Leadership Matters

[Siji]

http://militaryweek.com/kk092204.shtml

Without Reservation

A biweekly column by Karen Kwiatkowski, Lt. Col. USAF (ret.)

posted 22 Sep 04

"Leadership Matters"

Believe it or not, "Leadership Matters" is a key theme of the Bush/Cheney re-election campaign.

As a political slogan, it is very nice. Highly paid political consultants, advertisers and Extremely Smart People in Washington picked a fine one. Pithy, eye-catching, looks sharp in red, white and blue.

For people who serve in the military, leadership is beyond important; it takes on an almost mystical and compelling value, becoming a holy grail of sorts. Officers and NCOs seek to be known as leaders, to embody leadership qualities, to be seen as those with leadership potential. We spend an inordinate amount of time thinking about it, reading about it, talking about it.

We know it when we see it. We talk about it when we don't see it. In fact, knowing what leadership is not is a key part of our professional education.

Leadership is rarely seen in the senior officer who doesn't know his core skill area, whether that is flying airplanes, killing the enemy in ground combat, whether engineering or accounting. Incompetence can, of course, be remedied by the ability and willingness to learn. Incompetence without an observable ability to learn was bad news. Any sign that the suspect officer had simply no clue that he might be in severely bad kimshee and hence might possibly need to learn something was even worse news.

Some smart person ought to have mentioned this to George W. Bush when they approved the "Leadership Matters" theme.

An absence of leadership qualities in our military leaders gives rise to terms like "Seagull" Colonels and Generals, a species known to swoop in, make a lot of noise, crap all over everything, and then fly away. But our seagulls had an advantage over Bush and Cheney. Regardless of the mistakes made and not remedied, regardless of the illogic, stupidity and sheer idiocy of our present unit's existence under a seagull commander, at least we could be 100% sure they wouldn't be around for long.

High level incompetence seems to be the natural sea-state of our militarized foreign policy, launching forth with the proud Guardsman George W. Bush at the helm and Dick "Other Priorities" Cheney as navigator.

This track record of sheer stupidity, hubris and other seagull qualities is marred only by the existence of rare officers, like retired Marine General Tony Zinni, who knew their job, led their men and women, and spoke the truth to power about the inanity of the plan to invade Iraq early on. Looking further for aberrations to the rule, we find retired Army General William Odom, conservative through and through, who speaks the truth about Bush's fantasy adventure in Iraq, politely but publicly calling it "a strategic error."

Retired officers and NCOs have had their opportunity, and we are all armchair quarterbacks now. What about active duty soldiers and Marines, who have recently seen both ugly ends of the Bush-Cheney foreign policy baby?

The words of Generals Zinni and Odom are echoed in the more earthy vernacular of thousands of military members in tanks, humvees, cockpits, trucks and mess halls and tents. These words reveal the most important tenet of leadership. With competence, an ability to learn from mistakes, and humility, there is a final critical ingredient. Leadership must demonstrate a hard-headed, stubborn and almost masochistic recognition of the truth, the harsher the better.

On the truth about Iraq, Bush and Cheney have told us it's going just fine, we are killing the appointed number of "terrorists" and "evil doers." We are winning, they say. From the key top officers, whether General Casey, General Abizaid, General Meyers or any of the lesser flag officers on active duty today, we hear only a ricochet of the President's fantasies, or else deafening silence.

But from lower ranking soldiers and marines, we hear plenty. One former marine refers to Iraq as "Bush's Magical Middle Eastern Mystery Tour." He explains why we will leave Iraq, eventually, with nothing. It is one of the rules that should have been learned early on by all leaders, even mediocre ones. Apparently Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld missed the lecture called "Nobody wins a shitstorm."

Another eyewitness to the "leadership" of the Bush/Cheney team, writes from Iraq about what is really going on and what it means. Speaking on the subject of Iraq today, and how leadership matters, Al Lorentz explains,

... it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

Devoid of any semblance of reality. Pat and convenient reasons. Politically correct.

Leadership matters, all right. Competence, intelligence, humility, and devoted consistent brutal honesty means lives saved, objectives met. It produces everyday demonstrations of courage at all levels that inspire and motivate. Leadership improves recruitment and retention in an all volunteer military, and makes that military both awesomely fierce and awesomely proud. Leadership preserves the Constitution and strengthens the Republic.

Leadership does matter. The Bush/Cheney campaign should be ashamed of itself.

[Siji]

Different topic, but along the same lines I suppose..

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig5/lorentz1.html

Why We Cannot Win

by Al Lorentz

Before I begin, let me state that I am a soldier currently deployed in Iraq, I am not an armchair quarterback. Nor am I some politically idealistic and naïve young soldier, I am an old and seasoned Non-Commissioned Officer with nearly 20 years under my belt. Additionally, I am not just a soldier with a muds-eye view of the war, I am in Civil Affairs and as such, it is my job to be aware of all the events occurring in this country and specifically in my region.

I have come to the conclusion that we cannot win here for a number of reasons. Ideology and idealism will never trump history and reality.

When we were preparing to deploy, I told my young soldiers to beware of the "political solution." Just when you think you have the situation on the ground in hand, someone will come along with a political directive that throws you off the tracks.

I believe that we could have won this un-Constitutional invasion of Iraq and possibly pulled off the even more un-Constitutional occupation and subjugation of this sovereign nation. It might have even been possible to foist democracy on these people who seem to have no desire, understanding or respect for such an institution. True the possibility of pulling all this off was a long shot and would have required several hundred billion dollars and even more casualties than we’ve seen to date but again it would have been possible, not realistic or necessary but possible.

Here are the specific reasons why we cannot win in Iraq.

First, we refuse to deal in reality. We are in a guerilla war, but because of politics, we are not allowed to declare it a guerilla war and must label the increasingly effective guerilla forces arrayed against us as "terrorists, criminals and dead-enders."

This implies that there is a zero sum game at work, i.e. we can simply kill X number of the enemy and then the fight is over, mission accomplished, everybody wins. Unfortunately, this is not the case. We have few tools at our disposal and those are proving to be wholly ineffective at fighting the guerillas.

The idea behind fighting a guerilla army is not to destroy its every man (an impossibility since he hides himself by day amongst the populace). Rather the idea in guerilla warfare is to erode or destroy his base of support.

So long as there is support for the guerilla, for every one you kill two more rise up to take his place. More importantly, when your tools for killing him are precision guided munitions, raids and other acts that create casualties among the innocent populace, you raise the support for the guerillas and undermine the support for yourself. (A 500-pound precision bomb has a casualty-producing radius of 400 meters minimum; do the math.)

Second, our assessment of what motivates the average Iraqi was skewed, again by politically motivated "experts." We came here with some fantasy idea that the natives were all ignorant, mud-hut dwelling camel riders who would line the streets and pelt us with rose petals, lay palm fronds in the street and be eternally grateful. While at one time there may have actually been support and respect from the locals, months of occupation by our regular military forces have turned the formerly friendly into the recently hostile.

Attempts to correct the thinking in this regard are in vain; it is not politically correct to point out the fact that the locals are not only disliking us more and more, they are growing increasingly upset and often overtly hostile. Instead of addressing the reasons why the locals are becoming angry and discontented, we allow politicians in Washington DC to give us pat and convenient reasons that are devoid of any semblance of reality.

We are told that the locals are not upset because we have a hostile, aggressive and angry Army occupying their nation. We are told that they are not upset at the police state we have created, or at the manner of picking their representatives for them. Rather we are told, they are upset because of a handful of terrorists, criminals and dead enders in their midst have made them upset, that and of course the ever convenient straw man of "left wing media bias."

Third, the guerillas are filling their losses faster than we can create them. This is almost always the case in guerilla warfare, especially when your tactics for battling the guerillas are aimed at killing guerillas instead of eroding their support. For every guerilla we kill with a "smart bomb" we kill many more innocent civilians and create rage and anger in the Iraqi community. This rage and anger translates into more recruits for the terrorists and less support for us.

We have fallen victim to the body count mentality all over again. We have shown a willingness to inflict civilian casualties as a necessity of war without realizing that these same casualties create waves of hatred against us. These angry Iraqi citizens translate not only into more recruits for the guerilla army but also into more support of the guerilla army.

Fourth, their lines of supply and communication are much shorter than ours and much less vulnerable. We must import everything we need into this place; this costs money and is dangerous. Whether we fly the supplies in or bring them by truck, they are vulnerable to attack, most especially those brought by truck. This not only increases the likelihood of the supplies being interrupted. Every bean, every bullet and every bandage becomes infinitely more expensive.

Conversely, the guerillas live on top of their supplies and are showing every indication of developing a very sophisticated network for obtaining them. Further, they have the advantage of the close support of family and friends and traditional religious networks.

Fifth, we consistently underestimate the enemy and his capabilities. Many military commanders have prepared to fight exactly the wrong war here.

Our tactics have not adjusted to the battlefield and we are falling behind.

Meanwhile the enemy updates his tactics and has shown a remarkable resiliency and adaptability.

Because the current administration is more concerned with its image than it is with reality, it prefers symbolism to substance: soldiers are dying here and being maimed and crippled for life. It is tragic, indeed criminal that our elected public servants would so willingly sacrifice our nation's prestige and honor as well as the blood and treasure to pursue an agenda that is ahistoric and un-Constitutional.

It is all the more ironic that this un-Constitutional mission is being performed by citizen soldiers such as myself who swore an oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States, the same oath that the commander in chief himself has sworn.

September 20, 2004

Al Lorentz is former state chairman of the Constitution Party of Texas and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq.

[Aruman]

"...and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq."

He's probably pissed off because he can't have his Fruit Loops for breakfast in the morning. Oh wait, he's in civil affairs. He probably does.

If this had been someone who is actually in the thick of things I'd be more inclined to take what he says seriously.

This is the kind of person I hated to be around in the military. Always negative about the situation instead of doing the best you can with what you have and the current situation.

This person is a liability to his unit. His attitude would get people killed if he was in Combat Arms.

[Marbus]

Powell said many of the same type of things yesterday and today in the Chicago newspapers...

The first article is much better at the site as it has links to some of her points. Excellent article, states exactly what needs to be said...

Marb

[Hoarmurath]

"...and is a reservist currently serving with the US Army in Iraq."

He's probably pissed off because he can't have his Fruit Loops for breakfast in the morning. Oh wait, he's in civil affairs. He probably does.

You were clearly in Combat Arms in the Active Army, as evidenced by the way you despise the Reserves, so you should know very well that...

If this had been someone who is actually in the thick of things

...then he'd probably have less of the overall picture, not more.

This is the kind of person I hated to be around in the military. Always negative about the situation instead of doing the best you can with what you have and the current situation.

This person is a liability to his unit. His attitude would get people killed if he was in Combat Arms.

What a presumptuous prick you are. How can you claim to know what this man actually does? You apparently think that all he does is eat Froot Loops and write disparaging articles. And even assuming that he is a "liability", how can a bad attitude only get people killed in Combat Arms? You are the kind of arrogant ass that I hated to be around in the military.

(former U.S. Army non-commisioned officer)

[Aruman]

What a presumptuous prick you are. How can you claim to know what this man actually does? You apparently think that all he does is eat Froot Loops and write disparaging articles. And even assuming that he is a "liability", how can a bad attitude only get people killed in Combat Arms? You are the kind of arrogant ass that I hated to be around in the military.

(former U.S. Army non-commisioned officer)

I never claimed to know what he does as a fact, but he seems to enjoy using blanket statements... I highly doubt any non-com knows everything about the whole situation. Notice I said if he was in the Combat Arms.

Would you want to be around someone with his attitude in Iraq, regardless of MoS? Hello? Morale?

So what if I am/was appearing arrogant. I have the right to voice my opinion on whiners in the military. I didn't put up with it from anyone in my unit. From the way you talk you did. Nice leadership buddy.

(Also a former U.S. Army non-commissioned officer, and not in a Civil Affairs unit)

[Hoarmurath]

I have the right to voice my opinion on whiners in the military. I didn't put up with it from anyone in my unit. From the way you talk you did. Nice leadership buddy.

I'm sure that I didn't like whiners any more than you did. I just didn't interpret that article in that way.

[Kelshara]

Aruman makes me laugh Keep those blinders on, that is surely the best way to live your life!

[Aruman]

Aruman makes me laugh Keep those blinders on, that is surely the best way to live your life!

Blinders?

Tell me how much time you have/had in an active duty unit. Then I might listen to your opinions of leadership in the military.

[Kelshara]

Absolutely none. And if I was in it I wouldn't be blind to what happened around me.

Side note: I volunteered for military service back home (I wanted to get into the unit that typically handles UN missions etc), but sports injuries kept me out. Not really relevant though I suppose.

[Dregor Thule]

Absolutely none. And if I was in it I wouldn't be blind to what happened around me.

Side note: I volunteered for military service back home (I wanted to get into the unit that typically handles UN missions etc), but sports injuries kept me out. Not really relevant though I suppose.

Did you tell them you dated a blonde once? I bet that would have gotten you in!

[Aruman]

Absolutely none. And if I was in it I wouldn't be blind to what happened around me.

Side note: I volunteered for military service back home (I wanted to get into the unit that typically handles UN missions etc), but sports injuries kept me out. Not really relevant though I suppose.

Well, you see there is a difference in being aware of what is going on around you and discussing it appropriately versus bitching and moaning about it.

Being aware of things make you able to correct to the best of your ability what is causing problems. This guy is a Non-Com? Probably a crappy one judging by his avenue of expression, something I would fully expect of a reservist. Then again, a corporal in an active duty unit is a better leader than most of the Sergeant to Staff Sergeants in the reserves, in my experience.

This is why you put the foot down on the whiners because it brings everyone else down.