Military Officers should NOT lead from The Front

There are numerous reasons why officers should lead from the front. These include the value of personally scoping enemy positions, surveying the battlefield,A larger and more detailed view of the battlefield is better accomplished through ISR, SIGNIT intelligence, JSTARs, and RSTA combat units. Placing the commander on the frontline to personally survey a tiny section of the field removes him from his communications hub and the strategic view of the larger theatre wars taking place. Officers who are not commanders, would also find more productive use of their time organizing, translating, and submitting data and information coming in hot from the battlefield. The new maxim of modern conflict is no longer a lack of information (fog of war), but too much information from technology and information systems, many of which I've already mentioned in both rounds of this debate. An officer's time therefore, is better spent as an information expert and systems leader. measuring troop morale, Would not be useful information to the commander and many officers due to the bureaucratic problems of "professional distance," "group-think," and leading units as large as a 1,000 men. (No opportunity to get to know & understand the individual among the group). This task then is better left to NCOs and Platoon level sergeants. inspecting defensive positions, interacting with local civilian leaders (like village elders), etc... The first is better accomplished with more all-encompassing ISR, as the value of defensive positions on the frontlines must be weighed against a picture of the enemy's own position and capabilities.You may have a point on interacting with village elders (counter-insurgency is the doctrine exception to everything). However, we can believe placing an officer among a village for COIN ops is an unnecessary risk due to the fact the enlisted corps already has many language and culture experts (such as green berets), and due to the fact that they have the instituional luxury to "live" among the people; whereas an officer must return to headquarters. However, the most important reason is inspiration. - In a firefight; (from my own interviews with veterans) "inspiration," morale, patriotism, and even "reasons to serve," go out the window extremely fast in favor of survival instincts and army training. I agree that morale is extremely important to deployment, but in a surreal frontline combat setting, the most important thing an officer can do is direct & control the ensuing chaos; which is accomplished through command & control, disceminating relevant information, and leading troops from behind. The presence and personal example of a leader in battle is immensely powerful. I believe this is a true statement, but this leadership role does belong to officers who cannot afford to risk their lives.Soldiers are not robots who automatically execute every order immediately. I believe they will when the bullets start flying. Military officers exist to channel these emotions in productive ways, and they can only do that through personal example. Military officers exist as subject-matter experts whose job is to bring order to battlefield chaos through command & control and information-reading expertise. I believe that is (or should be) there primary role. You are a squad leader in charge of 8 other infantry soldiers. Are squad leaders typically enlisted? If so, then we can argue that this leadership position is better left to them. Both officers order the same course of action - but who would you be more inclined to obey? Who would you rather follow into battle? Why? I would obey the one who could better guarantee victory and my own chances of survival. Comprehensive problem-solving and objective plan forming however, often involves the officer to act and think in a modest detached way. This is more appealing to me then appeals to bravado and harsh acts of heroism. The answer lies in the human need to feel cared for. My opinion is rooted in the rational need to win. One of the best ways to build team cohesion is through shared suffering. Which leads to the leadership problems of "group think," skewed decision making, and emotional reasoning. Command & control is best accomplished through clam, cool, and detached reasoning; diverse/unbias feedback, and clarity of thought. Julius Caesar, George Washington... If a 4-star general -and god-forbid the Commander in Chief- attempted to ride into battle on-top of a horse like Washington and Caesar, he would almost certainly be killed due to the advent of powerful long-range precision weaponry. Leading from the front is now the most idiotic command decision a commander can possibly do. The power of this concept is as old as time, No longer applies due to technology. Since gunpowder, the commander went from leading from in front of the line to behind it. Since artillery and rocketry, the commander went from leading from behind the line to an underground bunker, Since ballistic missiles and ICBMs, the commander went from hiding in an underground bunker to a secret and undisclosed location (possibly even airborne location). The modern army officer now, can no longer afford to take this risk of exposing himself on the field of battle, and the time worn adage of "leading by example" no longer applies to modern combat and is utterly obsolete.I have proven that combat necessity no longer dictates that military officers lead people from the front. If you agree with me, please vote Pro.Special thanks to Con for another good discussion.