Command Tactics - The Burden of Command

This is for you @levina

When you talk about Military Command Structure. Most of them you can learn on a book, or by someone who teaches you. But sometime, something you just cannot learn, and the topic "Burden of Command" being one of them.

What is the Burden of Command?
It can probably best summerised by the following quote

General, soldiering has one great trap: to be a good soldier you must love the army. To be a good commander, you must be willing to order the death of the thing you love.

Click to expand...

It's a Philosophy, it means that in order to be a good soldier, you need to love the Army, but in order to be a good commander, you must be ready and have to guts to order the thing you love to death. This is kind of a Catch-22 Situation. You need to love Army, and love Soldiering to be a good soldier, however, for someone in command. You have to be able to give up the one thing that you love (Soldier) in order to accomplish your mission.

Simply put in this way

In war, the value of a soldier is meaningless, nor does it matter with the unit, the only meaningful thing is the accomplishment of objective

Click to expand...

Gen. Omar Bradley.

In the Military, the higher you go, the less human touch you get, and you would become cold. a commander must be able to have the stomach for casualty, especially when you are a field commander. This is because, first, let's not kid ourselves, a war would always inevitable have casualty to come with, it would be naïve to think you can fight a war with nobody dies.

Secondly, each one of us are a chip, a commodity, which higher up would use to trade with in war. Each of us have our value and a good commander will use their "chip" to trade in battlefield in order for him/her to complete his/her objective. You may trade 2 soldiers for a high ground, so you would lose less when it come to assault that position. Or you may want to trade 5 soldiers for a retreat routes. Thus saving your platoon

Now, this is as cold as you can get, but to be fair, you cannot command soldiers if you cannot let them go. The higher rank you go, the more soldier will be under your command, then you can no long afford to get personal with each and everyone. Otherwise you cannot complete your duty as a commander.

The problem is, it may be very easy to say, but for a commander, you MUST get the respect and trust from your fellow soldiers. So, the prospect of sending them to death may not be a very good trust or respect building act, but it is one of the act you must do in the course of taking a command.

So, what would a good commander do?

A good commander, regardless of rank and command, have to take their responsibility of command seriously. He or She must be able to balance the need and the risk of losing any soldier with the accomplishment of their objective.

A good commander knows 2 things. You cannot NOT SEND any troop in harms way , or the war will be getting no where and you cannot complete your task alone, so you cannot send all your troop in harms way where you stay at relative safety. A good commander have to do a sort of mental calculation and justified each and every decision of sending the people you command in harms way.

If you trade the high ground for 2 soldiers but you can get a high ground that can save 5 soldiers, that would be the risk you are going to take. However, at the same time, you also need to access the risk that it take itself. Would it be to much of a risk for the 2 soldiers to die and you get nothing in the end?
A general rules is this, as a Commander, if I would not risk myself for that plan, objective or goal, I will not risk my soldier to achieve it.

And that would be the burden of command

jhungary said:

This is for you @levina

Click to expand...

Thank you so much @jhungary . Your threads always enriches one's knowledge. I'm glad you posted one.

*****

Those at the top of military hierarchy know that combat is a b*itch.
Hats off to these commanders who under all circumstances maintain their cool and don't make decisions in the heat of the moment or based on their emotions.This trait of the decision-maker sets him apart from the soldier who often fights with emotion or even passion when the nature of the battle demands it.
The commander from the time of Napoleon and beyond, fights with his mind far more than with his body and individual weapons.
As a commander he's prepared to lose some but not all his soldiers.

Sometimes I feel its so hard being a man...this should be a reason why its considered feminine to be emotional.

levina said:

Thank you so much @jhungary . Your threads always enriches one's knowledge. I'm glad you posted one.

*****

Those at the top of military hierarchy know that combat is a b*itch.
Hats off to these commanders who under all circumstances maintain their cool and don't make decisions in the heat of the moment or based on their emotions.This trait of the decision-maker sets him apart from the soldier who often fights with emotion or even passion when the nature of the battle demands it.
The commander from the time of Napoleon and beyond, fights with his mind far more than with his body and individual weapons.
As a commander he's prepared to lose some but not all his soldiers.

Sometimes I feel its so hard being a man...this should be a reason why its considered feminine to be emotional.

Click to expand...

Well, all I can say is, you get all sort of commander in any army. Even in historical time, commander more often then not would mingle with their subordinate even more so than modern commander now. Take Alexander the Great as an example. He is an excellent commander and yet he treat his subordinate as if they were his brothers. He even would enjoy binge drinking and orgy with them (not with themselves but with some women)

Yet he know how and when to let those people go when the time is right, use them as efficient as they can.

In war, emotional is actually a good trait of a commander, it help rally troop, but you also need to know, in war, what also important is for you to have those emotion in check when you have to. Otherwise you cannot function as a command. As you will not be able to take any step and make any decision.

that is what I meant by burden of command

jhungary said:

Well, all I can say is, you get all sort of commander in any army. Even in historical time, commander more often then not would mingle with their subordinate even more so than modern commander now. Take Alexander the Great as an example. He is an excellent commander and yet he treat his subordinate as if they were his brothers. He even would enjoy binge drinking and orgy with them (not with themselves but with some women)

Yet he know how and when to let those people go when the time is right, use them as efficient as they can.

In war, emotional is actually a good trait of a commander, it help rally troop, but you also need to know, in war, what also important is for you to have those emotion in check when you have to. Otherwise you cannot function as a command. As you will not be able to take any step and make any decision.

that is what I meant by burden of command

Click to expand...

Very well said @jhungary , this burden of command is part of the the responsibility of any commanding general. This burden becomes readily apparent after the end of said conflict when one takes responsibilities of the abuses committed by one's officers. This is especially observed by the Yamashita Standard.

Nihonjin1051 said:

This is especially observed by the Yamashita Standard.

Click to expand...

Yamashita reminds me of the war crimes and human rights vilation after the war.I guess its also called medina standard.