilian) was described as overly emotional, evasive, and completely unwilling to acknowledge any role in the events. Her failure to lead began when the unit got the mission. She was aware of signifigant shortfalls in manning, training, equipment, and facilities, not to mention major issues with her subordinate commanders and the overall morale of the unit. She should have fallen on her sword then, refusing to accept the mission unless and until these were corrected. Her failure to do so created the conditions, and her failure to act as things got worse exacerbated them. Specifically, her handling of Phillabaum's 'relef' led directly to the confusion over who was in charge of the detention facility vice the FOB. She actually appointed another BC to be in charge of two battalions at once while Phillabaum took two weeks off (before he was finally relieved)

The catalyst, however, were the leadership failures at the CO/BN level. The company commanders and First Sergeants should have been down in the holding areas every day (and night), seeing what was going on. The Battalion Commander and his staff should have been inspecting, demanding documentation, and investigating every issue and allegation. Even if they were untrained in corrections, their knowledge of the Code of Conduct, Geneva Convention, ROE, and the task organization should have ended the abuse early.

Thank you Javelin, now we're making some headway. Given what you've just written, do you not feel that is is therefore the ultimate responsibility of ALL of the Officers, all the way up and down the line, to have accepted FULL responsibility for their actions, and to have protected their Soldiers who were doing their Duty by following what they had no reason to believe were anything other than "Lawful Orders"? Do you not agree that any Officer who is complicit in the death of a prisoner under his control, or in any way attempted, even by an act of omission, to conceal the facts of that death, should have been charged with, at a minimum Negligent Homicide, Accessory, or any other appropriate charges under the UCMJ for that offense? Also, given the fact that you now acknowledge that the Soldiers in question were completely failed by their Command structure in that they never received any training for their mission that this should, at a minimum, provide sufficient mitigation to alleviate them of most of the responsibility for their actions?

Javelin66

01-08-2009, 02:17 PM

Why would he not say "YOU PEOPLE ARE UNDER APPREHENSION" and read them their Article 31 Rights, right then and there, on the spot?

I have no clue. I also see no proof that he was present or in any way involved in the interrogation or the beating. In fact, it is fairly clear from the reports (not the ones you read over at 'hateamericafirst.com'), that the OGA interrogator and his 'terp and/or the SEALs are responsible for the prisoner's death.

The only logical conclusion is that he WAS involved, and he was actively trying to COVER HIS ASS.

Uh, that is neither the only conclusion nor a logical one.

I suppose you think that what happened at Auschwitz, Birkenau, Ravensbrook, Bergen-Belsen, Buchenwald, and Sachsenhausen, was nothing but "poor leadership" too?

What were you saying about 'Red Herrings'?

Oh, so it's your contention that an NCO is not authorized to "command" a PFC?

Are you contending that Frederick was the commanding officer that England was referring to in her statement? If so, you are correct (that makes twice in one day, it must be a record for you!). In other words, England, in an attempt to use the Nuremburg defense, claimed that her 'commander', in the form of SSG Frederick, ordered her to pose with the detainees.

And no, NCOs do not command in the strict sense of the terms, and did not even when you were in. They issue orders (or commands) under the authority of the officer appointed over them. The subordinate is bound to obey unless the orders are ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL (as these were).

I have to say that it sickens me to be defending any of these guys. I do not approve of their actions before during or after the events, and I think that all of the officers involved should have been brought to court-martial, from Karpinski on down to the PLs and CPTs who witnessed crimes and said nothing.

Billyd

01-08-2009, 03:54 PM

Most people who have served any significant amount of time in uniform would have seen exactly what you have seen Billy.

One thing that springs to mind is, what makes an Officer or NCO think of themselves as a Manager or as a Leader? If you ask some Officers or NCOs they will flat out tell you that they are managers first and might consider themselves leaders. While others will tell you straight out that they are leaders.

<snip>

Maybe this whole thing comes down to a culture difference, but unless an officer or NCO comes to terms with the fact those serving under them are their responsibilty and that the only important thing is for them to get home to see their families and live.

Some officers and NCOs do not understand this because they have never been placed in that position. They have never been expected to lead anyone anywhere.

Just some random thoughts I had this morning on this topic.

The difference, IMNSHO, is that we train our subordinates how to manage their resources, yet we fail to show them how to be leaders.

I don't think that you can "train" someone to be a leader, they have to be shown and I absolutely believe that they have to have some basic instinct in what it means to be a leader.

In the various PME courses the the AF saw fit to send me to, one of the things that was talked about was the difference between the formal and informal leaders. The formal leaders have the mantle of leadership thrust upon them by virtue of their rank whether they are ready or not. The informal leaders are those that take up said mantle, not because they want to, but because they have answered the question "if not me, who?"

Combat arms aside, the various Officers and NCOs that have never been thrust into a situation where leadership was required of them are now finding themselves dropped unceremoniously into a combat zone and now have found themselves having to learn how to be a leader without the benefit of a mentor to show them how. Since the young Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor that drives the water truck is now in the front line and not in the rear as in other conflicts, the Officers and NCOs of these support units need some of the training that the Combat Arms folks are receiving in how to take care of their people. How to help them come home in one piece.

Just the rantings of an old NCO

PhilK

01-08-2009, 04:20 PM

Combat arms aside, the various Officers and NCOs that have never been thrust into a situation where leadership was required of them are now finding themselves dropped unceremoniously into a combat zone and now have found themselves having to learn how to be a leader without the benefit of a mentor to show them how. Since the young Soldier, Marine, Airman, and Sailor that drives the water truck is now in the front line and not in the rear as in other conflicts, the Officers and NCOs of these support units need some of the training that the Combat Arms folks are receiving in how to take care of their people. How to help them come home in one piece.

Just the rantings of an old NCO

And that is one of the driving forces behind the new Officer Education System courses.

There is now a pre-Officer Basic Course course that focuses on Infantry tasks and basic functions. Then you go on to your branch specific course.

So instead of just going to learn how to be a Finance Officer, you go and learn some fieldcraft and the "little" things that might keep you alive in a combat zone.

You are absolutely correct that those officers and NCOs who used to usually find themselves in the rear areas now discover...there are no rear areas.

A very close buddy of mine who is a Transportation Officer ended up driving into an ambush zone to rescue vehicles that had been ambushed shortly before he got there. I don't think they taught that at the Transpo School, but he knew enough to laid down heavy suppressive fire and extract the Soldiers from the other vehicles. (And call in the local QRF)

I also agree with your point that leadership is something from within and can not be taught. When I was a Cadet, part of the Cadet Creed said:

enhancing my skills in the science of warfare and the art of leadership

It was taught to us while warfare is a science and you can learn the ins and outs of it, leadership was an art and there had to be some latent talent there to begin with.

We were always told we were evaluated on our leadership potential, and there were those that did not make it because the instructors did not see that potential. The same thing during my Officer Basic Course, I had class mates either re-cycled or shipped home due to a lack of leadership seen by the cadre.

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 05:26 PM

I have no clue. I also see no proof that he was present or in any way involved in the interrogation or the beating. In fact, it is fairly clear from the reports (not the ones you read over at 'hateamericafirst.com'), that the OGA interrogator and his 'terp and/or the SEALs are responsible for the prisoner's death.
So you're calling Capt. Reese a liar?
Uh, that is neither the only conclusion nor a logical one.
So you routinely say "I'm not going down for this alone" when you discover that one of your troops has screwed up? Well, isn't that special.
What were you saying about 'Red Herrings'?
Using an example of your own argument as an illustration is not a "Red Herring" Javelin.
Are you contending that Frederick was the commanding officer that England was referring to in her statement? If so, you are correct (that makes twice in one day, it must be a record for you!). In other words, England, in an attempt to use the Nuremburg defense, claimed that her 'commander', in the form of SSG Frederick, ordered her to pose with the detainees.
I'm telling you what she said, and what was corroberated by other witnesses.
And no, NCOs do not command in the strict sense of the terms, and did not even when you were in. They issue orders (or commands) under the authority of the officer appointed over them. The subordinate is bound to obey unless the orders are ILLEGAL OR IMMORAL (as these were).
And as you already noted, the Soldiers had no way of knowing that they were illegal because they had received NO TRAINING.
I have to say that it sickens me to be defending any of these guys.
THEN STOP!
I do not approve of their actions before during or after the events, and I think that all of the officers involved should have been brought to court-martial, from Karpinski on down to the PLs and CPTs who witnessed crimes and said nothing.
Then we agree, because that's all I've been saying ALL ALONG. It goes further than simply saying nothing, it goes to the fact that they ordered their men to engage in those activities, and in some cases participated themselves. The fact that the Army failed to charge and try them for actions that took place under their direct commands, and at their own hands, merely because they are Officers, but had no problem throwing the EM under the bus is a pattern that has been happened for decades, and is the biggest black eye on the Officer Corps.

SlightlyCatholic

01-08-2009, 06:05 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 06:25 PM

Shooter, as an observer of this thread, I fail to see what your central point is in relation to the topic of "the officer as a leader". Are you trying to say through your discussion in this thread that you believe officers (as a rule) are generally not leaders? I'm just trying to get a grasp of your point, because a lot of what you have posted seems to be charged with a high level of emotion and I think your points have become a bit blurred to those who are looking at this thread objectively.

Central to the main topic of this thread, no, most Officers are NOT "Leaders", at least by my definition, they are managers. That's not necessarily a "bad thing" especially considering that the vast majority of jobs in the military really don't require "Leadership" in the classic sense, but they all require some degree of management. Where the problem comes in is when these managers are placed in positions of authority where leadership is needed, and they fail most egregiously.

This is not a "new" problem by any stretch, as I pointed out a while back, it always happens when there's been a long stretch of time between "shooting wars", because the leadership slots that are at the pointy end of the spear get filled by managers because a lot of really great military leaders make really lousy managers, and therefore aren't promoted with their "peers", and end up being put out of the military.

Javelin66

01-08-2009, 08:34 PM

03_SHOOTER

01-08-2009, 09:55 PM

Shooter, CPT Reese was relieved and recommended for disciplinary action on the strength of the Tagub report, and had every reason to implicate others in the crimes to diminish his own role. However, I have no proof that he was lying, just as you have no proof that Pappas was present during the interrogation or the beatings that led to the prisoners death. His statement is about events that take place after the prisoner was dead because he came on the scene after the fact. Could you show me the part of any statement that indicates that COL Pappas was physically present during the interrogation and beating death of any prisoner?
You still haven't answered the question Javelin, are you, or are you not calling Capt. Reese a liar? Since you've missed it, you've gotten yourself caught in a catch 22, because either way, one of the Officers is a dog raping, dishonorable lying sack of feces. If Capt. Reese is telling the truth, then Pappas lied, and if Reese lied, then again, one of your Officers lied. Also, no matter which way it goes, at least one of them sold out his men to protect himself, which is hardly consistent with "Army values" and the "honorable" conduct of an Officer, so it really doesn't matter does it?

Unless you can prove otherwise, and since counsel didn't object during the trial, at least sufficiently enough to have it stricken from the record, Col. Pappas did in fact say "I'm not going down for this alone", which is an admission of some criminal activity on his part, because why else would he believe he even could "go down for this" in the first place? It's what is called a "tacit admission".

Your arguments are a red herring because they are not logical in this context- you are attempting to compare the highly organized camps built and organized to implement the systematic murder of millions of civilians to the beating deaths of a detained terrorist.

Ah, so you see some difference worth arguing over about whether the camps were purpose built for torturing and killing people, or if someone chose to use an existing facility for that same purpose and improvised? ARE YOU NUTS??? Are you really going to sit there and attempt to equivocate like that?

BTW, you really over- and mis-use this term

Hardly when you're consistently attempting to obfuscate and draw the discussion into all manner of different directions instead of staying focused on the primary topic, LEADERSHIP, and the complete breakdown of it at Abu Grabass.

Finally, I will stop defending these clowns.

Great, but the real question is; will you condemn them as I do, or are you going to remain silent like the Command structure did?

Look, it's obvious to everyone that you don't particularly care for this discussion, probably because you feel some reflexive guilt because you are an Officer in the Army, and this incident was a huge black eye, not only on the Army, but on the entire Officer Corps, but if we can't openly and more importantly HONESTLY discuss the total and complete breakdown of the LEADERSHIP involved, at every level, from the Squad to the Pentagon, then how are the young people coming up going to learn what to, and more importantly what NOT to do? Have you ever heard of "Scared Straight"? It was a program where young people were taken to a prison where they actually interacted with the inmates to SHOW them what would happen to them if the messed up. Philosophical discussions, sitting around in a classroom during Boot or in an ROTC classroom are all well and good, but when there is a glaring real life example that can be used to demonstrate what NOT to do, EVER, it's better to use it, because it'll get the message across Lima Charlie.

wukong

01-08-2009, 11:32 PM

Unless you can prove otherwise, and since counsel didn't object during the trial, at least sufficiently enough to have it stricken from the record, Col. Pappas did in fact say "I'm not going down for this alone", which is an admission of some criminal activity on his part, because why else would he believe he even could "go down for this" in the first place? It's what is called a "tacit admission".

You need to get off the coolade. This statement can be interpreted in many ways. It would only be a "criminal" admission if there was proof that Pappas "intended" for prisoners to be killed. I would interpret the statement as an epiphany that he had a serious problem at Abu Gharib and that he and others were responsible and would be held accountable.

As far as Reese and Pappas. Any trained investigator will tell you that if you get 4 people witnessing an emotional or traumatic event, if interviewed separately you will get 4 differing versions of the event. This does not necessarily mean that 3 are "liars."

HairyEyeball

01-09-2009, 01:32 AM

03_SHOOTER

01-09-2009, 06:55 AM

You need to get off the coolade. This statement can be interpreted in many ways. It would only be a "criminal" admission if there was proof that Pappas "intended" for prisoners to be killed. I would interpret the statement as an epiphany that he had a serious problem at Abu Gharib and that he and others were responsible and would be held accountable.
Oh, I know you would wukong, but you interpret the First Amendment to mean that the government CAN tell people what they can and cannot say too, so I guess we all know what your interpretive skills are worth.

As far as Reese and Pappas. Any trained investigator will tell you that if you get 4 people witnessing an emotional or traumatic event, if interviewed separately you will get 4 differing versions of the event. This does not necessarily mean that 3 are "liars."
I'm well aware of that, as I went through that very course of instruction at Lackland AFB, thank you very much. I'm also aware that someone saying "I'm not going down for this alone", instead of "You're under apprehension" is tacit admission of guilt. They also covered that in the same course.

03_SHOOTER

01-09-2009, 08:43 AM

"Scared Straight" is a poor example, 03: Follow-up studies done on the 'at risk' kids in the program demonstrated that any effect it had was transitory, over 80% of them wound up 'in the system', having gone back to or continued the criminal behavior that 'qualified' them for it.
I was unaware of that Hairy. All I know is the kids that went through it when I was in school "saw the error of their ways" and did everything they could to straighten out. Might have something to do with the conditions of the prisons they were sent to, but then again, the State of Alabama prison system has never been known as "vacation destination", especially on the prison farms.

The most significant point you make is one that should have come out six pages earlier in the discussion, were it confined to 'leadership' in the military, vice 'management': During extended periods in which we are not involved in a major conflict, 'bean counters' tend to rise to command positions while combat leaders are either passed over or 'put out to pasture' because the nature of the job itself has changed.
I didn't realize until then that stating what I considered to be the 800lb Gorilla in the room was even necessary, otherwise I would have done so much earlier. I suppose that being on the outside looking in allows some a perspective that those on the inside looking out are blind to, or as the saying goes "they can't see the forest for the trees".

This is not to say that when the situation warrants, 'managers' cannot display leadership qualities that went unnoticed and undeveloped - the question of whether 'a man makes history or history makes the man' - brought out by the peculiar circumstances; but the fact is that in 'peacetime', those qualities that make a good 'leader' - an officer or NCO that troops will follow, as the expression goes, to storm the gates of hell - just serve to upset the feather merchants who pay his salary, and when war breaks out...

Not being a member of the current iteration of the military I won't pontificate on the veracity of another point you bring up, but even in my day, many of the positions - again, both in the commissioned and NCO ranks - did, in fact, require more 'management' skills than 'leadership' ones - but the most 'effective' individuals, those whose shops and units had the highest aircraft readiness, the fastest repair times, the fewest 'medical' absences from duty, were those who demonstrated 'leadership'...of course, that was in wartime.

As we have discussed previously, and using my own experience as an example, in the "bad old days" of SAC, excellence in everything was the norm because to do less could most assuredly get you, and a whole lot of other people killed. Since the end of the Cold War it is apparant that the general belief that standing nuclear watch isn't really as necessary as it once was has obviously allowed a spate of managers and bean counters to move into the highest positions of authority, as the recent very public screw-ups on the part of the Air Force have demonstrated. Given the facts of the very public incident at Abu Grabass, it's also very apparent that the same malaise, and shift of priorities has infested the Army, and I'm sure it also affected the Navy and Marine Corps, to one extent or another as well.

The leadership sets the standards, so when you have "nail biters and bullet spitters" in those leadership positions the important things, as well as the minutia, tend to be treated accordingly, but when you have managers in those leadership positions, the minutia is given precedence and the truly important things tend to be ignored which is, I'm sure, the origin of the old saying; "no combat ready unit ever passed inspection, and no inspection ready unit ever passed combat." Given the fact that we now have over 7 years of a "shooting war" under our belts, I have no doubt that the young Officers who are currently occupying Company and lower grade Field grade slots, if they are allowed to advance into the Flag positions in the coming years, will once again bring the military back to a proper sense of it's priorities where Leaders are in charge and managers and bean counters are relegated to positions consummate with their natural talents. If they aren't, because their priorities are deemed to be "no longer necessary", then we will rapidly degenerate to the level of incompetence we experienced in the years leading up to WWI, WWII, Vietnam, and GWOT. One can only wonder how many more times this lesson is going to have to be "learned" before those inside the halls of power, in the Congress, the White House, and in the Pentagon finally get the message.

Javelin66

01-09-2009, 10:32 PM

Shooter, I have consistently condemned the entire chain of command at Abu Ghraib. Just have you have consistently dishonored the character and service of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

I missed it in your last few rants (there were so many of them, and they were so long). Reese came upon the scene, saw the body, and heard Pappas say 'I won't go down for this alone', or words to that effect. How does this prove that Pappas was directly involved in the prisoner's death?

Javelin66

01-09-2009, 10:35 PM

After doing some research, I found a few of the managers to which Shooter refers and insists on demeaning:

MARM, WALTER JOSEPH, JR.

Rank and organization: First Lieutenant (then 2d Lt.), U.S. Army, Company A, 1st Battalion, 7th Cavalry, 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile). place and date: Vicinity of la Drang Valley, Republic of Vietnam, 14 November 1965. Entered service at: pittsburgh, pa. Born: 20 November 1941, Washington, pa. G.O. No.: 7, 15 February 1967. Citation: For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of life above and beyond the call of duty. As a platoon leader in the 1st Cavalry Division (Airmobile), 1st Lt. Marm demonstrated indomitable courage during a combat operation. His company was moving through the valley to relieve a friendly unit surrounded by an enemy force of estimated regimental size. 1st Lt. Marm led his platoon through withering fire until they were finally forced to take cover. Realizing that his platoon could not hold very long, and seeing four enemy soldiers moving into his position, he moved quickly under heavy fire and annihilated all 4. Then, seeing that his platoon was receiving intense fire from a concealed machine gun, he deliberately exposed himself to draw its fire. Thus locating its position, he attempted to destroy it with an antitank weapon. Although he inflicted casualties, the weapon did not silence the enemy fire. Quickly, disregarding the intense fire directed on him and his platoon, he charged 30 meters across open ground, and hurled grenades into the enemy position, killing some of the 8 insurgents manning it. Although severely wounded, when his grenades were expended, armed with only a rifle, he continued the momentum of his assault on the position and killed the remainder of the enemy. 1st Lt. Marm's selfless actions reduced the fire on his platoon, broke the enemy assault, and rallied his unit to continue toward the accomplishment of this mission. 1st Lt. Marm's gallantry on the battlefield and his extraordinary intrepidity at the risk of his life are in the highest traditions of the U.S. Army and reflect great credit upon himself and the Armed Forces of his country.

03_SHOOTER

01-10-2009, 12:08 AM

Shooter, I have consistently condemned the entire chain of command at Abu Ghraib.

Well I obviously missed that one because it's read suspiciously like you've been doing nothing but equivocating for them.

Just have you have consistently dishonored the character and service of some of America's finest sons and daughters.

And that would be a gross misinterpretation on your part. If there is any dishonor to be had, they have done that to themselves, if they have not, then my commentary was obviously not directed at them.

I missed it in your last few rants (there were so many of them, and they were so long). Reese came upon the scene, saw the body, and heard Pappas say 'I won't go down for this alone', or words to that effect. How does this prove that Pappas was directly involved in the prisoner's death?

It's called criminal culpability Javelin. If Pappas was anywhere NEAR the incident, and did merely walk in after the fact, and didn't IMMEDIATELY place everyone in the room under apprehension, then he is at a bare minimum chargeable under Article 92, Article 133, and Article 134-35. The fact that he did not immediately placing everyone in the room under apprehension, and instead said "I'm not going down for this alone" is a willful and spontaneous tacit admission of some wrongdoing on his part, whether it be actively participating in the death of the prisoner, or at a minimum of intending to conceal the nature of the prisoners death, both of which are punishable under many articles of the UCMJ. The facts borne out during the trial, as sworn to under Oath by Capt. Reese are that no medics were ever called to the shower room to attend to the EPW, that Lt. Col. Jordan sent someone to the mess facility to get ice to preserve the body overnight, and that the EPW in question had an IV administered AFTER his death (which the autopsy determined) in an attempt to indicate that he had received medical attention, all of which are consistent with an intention to conceal the nature of the homicide.

So, supposing for a moment that Lt. Pappas was not physically in the room when the EPW died, at a MINIMUM he should have immediately placed everyone in the room under apprehension for violations of Articles 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 90, 92, 119, 133, 134-25, 134-34, 134-35, 134-39, 134-42, 134-48, and 134-53, but since he did not, he placed himself in violation of those same Articles. If it later came to light that he had in fact been in the room when the incident happened, I'd have also have him charged under Articles 93, 118, and 134-4.

So you see, it really doesn't matter if he actively engaged in the homicide or not, the fact that he did not immediately take action against those who did makes him culpable in the death of the EPW, and the only thing that changes if he was present, whether he participated or not are 3 other charges, and they don't really matter that much under the circumstances since you can only be hung once.

03_SHOOTER

01-10-2009, 12:34 AM

After doing some research, I found a few of the managers to which Shooter refers and insists on demeaning

And still with the Red Herrings. Have you become so target fixated that you're incapable of acknowledging that it is YOU who is attempting to saddle me with something I never said, or are you simply as dense as lead? You might want to regain your situational awareness before you fly into the ground. I have NEVER demeaned ANY Officer, by name, who was not involved in the incident at Abu Grabass, and otherwise restricted myself to conceptual references which renders the entire point of your post into nothing but a vain attempt to call into question my credibility because you cannot accept ANY well deserved negative criticism of the obvious and egregious failures of certain named members of your beloved Officer Corps. Well Sir, it's time you learned how to build a bridge so that you can GET OVER IT!

I have never had any problem heaping admiration and respect upon those who are deserving of it, just as I have never had any problem pointing out their failures, and if you can't deal with it, then that's YOUR problem. The entire purpose of this discussion is to draw a very distinct line of demarcation between an Officer who is a LEADER, and the ones who are unworthy of that distinction. I believe I have clearly elucidated examples of the latter, including very clearly defining exactly what their failures were, and why they should never be repeated so that any potential Officer who reads these words will get a crystal clear example of what NOT to do, and what NOT to be.

HairyEyeball

01-10-2009, 01:35 AM

While this discussion is, at the least, 'enlightening', it misses the point: Even rogue officers who commit, and order the commission of felonies may well be 'leaders' if their troops hold them in high enough regard, and have developed a personal loyalty to them to unquestioningly follow them and their orders. They are, by definition, 'leaders' - not 'managers' - whatever direction they turn their talents to, and the question was one of 'leadership', not 'bad officers' v 'good officers'.

Perhaps we should consider this segment of the discussion played out, and turn our attention to some of the personal characteristics that mark an individual as a 'leader', as opposed to a 'manager' or 'place holder'?

FeelinFroggy

01-10-2009, 02:02 AM

Perhaps we should consider this segment of the discussion played out, and turn our attention to some of the personal characteristics that mark an individual as a 'leader', as opposed to a 'manager' or 'place holder'?

“If your actions inspire others to dream more, learn more, do more and become more, you are a leader.”

-John Q. Adams

This quote pretty much sums up my opinion on what a leader is. I've had the privilege of following some great leaders who were in fact Officers. Officers that went through the same Hell as I did and can relate to me personally. To me, if you're cut from the same cloth as the men who are under you then you'll have a better chance of gaining their respect. Just my opinion.

SlightlyCatholic

01-10-2009, 12:27 PM

This quote pretty much sums up my opinion on what a leader is. I've had the privilege of following some great leaders who were in fact Officers. Officers that went through the same Hell as I did and can relate to me personally. To me, if you're cut from the same cloth as the men who are under you then you'll have a better chance of gaining their respect. Just my opinion.

What happens when you can't be cut from the same cloth? How is a college graduate and newly commissioned officer from OCS supposed to gain the respect of the men under him? I understand what you're saying, Froggy, but unless you're prior enlisted or went to BUD/S with your subordinates, being cut from the same cloth is fairly difficult. Just an opinion...

wukong

01-10-2009, 02:32 PM

One factor consistently overlooked in this discussion is the fact that leaders and the lead (bold choice of words here wukong) do not exist individually in a vacuum but in a symbiotic relationship.

A example could be taken from the movie Twelve O'clock High, which I believe was fairly accurate in it's description of actual WWII events. Colonel Davenport was everything most people would list as an example of leadership. He lead from the front, was loyal to his men, very concerned with their welfare. His failure was not holding subordinates responsible for their failures and assuming personal responsibility for their failures.

A contrast would be Captain Sobel in episode one of Band of Brothers. Sobel is a less sympathetic character than Colonel Davenport. However Sobel was probably more responsible than any other officer or sergeant of Easy Company for their combat readiness before the jump into Normandy. Sobel, whatever the motivation as the story line was not favorable to him, made Easy Company a tightly bonded flexible fighting machine. Lt. Winters inherited this fully functional unit after its "Rite of Passage" in the drop zones of Normandy. I believe that we will all agree that Sobel was not the leader to take Easy Company into battle, but could anyone have done a better job of leading Easy in preparation for battle?

Most military people consider a good leader as one that issues mission type instructions or orders. This can only be done if the leader has faith that the lead will execute those orders in a spirit of good faith and the lead must be prepared to face consequences for their action under mission type instructions. Pappas failed not because his leadership style appears to be mission oriented, but because he failed to do the minutiae that is normally associated with "management."

If you desire a leader that "leads" from the front, then the lead must "manage" the rear. If you want a leader that issues mission type instructions, then the lead must be prepared to be "thrown under the bus" for their actions under mission type instructions.

Problems with nuclear command and control has been brought into this discussion as failure of leadership. The current problems are not of leadership but a clash of cultures within the Air Force. If anything the Strategic Air Command (SAC) was the most micromanaged of any unit in military history. SAC was governed by the Single Integrated Operations Plan (SIOP) which drove the most minute details of daily missions. In Tactical Air Command (TAC) the culture was totally different and demanded a war fighting culture of instant flexibility where details were of little consequence and more often than not a mission impediment.

When SAC was ripped apart, the nuclear strike forces were transfered to TAC which became the Air Combat Command (ACC). It was the "don't sweat the details" culture of TAC which has lead to the unacceptable actions within our nuclear forces. In other words nuclear forces need more "managers" and less mission type oriented "leaders."

I would not be too hasty in closing this thread. If we could get past the histronics, this could be a valuable discussion.

03_SHOOTER

01-10-2009, 09:13 PM

Very well thought out and written presentation wukong!

Your analysis of Col. Davenport as a caring and sympathetic character who was more concerned for his men than the mission is correct, which is why he was relieved of Command. General Savage on the other hand (the man who replaced him) is an example, to my mind, of a proper LEADER. His concern was the mission, and as a result he had no problem in sending his men on the missions or disciplining his men whenever necessary if they failed in that mission, but at the same time, when he took Command and realized that he had a "sub-standard" unit, he didn't waste his men by sending them on missions unprepared, instead he trained them until they were in fact ready for those missions.

You are also primarily correct about SAC in that there was essentially a checklist for everything, down to the smallest detail, but that "attention to detail" is what made it such an effective operation. Where I disagree with you is in your analysis of "leader" v "manager" in that environment as my first Commander was a very effective Leader, while my second was a "manager".

To expound on that, Major (later Lt. Col.) "S", my first Commander was, as I said, an outstanding Leader whose primary focus was the mission, but he also made sure to take care of the men under his Command. For example, during my first 2 years, we maxed out every evaluation and inspection and won Best In SAC (SP unit) 2 years in a row, and as a reward for our hard work and dedication, he instituted a plan where every man in the unit, from the XO down to the fresh faced AB who had just gotten there, received an additional 6 days time off as Earned Free Days (EFD's), and the Flight Chiefs and Duty Officers were instructed to provide these EFD's, as much as possible, and as manning allowed, in concert with our normal duty schedule which meant if you worked Aircraft Flight, you could take an entire 6 day shift off, in combination with your 3 days off on either end, and you'd have 12 days off, or if you were on a Missile Flight, you would be given those days off in your 24 on/48 off schedule for a total of 20 days off, that you could go home to visit family and those days were not chargeable as leave! He also dipped into the Commanders Discretionary Funds and threw one of the biggest parties I'd ever seen. Beer, BBQ, all the fixin's and everything else, and it was the Jr. Officers and SNCO's who did all the cooking and serving.

By contrast, my second Commander, Lt. Col. "M", still expected us to bust our butts, and we again maxed every inspection, again earned Best In SAC, and...nothing, not so much as an "atta boy" Letter of Appreciation for our 201 files or anything. We had just done something that had NEVER been done before, 3 consecutive years of Best in SAC (SP unit) and what did we get for our efforts, nothing. In addition to that, I saw incident after incident where things that under Maj. "S" would have garnered a severe tongue lashing, a Flight level LOC (which was tossed after 90 days with no recurrence), and/or a day of extra duty, suddenly became Squadron level LOR's or Article 15's. Previously, priorities for holiday leave went to married men with children, Jr. Enlisted during their first holiday away from home regardless of marital status, then married men without children, and then everyone else, but under Lt. Col. "M", that got flushed and if you were scheduled to work, only married personnel with children were granted holiday leave, and then only for Christmas day. Even if you were on your 2 or 3 day break between tours, you weren't allowed to go home for Christmas without taking leave, and sometimes that was even denied. He also came down with a new policy that said that on your 2 and 3 day breaks between tours, you were not permitted to travel more than 100 miles from base without signing out on leave, which screwed a lot of us up because previously we had routinely left after getting off duty and driven or flown home to spend a day or 2 with our families and then come back in time for duty.

The thing that really crystallized it for me, and told me that I REALLY needed to get out of dodge was one evening when a certain SRA took his Fire Team to the mess hall for chow, and unknown to him the people in the arms room had failed to fully charge up the radio batteries and they failed, resulting in a missed Comm check. The standby Alert team was dispatched to the mess hall to ensure that everything was secure, and that nobody was under duress, but once assessing that everything was fine, and simply allowing him to return to the Arms Room and get a fresh battery, the Duty Officer, Lt. "R", had the Team Leader relieved of duty, placed under apprehension, and hauled down to the Squadron IN CUFFS! He was threatened with an Article 15, but his Flight Chief, MSGT "H", plead his case, pointing out that every previous Comm check had in fact been made, it was reduced to a Squadron Level LOR, loss of Team Leader status, and 10 days extra duty by Lt. Col. "M", but no actions whatever were taken against anyone in the Arms Room for their failure to do their job. That young SRA was ME.

Shortly after that, I attempted to invoke the guaranteed cross training clause in my contract, and it was denied by, now Col. "M", on 3 separate occasions, finally prompting me to call "Breach of Contract" and requesting separation, whereupon the chickensh*t S.O.B. threw an Article 15 at me along with my discharge packet.

To me, this illustrates the difference between a Leader and a Manager. Maj. "S" was a Leader. He insisted the the mission be accomplished, and yes that all of the "I's" were dotted and the "T's" crossed, but he also took care of his men. Lt. Col. "M" on the other hand, while concerned with accomplishing the mission, didn't give a damn about the men, and set out to unnecessarily beat them down (ala Lt. Sobel). It's one thing to use the stick and the carrot, but it's another thing altogether if you only use the stick. Therefore I will have to disagree with you on your analysis concerning "managers" v "leaders" in the SAC culture. You still have to have Leaders in Command if you are going to accomplish the mission, but managers should NEVER be allowed to command, at least until they've learned how to be Leaders, as the recent problems have glaringly shown, because if ALL of the details aren't attended to, including the welfare of the men, the entire mission will blow up in your face.

One other possible point of misunderstanding that I believe needs to be cleared up. There is a HUGE difference between proper discipline and throwing someone under the bus. If someone screws up, then yes there should be corrective action taken, but that corrective action does not always need to be "disciplinary" action, and even when disciplinary action is needed, you always have to consider where the culpability ends and begins. To again use the extreme as an example, if you have a situation like Abu Grabass, some culpability lies with everyone, but you shouldn't be throwing young enlisted personnel in prison, effectively ruining their lives, when they were following the orders of their NCO's and Officers, while those same said NCO's and Officers are, for all intents and purposes, given a pass. The situation at Abu Grabass with the prisoners being mistreated to the extreme they were started somewhere, and it wasn't with that Reserve Unit from Maryland. The mistreatment was already underway when they got there, and when questioned about it, they were told by their Command that MI is in charge, and you WILL follow the directions of MI. Now, JohnP and I have discussed this, and we both agree that as former SP's, BOTH of us would have simply told them that we would have wanted those orders, in writing, and signed off on by everyone from our Flight Chief all the way up to the Commanding General, and once we had our copy securely in our pockets, we STILL would have refused to follow them, and demanded to be relieved of duty, and if they got stupid about it, we would have called a frickin' press conference and blown the whole thing all to Hell. The difference here though is that they were a Reserve MP Company, who had never been properly trained to deal with a situation like that, and while the NCO's and Officers should have known better, how is a young first termer supposed to know anything other than what he's been taught by those NCO's and Officers? As far as they knew, they were doing what they were SUPPOSED to be doing, so they didn't voluntarily "fall on their swords", or "take one for the team", they were THROWN under the bus, by the very NCO's and Officers that they had entrusted their lives and careers to, in order for those NCO's and Officers to save their own careers.

You can always delegate authority, but you can NEVER delegate responsibility, and a Leader knows this, but a manager will always equivocate about it.

wukong

01-10-2009, 09:57 PM

FeelinFroggy

01-10-2009, 11:02 PM

What happens when you can't be cut from the same cloth? How is a college graduate and newly commissioned officer from OCS supposed to gain the respect of the men under him? I understand what you're saying, Froggy, but unless you're prior enlisted or went to BUD/S with your subordinates, being cut from the same cloth is fairly difficult. Just an opinion... I stated it would HELP your CHANCES of gaining your men's respect. My opinion is based solely on my own experiences.

03_SHOOTER

01-10-2009, 11:10 PM

In Nazi Germany there is ample documentation that practically every person in the SS chain from Himmler to the dogface camp guard knew what was happening in the Death Camps. However a train engineer involved in the transport of the people being "processed" may have had a suspicion of what was going on the camps, but no way of knowing for sure. Quite possibly not sufficiently motivated to personally investigate on his own. It would be very unlikely to see this individual charged with the war crimes as those who were actively involved. However if this engineer posted photographs around with a "look what I'm doing smile" while apparently involved in the destruction of corpses from the "final solution," he would no doubt be charged with the appropriate crime. Regardless of what others may have done at Abu Gharib, our amateur photographers shot themselves in the foot. Their actions are just as indefensible as any others at Abu Gharib. Failure to manage properly, or to exercise responsibility is not a crime. Abuse of authority is.

I'm afraid your commentary about a train engineer is a non-sequitur wukong, as the train engineer would hardly be in command of the camp, any of the personnel working in the camp, or anything having to do with the camp, ergo he would have no culpability as "failure to report a suspected crime" is not an crime. As far as him having his picture taken as a sick "I was there" memento, is that any more a crime than coming upon an accident or homicide scene and taking a photograph, or having your photograph taken? While taking, or having their pictures taken was indeed a complete lack of judgment (and cause to have every one of their Psych profiles reviewed!), it is not evidence that they committed a crime unless the photograph depicts them engaging in the crime itself. In the cases where they were photographed participating in the offense, then the culpability must be determined as to whether they engaged in the offense of their own free will, and on their own volition, or if they were allowed, or even ordered to engage in those activities by their Command structure. If it were a case of the former, then of course they should have the book thrown at them, but as we now know, the activities that were going on preceded the arrival of the unit, and they were in fact following the orders of their Command structure, which places the majority of the culpability for the crimes directly upon the shoulders of the Command structure, and not on the Soldiers who were following those orders.

Actually, failure to manage or to properly exercise responsibility IS a crime, and is punishable under Article 133 of the UCMJ at a minimum, as well as under any other applicable Article of the UCMJ appropriate to the results of that failure to manage or properly exercise responsibility. If the Captain of a Naval vessel can be relieved of command, and charged when his vessel hits a shoal, reef, sandbar, or another vessel, regardless of the fact that his radar equipment and operators never detected it, why shouldn't any other Officer be equally culpable for the failures that occur under his Command? When you were flying, who was ultimately responsible for that aircraft and everyone and everything on it, you or the maintenance chief who worked on it, or the crew chief and load master who loaded it? Was it not YOUR responsibility to do a walk around to ensure that you did in fact have 4 operable engines on that aircraft, that all of the "remove before flight" items were in fact removed, that any load you were carrying was properly secured, that all of the control surfaces were responding properly to your yoke and rudder inputs, and that it was fully in operable condition prior to take off?

The same thing applies here. It was the duty of the NCO's and Officers to physically ensure that everyone under their Command was where they were supposed to be, doing what they were supposed to be doing, at every hour of the day and night, and any failure to do so is nothing short of Accessory, Dereliction of Duty and Conduct Unbecoming. The fact that they allowed, by ordering, permitting, allowing to continue, or failure to prevent, the mistreatment of the prisoners makes them equally, if not more culpable than those who committed the offense. As I said earlier, you can delegate authority, but you cannot delegate responsibility, and any action that takes place under your command IS your responsibility.

If I were you, I would not have worded this as such. I believe that anyone above the pay grade of E-3 will wonder what is missing and left unsaid.

Well wukong, I didn't feel like writing a book about all of the garbage that happened under Col. "M", I merely wanted to try to illustrate how a "manager" can come in and totally screw up even the best unit in less than a year. Suffice it to say that he did manage to screw it up, and badly, because he was not, IMNSHO, a Leader, but rather a micromanaging weenie with delusions of adequacy and stars in his eyes.

wukong

01-10-2009, 11:39 PM

However if this engineer posted photographs around with a "look what I'm doing smile" while apparently involved in the destruction of corpses from the "final solution

My example was clear, the photo would show the engineer involved in the crime.

Actually, failure to manage or to properly exercise responsibility IS a crime, and is punishable under Article 133 of the UCMJ at a minimum, as well as under any other applicable Article of the UCMJ appropriate to the results of that failure to manage or properly exercise responsibility. If the Captain of a Naval vessel can be relieved of command, and charged when his vessel hits a shoal, reef, sandbar, or another vessel, regardless of the fact that his radar equipment and operators never detected it, why shouldn't any other Officer be equally culpable for the failures that occur under his Command? When you were flying, who was ultimately responsible for that aircraft and everyone and everything on it, you or the maintenance chief who worked on it, or the crew chief and load master who loaded it? Was it not YOUR responsibility to do a walk around to ensure that you did in fact have 4 operable engines on that aircraft, that all of the "remove before flight" items were in fact removed, that any load you were carrying was properly secured, that all of the control surfaces were responding properly to your yoke and rudder inputs, and that it was fully in operable condition prior to take off?

Evidently you have a very loose definition of "crime" A crime is subject to punishment, relief from duty is not punishment. No vessel commander has ever been imprisoned for dereliction of duty. They are fired.

03_SHOOTER

01-11-2009, 01:23 AM

My example was clear, the photo would show the engineer involved in the crime.

Not unless it showed him ACTIVELY involved in the crime, otherwise it's nothing but a photograph. In the example as you presented it, he would have committed no crime any more than any journalist standing there reporting on it with the cameras rolling would be. Even if he was disposing of the bodies, since when is working on a Graves Registration detail a "crime"?

Evidently you have a very loose definition of "crime" A crime is subject to punishment, relief from duty is not punishment. No vessel commander has ever been imprisoned for dereliction of duty. They are fired.

No, my definition of "crime" is based on my instructions as a Security Policeman, to include training in the UCMJ, and in the military if you order a crime to be committed, allow a crime to be committed when you have the ability to stop it, or even fail to take any and all prudent measures to prevent a crime from being committed by the personnel under your Command, you ARE in fact criminally culpable.

Oh, and if a Commanding Officer being involuntarily relieved of Command is not "punishment", what would you call it, a "lateral transfer"? If relief from Command is not punishment, then why is it defined among the various punishments that can be imposed on a service member under the UCMJ? You have a very MACish interpretation wukong, but as we all know (AF Veterans that is) MAC wasn't too concerned with the little things, like paying attention to detail and getting it right the first time, every time, so I suppose looking at it from your viewpoint, I can see where you're coming from. Fortunately thought, most of us were expected to meet a much higher standard.

wukong

01-11-2009, 11:30 AM

Not unless it showed him ACTIVELY involved in the crime, otherwise it's nothing but a photograph. In the example as you presented it, he would have committed no crime any more than any journalist standing there reporting on it with the cameras rolling would be. Even if he was disposing of the bodies, since when is working on a Graves Registration detail a "crime"?

Since when did the Nazi SS worry with graves registration?

No, my definition of "crime" is based on my instructions as a Security Policeman, to include training in the UCMJ, and in the military if you order a crime to be committed, allow a crime to be committed when you have the ability to stop it, or even fail to take any and all prudent measures to prevent a crime from being committed by the personnel under your Command, you ARE in fact criminally culpable.

Where is the proof of Pappas' direct order to commit any specific crime for which our amateur photographers were either found guilty or charged? Where is the proof that Pappas had knowledge of specific acts. We have a term in general use, "throw the book at." When someone like Pappas is unfit to command he will be charged for every conceivable factor including having a waste basket of the wrong size and color.

Oh, and if a Commanding Officer being involuntarily relieved of Command is not "punishment", what would you call it, a "lateral transfer"? If relief from Command is not punishment, then why is it defined among the various punishments that can be imposed on a service member under the UCMJ? You have a very MACish interpretation wukong, but as we all know (AF Veterans that is) MAC wasn't too concerned with the little things, like paying attention to detail and getting it right the first time, every time, so I suppose looking at it from your viewpoint, I can see where you're coming from. Fortunately thought, most of us were expected to meet a much higher standard.

From what you have told us you separated from the Air Force as an Airman Basic. I gather you have had no experience of supervision of others as a Sergeant and obviously you have had no Command. Until you demonstrate some understanding of how the US military system works it is futile on your part to lecture those of us who have supervised and commanded on how to do these tasks. You have little understanding of what the UCMJ can and can not due to an officer of the United States Government that has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

We airlifters got it right in support of the Army in the A Shau Valley. We got it right in support of the Marines at Khe Sanh. Perhaps we were the only ones that got it right at Grenada. I would be happy to see your extensive list of MAC or airlift failures. I would also like to see your list of user dissatifaction of MAC, AMC or airlift services in general.

03_SHOOTER

01-11-2009, 12:20 PM

Since when did the Nazi SS worry with graves registration?

You were talking about a train engineer wukong, not the SS.

Where is the proof of Pappas' direct order to commit any specific crime for which our amateur photographers were either found guilty or charged? Where is the proof that Pappas had knowledge of specific acts. We have a term in general use, "throw the book at." When someone like Pappas is unfit to command he will be charged for every conceivable factor including having a waste basket of the wrong size and color.

And that's exactly the point, he was NOT charged with everything under the sun, and in fact was only given a LOR and an fine! As far as the proof you're looking for, he was THERE, he saw the body on the deck, and did NOTHING! He didn't have the medics summoned to the shower room, he didn't apprehend or charge anyone involved, he took no corrective actions to ensure that it didn't happen again, he allowed an attempted cover up to take place, he did NOTHING, which is "implied consent" of the actions taking place in the prison. You need to remember that the killing happened in November of '03. The unit had been there since June of '03, the abuse is known to have been going on when they got there, and it continued until at least Feb. of '04, more than 2 months after the killing. Are you SERIOUSLY going to try to hold on to the fantasy that the Brigade Commander was blissfully ignorant of what was going on under his Command for 5 months before the killing? That he had no idea of what was going on under his own nose? Are you further going to even attempt to posit that even after he, at a minimum, witnessed the aftermath of a MURDER, committed by personnel under his command, he did anything to stop it and was IGNORED? That takes a leap of faith that stretches incredulity beyond it's breaking point.

Wukong, I know you love to play Devil's Advocate, but you can't be seriously forwarding the proposition that Pappas "didn't know anything" or "couldn't do anything about it" after he did.

As for your Ad Hom attacks, they are both incorrect, on several points, and unworthy of response. And no, I separated as a Senior Airman.

wukong

01-11-2009, 03:24 PM

You were talking about a train engineer wukong, not the SS.

No we're talking about documentation of someone committing a crime.

And that's exactly the point, he was NOT charged with everything under the sun, and in fact was only given a LOR and an fine!

Have you considered that this could possibly be all that a General Court Martial could impose? Once a person reaches or surpasses a retirement eligibility point, courts have generally been reluctant to impose or recommend a "punishment" that would effect retirement pay. This is true for both officers and enlisted.

As far as the proof you're looking for, he was THERE, he saw the body on the deck, and did NOTHING! He didn't have the medics summoned to the shower room, he didn't apprehend or charge anyone involved, he took no corrective actions to ensure that it didn't happen again, he allowed an attempted cover up to take place, he did NOTHING, which is "implied consent" of the actions taking place in the prison. You need to remember that the killing happened in November of '03. The unit had been there since June of '03, the abuse is known to have been going on when they got there, and it continued until at least Feb. of '04, more than 2 months after the killing. Are you SERIOUSLY going to try to hold on to the fantasy that the Brigade Commander was blissfully ignorant of what was going on under his Command for 5 months before the killing? That he had no idea of what was going on under his own nose? Are you further going to even attempt to posit that even after he, at a minimum, witnessed the aftermath of a MURDER, committed by personnel under his command, he did anything to stop it and was IGNORED? That takes a leap of faith that stretches incredulity beyond it's breaking point.
Why would Pappas automatically assume that a "crime" was committed and that everyone on the scene except him was complicit and start immediately reading everyone there their Constitutional rights? My first reaction would be that my soldiers were operating properly and a reasonable explanation would be available. Next, if he had gone off half-cocked and starting reading rights, who would dare venture any explanation of what he was now witnessing.

Pappas was a Brigade Commander. I don't know how many brigades were available in Iraq or the geographical scope of his command. My limited experience in 20 years of service with Air Force, Army and Marine units leads me to believe that Abu Gharib was just one of many areas where he had responsibility. I would venture to guess that Abu Gharib was operated by not more than a single Company of one of his Battalions. Considering the threat activity in Iraq he was no doubt a busy man. To assume that his single focus was Abu Gharib is absurd.

Am I playing the Devils Advocate? I take great exception to your castigation of all officers based on your personal problems with Colonel "M." I am in awe of the divine gift that you acquired as a Senior Airman that gives you the ability to separate the few leaders among my "beloved" corps of officers from the vast majority of mere managers.

HairyEyeball

01-11-2009, 08:57 PM

OK, either we shut this down for a while, or we step back and take a deep breath, and leave it be for a day or two. Watching folks yank each others' chain, when neither knows any more about the other than what he may have extrapolated from incomplete information is only amusing for so long, then it gets old. It's obvious that there is enough difference in training, experience and personality between the two of you so that you would never agree on anything you witnessed side by side, let alone anything you only know of second- and third-hand. Fine - argue about details, argue about culpability, argue about who did what to whom (and with what). Anyone who knows either of you is well aware of your competence and your stubbornness, and the subtle (or not-so-subtle) nastygrams detract not only from the discussion, but from whatever 'stature' you may lay claim to - both here and in the 'real' world.

I am requesting that if you choose to call each other incompetent, if you choose to call each other flaming anal sphincters (or use a more 'earthy' terminology), if you choose to meet at sunrise with shotguns at two paces or bullwhips at one, please do it via PM. This can be a discussion that people may take valuable lessons from - it's becoming one that does little more than makes a lack of respect 'acceptable'. Both of you 'know better', neither of you is going to back down from what you see as a fight, neither is going to gratuitously accept what he perceives as an insult - and handled better, both could have better demonstrated 'leadership' qualities in the NCO and officer categories.

You've both displayed it in other areas, you've both earned the respect of subordinates and superiors in the 'real world' - urinating on each other's corn flakes here is flat out childish. And any discussion of the above - with me, any other moderator or each other - has taken/will take place via PM.

Now shall we return to a discussion of 'leadership'?

Javelin66

01-11-2009, 09:43 PM

Interesting that CPT Sobel comes up here. Remember that many members of Easy company credit him with making the company such a great team by enforcing such high standards (and giving them all someone to hate). Even COL Sink, who knew something about leadership, said that Sobel was a great trainer.

It seems to me that a guy like Sobel would have loved SAC and its’ checklists. Us Army guys have always thought that AF leadership was too ‘checklist centric’, leading to a lack of imagination and therefore flexibility. But, some of the more colorful AF types seem to understand that. To quote the title character from another iconic WWII flyer’s movie: ‘Rules are for sergeants’ -CPT Buzz Rickson

In my experience, throughout a 20 year career that has included service in the Persian Gulf War, Haiti, Korea, many OOTWs, and Iraq, officers at all levels continue to carry on the great tradition of leadership shoulder to shoulder with their NCO counterparts.

In that time, while I can certainly point to notable examples of sergeants and officers that were horrible leaders, I can honestly say that most were great leaders and lived up to my every expectation:

I witnessed an SF Group CDR (now a BG) who accepted great personal risk to visit his ODAs all over the country when he could have stayed on the FOB. I have a personal friend who lost his legs while returning from a memorial service for one of his soldiers. I personally know a chaplain who was nearly killed when his vehicle was hit by an IED while enroute to perform mass outside his unit area (there is a shortage of Catholic chaplains). I have another personal friend whose may lose his family because he was so loyal to his unit that he volunteered to redeploy with them as DCO after he left command, and another who was relieved of command because he refused to prefer charges in a blue on blue incident because he believed the PL and PSG involved had done everything they could to prevent the incident. LTG Odierno's son lost his arm, and he is back on his third tour, following in the footsteps of GEN Petraeus (who, by the way, once personally checked my ruck to see if I had a spare battery for my radio- he did not tolerate anyone being out of comms for any reason).

I echo Wu's comments, and add that were the invective against the officer corps that has been represented in this thread been instead directed against a particular service, arm, or specialty, it would have resulted in that poster being banned or otherwise disciplined by the rules of this forum.

wukong

01-11-2009, 10:17 PM

Dear wukong,

You have received a warning at Grunt Forum.

Reason:
-------
Insulted Other Member(s)

Keep up the personal attacks, and I'll start deleting your posts wholesale.
-------

Original Post:
10104
Not unless it showed him ACTIVELY involved in the crime, otherwise it's nothing but a photograph. In the example as you presented it, he would have committed no crime any more than any journalist standing there reporting on it with the cameras rolling would be. Even if he was disposing of the bodies, since when is working on a Graves Registration detail a "crime"?

Since when did the Nazi SS worry with graves registration?

No, my definition of "crime" is based on my instructions as a Security Policeman, to include training in the UCMJ, and in the military if you order a crime to be committed, allow a crime to be committed when you have the ability to stop it, or even fail to take any and all prudent measures to prevent a crime from being committed by the personnel under your Command, you ARE in fact criminally culpable.

Where is the proof of Pappas' direct order to commit any specific crime for which our amateur photographers were either found guilty or charged? Where is the proof that Pappas had knowledge of specific acts. We have a term in general use, "throw the book at." When someone like Pappas is unfit to command he will be charged for every conceivable factor including having a waste basket of the wrong size and color.

Oh, and if a Commanding Officer being involuntarily relieved of Command is not "punishment", what would you call it, a "lateral transfer"? If relief from Command is not punishment, then why is it defined among the various punishments that can be imposed on a service member under the UCMJ? You have a very MACish interpretation wukong, but as we all know (AF Veterans that is) MAC wasn't too concerned with the little things, like paying attention to detail and getting it right the first time, every time, so I suppose looking at it from your viewpoint, I can see where you're coming from. Fortunately thought, most of us were expected to meet a much higher standard.

From what you have told us you separated from the Air Force as an Airman Basic. I gather you have had no experience of supervision of others as a Sergeant and obviously you have had no Command. Until you demonstrate some understanding of how the US military system works it is futile on your part to lecture those of us who have supervised and commanded on how to do these tasks. You have little understanding of what the UCMJ can and can not due to an officer of the United States Government that has been nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate.

We airlifters got it right in support of the Army in the A Shau Valley. We got it right in support of the Marines at Khe Sanh. Perhaps we were the only ones that got it right at Grenada. I would be happy to see your extensive list of MAC or airlift failures. I would also like to see you list of user dissatifaction of MAC, AMC or airlift services in general.

Warnings serve as a reminder to you of the forum's rules, which you are expected to understand and follow.

All the best,
Grunt Forum

I take exception to this! Point out in this post where anyone was INSULTED!!!!!!!!!!! Evidently you can dish it out but can't take it!

HairyEyeball
Bait the airplane driver as much as you deem necessary, but wouldn't it be easier to spell check before posting than to edit afterwards?

If you two are going to operate as a Tag Team, at least be up front with it.