Military Officers should NOT lead from The Front

Pro makes many interesting (although flawed) arguments. I could write a book in response to each one, but I'll do my best to stay concise. Let's start with what an officer actually does. Pro seems to think officers are hyper-cerebral grand strategists who move units on maps like chess pieces. While this may be true at the 4-star general level, the vast majority of the officer corps consists of small unit leaders like lieutenants (LT's) and captains (CPT's). At this level, LEADERSHIP is the officer's role - not emotionless command, control, and reporting. US Army FM 6-22 defines leadership as "the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation. [1]" It's messy, stressful, and hard, and to do it right you have to be on the ground. I will proceed by addressing my opponent's major points: 1. Modern weapons render front line leadership too risky/obsolete - Modern weapons certainly have changed since the days of Caesar, but the nature of leadership has not. The base instincts that drive human behavior have evolved very little, and the need to inspire them through personal example is still as potent as ever. Losing leaders does not lead to strategic paralysis. LT's and CPT's are easily replaced. Most units actually practice "leader down drills" where a designated second or third in command takes charge to ensure the unit stays effective if the commander goes down. As far as warfare being more dangerous today - nothing's more dangerous than standing in the front rank of a hand-to-hand sword fight... at least in modern combat you wear camouflage and can hide behind walls and rocks and armored vehicles. 2. Officer training is better suited for staff than combat - Sure, there are Quartermaster and JAG officers for whom this statement rings true. But there are also Infantry, Armor, and Special Forces officers for whom it does not. These officers go through a tremendous amount of combat oriented training such as Infantry leaders' course, Airborne school, Ranger school, Special Forces Qualification school, etc... It's not mathematically impossible for a captain to inspire others with his presence. Sociologists have shown the threshold for this is about 150 people [2], and the average infantry company is about 120 people. And even then it's still possible - consider the following: "At a crucial juncture in the First Battle of Bull Run, the Confederate line was being beaten back from Matthews Hill by Union forces... Despite a painful shrapnel wound, General Jackson calmly placed his men in a defensive position on Henry Hill and assured them that all was well. As men of the broken regiments flowed past, one of their officers, BG Bee exclaimed to Jackson, "General, they are driving us!" Calmly looking toward the direction of the enemy, BG Jackson replied, "Sir, we will give them the bayonet." Impressed by BG Jackson"s confidence, stability, and self-control, BG Bee rode off towards what was left of the officers and men of his brigade. As he rode into the throng, he gestured with his sword toward Henry Hill and shouted, "Look, men! There is Jackson standing like a stone wall! Let us determine to die here, and we will conquer! Follow me!" [3] 3. Officers have ISR/drones and don't need to personally survey things - ISR is great, but it does not necessarily contribute to battlefield understanding. GEN (R) Stanley McChrystal calls this the "seduction of surveillance." Aerial imagery from ISR or JSTARs actually gives you LESS of a view, because you can only see what the sensor is directly pointed at. It's like viewing the battlefield through a soda straw. Imagery and sensor data often misses things that only someone on the ground can detect. I have plenty of examples from personal experience. I was a recon platoon leader in Afghanistan. On one mission, I was with my 16 man platoon overwatching our FOB when we heard the soft rumble of an Taliban rocket launch. A few seconds later we heard it fly over our heads, and a few seconds later we saw it explode outside the FOB wall. The FOB's high-tech camera blimp and counter-rocket radar sensors did not detect the impact. I radioed back to HQ that the FOB was receiving rocket fire only to be told that the base's sensors had not detected anything and that I was probably just hearing things. Meanwhile, I heard two more rockets fly over and watched two more explosions near the FOB. HQ had no idea. That's what happens when you rely too much on electronic sensors. 4. Officers don't need to meet with village elders because it's too risky and Green Berets can do it - Pro seems to forget that every Green Beret team is led by a Captain. Also, there are nowhere near enough special forces teams to cover every necessary village, so conventional units must also fill this role. Finally, having enlisted personnel meet with village elders would not be effective because in many cultures the elder expects to speak directly with the person in charge. It's considered insulting to send a lower ranking "representative" for the commander, because it conveys that the elder is not important. 5. Allow me to re-phrase Pro's point about inspiration. In a firefight (from my own combat experiences) "inspiration" becomes extremely important BECAUSE of survival instincts. The instinct when being shot at is to take cover, hide, and protect yourself - which leads to getting pinned down. One only needs to observe poorly led armies to see this. I have frequently seen Afghan army units throw down their weapons out of fear and hide when under fire. It's a commander's job to inspire his soldiers to overcome these survival instincts - like Washington did at Princeton - through personal example. 6. Soldiers will automatically execute every order immediately when the "bullets start flying." - Pro is quite mistaken here. The rampant fragging (intentional friendly fire murder) of officers during the Vietnam War should be ample proof of this. 7. In response to the combat scenario, Pro says they would rather follow the detached LT sitting in the heated tent. I find this extremely hard to believe. Underneath all the body armor and high-tech gear of the modern Soldier lies a human being. That human is still driven to action by instincts of hate, love, respect, fatigue, and fear. No one wants to obey a leader who doesn't care about them and doesn't share in common hardship. It's not foolish bravado to lead from the front - it's effective leadership. 8. I fail to see how building team/unit cohesion leads to skewed decision making. Who wouldn't want to fight with a cohesive unit? War is not some calm, cool, detached, and sterile hyper-rational activity. It's messy and confusing and overwhelmingly uncertain. You can still remain calm and think clearly if you're on the front line. Such characteristics have more to do with personality than physical location. 9. "If a 4-star general...attempted to ride into battle on top of a horse like Washington and Caesar, he would almost certainly be killed..." Again, Pro seems to think the term "officer" implies 4-star general. It doesn't. While I agree that generals probably shouldn't lead bayonet charges, there are thousands of LT and CPT platoon leaders who should. Low level officers absolutely should lead from the front. 10. "Leading by example' no longer applies to modern combat and is utterly obsolete." - I would be shocked if Pro actually believes this. Once again, technology has not changed the human need to be led and inspired into action. War is not chess. It is, as Clausewitz says, an act of violence intended to dominate one's enemy with superior will. That will comes from leadership, and leadership comes from personal example. [1] https://www.fas.org... [2] http://en.wikipedia.org...'s_number [3] https://www.fas.org...