Question for our service members

[Hoofhurr]

Regarding leadership and specifically leaders.

What inspires more confidence in the rank and file, a passionate or a logical leader? It occurs to me that as a member of the public we almost always hear about or analyze the current wars in really dispassionate terms. One part of me is comforted that a stoic or rational approach means we've weighed all the options carefully and have decided on a reasonable course of action. But the other part of me isn't really inspired to pick up a gun and enlist and shoot commies etc.

What are you looking for from your commanders as a soldier?

[Thudz]

Regarding leadership and specifically leaders.

What inspires more confidence in the rank and file, a passionate or a logical leader? It occurs to me that as a member of the public we almost always hear about or analyze the current wars in really dispassionate terms. One part of me is comforted that a stoic or rational approach means we've weighed all the options carefully and have decided on a reasonable course of action. But the other part of me isn't really inspired to pick up a gun and enlist and shoot commies etc.

What are you looking for from your commanders as a soldier?

Only a Soldier should ever command other Soldiers. If you haven't walked in a Soldier's shoes it's almost impossible to truly inspire or instill confidence in them. Speeches to Soldiers should be given in a confident, passionate and no-nonsense manner. Soldiers can smell Politics and Soldiers hate Politics because Politics kills Soldiers.

[Grieve]

Only a Soldier should ever command other Soldiers. If you haven't walked in a Soldier's shoes it's almost impossible to truly inspire or instill confidence in them. Speeches to Soldiers should be given in a confident, passionate and no-nonsense manner. Soldiers can smell Politics and Soldiers hate Politics because Politics kills Soldiers.

So you are saying no-one should be allowed to be President/Command-in-Chief unless they have served?

Does that mean you voted for Kerry instead of Bush?

[Hoofhurr]

You've come dangerously close to tearing the diaphanous veil between the two off topic forums and having my thread banished to a place I dare not follow! Censor yourself sir. :wink:

[Dustie]

diaphanous

Great word

Edit: and so well used too, I mean really:

"tearing the diaphanous veil between the two off topic forums"

just great

[Vanraw]

So Hoofhurr is to shy to follow his obviously political post into the political forum. I cry foul!!!! I say move this over tot he poiltical forum and pull the delicate fabric off Hoofhurr virgin eyes and ears!!! Foul I say Foul!!!

PS, Good point Grieve!!

[Slamz]

Regarding leadership and specifically leaders.

What inspires more confidence in the rank and file, a passionate or a logical leader? It occurs to me that as a member of the public we almost always hear about or analyze the current wars in really dispassionate terms. One part of me is comforted that a stoic or rational approach means we've weighed all the options carefully and have decided on a reasonable course of action. But the other part of me isn't really inspired to pick up a gun and enlist and shoot commies etc.

What are you looking for from your commanders as a soldier?

Disclaimer:
Although I was in the military it would be a stretch to call my position a "soldier". We would be in serious shit by the time anyone needed to hand me a gun. So my opinion on this may not be much more informed than that of the average Joe.

However, I would say that the Commander in Chief position isn't that important in terms of "military leadership". If he's smart, he's listening to his generals and making executive decisions and not otherwise "leading". Obama is not going to grab an M-16 and lead charges in the mountains of Afghanistan so IMO it's not terribly important that he's not a military man. It's not something the president really needs to be. Decisions that high up are political rather than strategic. (I suppose you can have "strategic politics" but you know what I mean. He's not going to look at a map and tell the army how to deploy.)


I think the primary thing you want is "no bullshit". Bad commanders can generate bullshit - basically extra unnecessary work, usually something that makes them look good (or they think it does). This is as true for me in a corporation as it was in the Air Force and I imagine it's about the same in the infantry, with just varying types of bullshit.

Good commanders find out what you need and get it to you, or try to. Extra manpower, extra equipment, you tell the boss what you need to do your job and the boss tries to get it for you and knows how to push to get what he needs. Ideally you want a "you scratch my back, I'll scratch yours" kind of relationship -- you work and make your boss look good by not screwing up, your boss makes your life easier by getting you what you need to do your job.

Along a related lines, a good commander knows how to push back against unreasonable requests from higher up. When your boss' boss tells your boss to do a 6 month project in 3 months, your boss should be someone who can politely inform him that it is bullshit and to request more time, resources or both. A jackass commander will say "oh yeah we can do that" and then make you work your ass off to make him look good.

It's also jolly nice if your commander knows how to do your job better than you do. Sometimes the opposite is true and that sucks. Micromanagement, while frustrating to no end in the corporate world, can be great in the military when you're an 18 year old who barely knows what he's doing and you'd really like it if someone would tell you what you're supposed to be doing, and that works better when your boss has more experience than you do. The military can tend to "cross train" a lot, but a Sgt is still Sgt. So sometimes your boss is your boss because he outranks you but he has no idea what he's doing. Maybe that's different in the combat careers but I dunno, I imagine you get a real life Lt. Goreman (from Aliens) now and then.

So,
* Competent boss who knows what he's doing
* He keeps the weight off of you
* You are not a screw-up

I think that's a recipe for success in basically anything.

[Thudz]

PS, Good point Grieve!!

Exactly what point did Grieve make? More like nice derailment attempt. Assuming I voted for Bush or Kerry would make you both foolish and wrong. And I stand by my statement 1,000,000%.

PS. Technically Bush served.

ETA : Oh and one more thing. Hoof addressed us vets so you non-vets, I actually like Vllad's "lesser citizen" term better, should hold your tongues.

[Vllad]

Slamz brings up some good points but if we are sticking strictly to military rank and file I do have a few comments.

Anything beyond my company commander was irrelevant. I couldn't have cared less what they did or what they said. No one was inspiring unless they were with you going through the same shit as you were. Other wise they were always a "them" or "those guys".

The most important person was my NCO. If he is honest even when we got a shitty deal that is all that really mattered. Inspiration doesn't get you through shitty situations but good partners and good training does. In my paticular line of work that meant a good opposite door gunner and good pilots. No one else mattered.

When you are front line military personel you only see the war from your immediate area. Strategic things just don't matter. My wars consisted of the lives of myself and 26 other people. You do your job, keep your head down and try to get home.

Strategic views are for Generals, fat people at home and hopefully when you get old.

So to sum it up the best inspirational leader is the guy who trains you the best to come home in one piece and with a little luck you do.


Vllad

[Thudz]

For the sake of Hoofhurr's thread I will say one thing and be done.

As CiC you must give marching orders to your Generals. Those marching orders send thousand and sometimes hundreds of thousands of Americans into very dangerous situations. Deployment of any kind is dangerous none more so than to a war zone. These marching orders are always certainly death sentences for some soldiers. It's my opinion that in order for a CiC to responsibly and morally give marching orders the CiC must have at one time been given marching orders.

My opinion, that's all.

[Hoofhurr]

I was thinking of the Braveheart, Starship Troopers, Gladiator, Troy, hollywood movie or war videogame commander pre-battle speeches. Is that all bullshit or do (or did) generals really speak to their troops like that before battle? Who inspired American revolutionary tendencies more, a fiery Patrick Henry of Virginia or a rational Ben Franklin of Philadelphia?

[Jakensama]

Considering how historically accurate Bravehart, Gladiator, and Troy were I am shocked that you even asked this question.

[Hoofhurr]

Stuff it sir! It's a legitimate question despite the inaccuracies. I just don't know the real world examples so I point to hollywood. I'm sure Patton or Eisenhower gave some speeches! They had a lot of quotables. Band of Brothers seemed to be fairly accurate, are the speech-y parts complete fiction? I just want to know if vets watch those movies and think 'fuck ya!' or 'fuck no!'.

[Jakensama]

I read somewhere the wehrmacht speech the kraut general gave was taken from one that really happened. But that was a post defeat speech so it might not count

[Breand]

Patton's speech from the opening of the film was was real altho highly sanitized for Hollywood purposes (Patton loved to curse).

[Dustie]

[to be ignored if so desired]
While not giving an answer myself, I would point out 3 things that might help you on your quest for a good answer to your question:

1. Read about Nelson, Alexander, Washington, etc
-Washington's aid told him to get down from a defensive wall and he replied "no - its important that the men see me here"
-Alexander participated in almost all of his cavalry charges
-Nelson thought it improper to duck for cover while his men were exposed and always displayed himself prominently

2. Since you brought up Franklin; In the Brands Biography of him (that I'm ready now) there's a fun story about Franklin listening to a speech of George Whitefield's. During the speech, Franklin walked backward to the point where he could just barely hear Whitefield. Then he calculated (at 1 person per 2 square feet) that Whitefield's voice projected so well it could be heard by up to 30,000 people arranged in a semi-circle in front him him. In other words, many of the stories of rallying speeches given to 20,000 person armies are technically possible.
(As you probably know, Franklin himself was never a good speaker)

3. Invert, always invert -- ask the questions -- What do leaders (or governments) want in their soldiers? For example, can you imagine going to war with an army of Jakes? Is there any speech you could give that would inspire him to storm the hill?

"Ah sir, I will not storm that hill because you have failed to demonstrate to me that there is a correlation between storming the hill and ultimate success in this battle. Further, I believe you are making and error in your correlation of holding high ground to successful outcomes. What's more the nature of the causative relationship between--" *BANG*

[Jakensama]

I'm good at giving speeches, I don't charge shit. The up side of having this particular skill set instead of the second is the guy giving the speeches usually has a lot higher survival rate than the guy charging the hill.

[Vllad]

Speeches are for the movies not soldiers. You don't listen for shit when you are scared. You need to be trained well to execute, speeches have no connection to execution.

The same goes for sports and everything esle I guess.

I absolutely agree that seeing your leader at the front has an impact but only to the degree that you know he is in the shit with you. It has no bearing on how you react when things start to go wrong.

In general soldiers will do there job no matter who is in charge. Not for there leaders but for the guys they are with.


Vllad

[Jakensama]

True, Oratory as a skill is more for manipulating groups of people, the larger the more effective. But I imagine at some pre-game/pre-battle level speeches can have an inspirational effect on morale.

Julius Ceasar marched with his soldiers and was reputably very popular with them. I wonder if this respect actually made them more effective or just more under his control when he needed them to do something questionable..