...that the real backstory of Abu Ghraib was that the MPs were put up to those shenanigans by the MI and inter-agency folks to 'soften' up the prisoners. This was in preparation for the 'enhanced interrogations.'

I know joes can be stupid, they do stupid stuff all the time. Sometimes that is why we love them - Abrams famously said "put a soldier in the desert with an anvil and come back in 3 days he will have discovered a way to break the anvil." But I think you would be hardpressed to see them SO CONSISTENTLY stupid as they were at AG. There was too much uniformity to their behavior and it extended over too long a period. I think they were directed to do most of that shit and I'll bet someone even told them to take the pictures (really f'ing stupid that) so they could be used in interrogations. No Iraqi wants to see themself wearing women's panties on their head in an interrogation room...do they?

The shame of it all is that other than a couple PFCs and buck sergeants and a even tinier number of officers (the highest of which Karpinski was obviously merely criminally negligent in her supervision) NO ONE was really held accountable. Dirty Sanchez shoulda been breaking rocks with SPC Graner at Leavenworth as far as I am concerned.

Ethics training is important but it really doesn't require much more than one powerpoint of facts of what is allowed or disallowed...then the rest is consistent continuous commentary and supervision by the chain of command. This ain't fancy shit.

Our unofficial motto was "First Do No Harm" and I repeated it until I was blue in the face. Secondary motto was "Be Good to Other People". Tertiary motto was "I don't want to bring everyone home physically whole and mentally broken because they did something they wouldn't be able to live with."

I'd like to personally beat the shit out of the guy who decided it was a good idea to occupy Abu Ghraib and make it our own frightful gulag (Franks?). Probably the same dumbass who thought it was a great move to occupy Saddam's old palaces for every Division HQs etc (Franks? again)

What a terrible image that must have been to see the Ameriki move into the very symbols of Saddam's dictatorship and oppression...and guess what...we are still doing it. Moronic.

Our every action has repercussions and impacts in the eyes of the Iraqi man on the street. We still don't pay enough attention. What do you suppose they think when the power is out, the heat is blazing, the refrigerator is down and they need only look left or right to see FOB HUMONGOUS with the lights and AC cranking. How bout some ice cream soldier? - we got 8 of Baskin Robbins 31 flavors (yes really). BTW this stuff has a fancy name - Influence Operations - but we are still screwing it up.

Have to respectfully disagree with you on that one. The guys there got out of hand on their own accord and once they were allowed to do it without fear of any kind of retribution it grew. Basically no one cared that they were doing it and knew it was going on. Remember, it was other soldiers that turned them in and one of them, an E4, made sure that CID knew it was those guys alone and they they tried to get him and others to join in but they refused to do so. You know how peer pressure can get and when you combine that with poor training, poor leadership and no discipline you are asking for trouble. Human beings can become pretty sadisitc on their own and do not need to much prodding from MI or Agency folks. There is no way on God's Green Earth that they did not know what they were doing was outside of the UCMJ or basic common sense, heck, if those had been US Soldiers that they did this too they could have been taken up on Hazing Charges. So the whole idea that they were ordered to do it or made to do it is to me complete hyperbole from a lot of folks on the left and in the media. It makes a good story but is not what usually happens.
One thing people have to keep in mind is that while this happened and other incidents happened, they are still very rare and are usually punished pretty quickly. I do not think more ethics training are needed, more discipline and better leadership training are. Let us not also forget that the General in charge was later Martyred by womens' groups as a scape goat, that goes back to the person in charge gets the glory or the disaster when they are in that spot.

Sorry ESIII, there are too many references in there to MI directions. Even Karpinski cops to it - (which I don't think is great supporting evidence but it is there).

excerpted from: http://news.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/iraq/tagubarpt.html#ThR1.13

15. (U) BG Karpinski alleged that she received no help from
the Civil Affairs Command, specifically, no assistance
from either BG John Kern or COL Tim Regan. She blames
much of the abuse that occurred in Abu Ghraib (BCCF) on
MI personnel and stated that MI personnel had given the
MPs "ideas" that led to detainee abuse. In addition, she
blamed the 372nd Company Platoon Sergeant, SFC Snider,
the Company Commander, CPT Reese, and the First Sergeant,
MSG Lipinski, for the abuse. She argued that problems in
Abu Ghraib were the fault of COL Pappas and LTC Jordan
because COL Pappas was in charge of FOB Abu Ghraib.
(ANNEX 45)

Or go here to the originals:

http://www.dod.mil/pubs/foi/detainees/taguba/TAGUBA_REPORT_CERTIFICATIONS.pdf

Page 33-34 of the pdf (18-19 on actual page #s) is just one good place to refer to, but it is all over the Taguba report. In fact on pdf page 33 para. 10 (which I can't copy and paste sorry) he clearly states that the MI told the MP guards what to do to set the conditions for successful interrogations.

And I believe Taguba did his report in good faith - of course he was screwed over in return.

Saying that the MI asked them to soften them up is a big step to having it as official policy to do what those guys did, sorry, I disagree that those guys were part of a larger conspiracy and none of them started to say they were pushed in that direction by any outside forces till later on and it became fashionble. Do I think the MI knew it was going on and turned a blind eye or maybe encouraged it via turning a blind eye or perhaps even giving them accolades? Probably a good chance of that but I do not think that they got to the point of doing some of those things with anyones help but their own. Sadism is easy to come by in a prison atmosphere and even civilians in a controlled study setting subcumb to it very easily, so I do not buy that they were ordered to do what they did by the MI or by an agency until I see actual proof to the contrary. Why for instance has the person who got CID really involved via pictures and complaints (Spc. Joseph M. Darby) never come forward to say that the MI pushed those guys to do those things? If he was brave enough to expose the whole thing to CID while working with those guys, why would he not mention that it was the MI or other intelligence agencies that made it policy? If you have proof, I am open to it and it would actually make me feel a little bit relieved but I am always cynical of humans and hence why I think it was those guys who got off on what they did, were allowed to do what they did by others and are the only ones to blame for their own actions.

I'm giving you choice research items here and I know you didn't have the time to read the whole thing.

I am as cynical as the next guy, and I know some 15-6s aren't worth the paper they are written on. However I think Taguba was a good guy with a crappy job to do. He states this as a finding and holds most of the chain of command in both the MP and MI accountable in some fashion (not severe enough but just my opinion).

Where we have the OLC and the VP authorizing/advocating enhanced interrogation why is it so hard to believe that some lower level schmoes authorized college frat tricks and hijinxes - esp if they incorrectly thought it would soften people up for interrogation? Not sure if it really matters if it was 'official' policy. I do think that it happened too often and too consistently to be just a bunch of dumbasses from WV. Having said all that I think it was overblown too, but it doesn't matter because it was a tragic loss of moral high ground and a terrible loss in the IO campaign. We were our own worst enemy on that one. A foot shot we won't soon recover from.

Sure the joes are gonna try to cover it up, blame others, maybe even collude on a story. But on this one there is too much smoke to say there ain't no fire.

I will read the whole thing, or at least the part on AB, I have nothing but time lately but I know how those reports go, they are like paper ambien ;) I just think that Darby would have backed up the stories if they are true or at least say that he was also told that by MI or an Agency. He was working the same place with those guys, refused to join in and made repeated complaints up the CoC, who I think either did not want to believe it or like I said, turned a blind eye to it. It was not until he went past GO and straight to the CID with pics and complaints that it broke open, long before the Media got a hold of it. That is the real tragedy, Darby had to go around his CoC to get anything done about it. So, I remain skeptical that MI or any agency pushed those guys to do what they did and to me, they are making excuses for themselves.
I do totally agree with you that it was a big old .45 to the foot and that we are still getting nailed for it but it also kind of ticks me off that what often gets ignored in a lot of these things is that it was a joe who reports it and turns his buddies in. I do not think you can get much more ethical than that.

Google "Taguba Report" and you can find it real easy in PDF

When you refer to me, please make sure that it is Col. Retired, and not BG. I think I made it clear that it was not my fault, but rather the fault of my soldiers when I blamed them for everything on the Today Show. After all, even though I had a star on my collar, that does not ensure my own Soldiers will allow me access to parts of the prison. I really did not want to do that, but I thought what better way to display my leadership skills.

Sincerely,
Janet Karpinski (Col, Ret.)

I actually find myself in agreement with you on that, hate the way you write it but in total agreement. Sheesh, first RD and now you!? ;) Something is strange! I must see if locusts and toads are just hiding and waiting to come, this makes no sense. ;)

I agree, only one was a civilian guard but you do not need to do that as a job to know what they were doing was wrong. Conspiracies make fun and nice stories but 99% of the time they are just incompetent people doing a terrible job.

Saluti Capitano - Buona questa! : )

“The recipe for perpetual ignorance is: Be satisfied with your opinions and content with your knowledge.”

B Squad Leader, I understand your defensive reaction to complex ideas such as those presented in this forum. However, calling someone "a pompous ass" because you do not possess an adequate range or depth of the subtextual and contextual knowledge required to fully comprehend, let alone intelligently participate in, this conversation is something that not even a three-hour powerpoint presentation on respect for others with superior training and intellect would likely prevent. I'm not sure even a single-page bullet-pointer for self-important squad leaders would be helpful.

If "pompous ass" is the label you apply to anyone who addresses an issue using written language that is clear yet precise, an argument that is comprehensive, well-reasoned, logical, and based on a clear scholarly mastery of the issues at hand, and all presented with the passion to challenge the powers-that-be to elevate both themselves, the systems they have created, and those who work within those systems to strive to reach higher ideals, the ideals set forth originally by the founders of this country - then you clearly must have much self-loathing and contempt. I pity you, and pray that your values are never put to the test in any position that affects others.

The only insult that could be accurately applied to MAJ Pryers arguments is the term quixotic, given the current political climate and total abandonment of the ethical guidance on which this country was founded. Washington, Jefferson and Franklin were also quixotic - laughed at by the royal establishment - when they dared question what was as immoral and cried out to others to dream of what could be.

I'd like to be more specific in helping to clarify your misconceptions, and perhaps agree or disagree with the specifics contained in your written comments. Unfortunately, as I re-read your words, the embryonic ideas scattered throughout have at least three, perhaps more, serious flaws in internal logic that prevents any sort of logical or measured response. You are in essence at conflict with yourself in the ideas you set forward; and though I do quite appreciate the non-linear "Pulp Fiction" style of the narrative, I fear this was not an artistic choice on your part but perhaps sign of deeper issues.

I have seen nothing in MAJ Pryer's that implies what you allege, namely that his "ideal of leadership is that subordinates blindly follow the orders of those in charge" - even though the idea of someone with the inability to absorb and correctly process information to the degree that you have put on display here would definitely cause one to have hope that a squad leader such as yourself would "blindly follow the orders of those in charge". I have no doubt that when a directive you do not fully understand offends your honor to the degree you choose to disobey it, the time has arrived for you to step down in favor of your most capable team leader.

A few key points - while ethics is not leadership, it is not management either. Despite the argument on both sides of ethics training in the Army, the fact remains that whether ethics are ingrained in or learned by an individual is irrelevant. It is simply the fact that the conversation about what constitutes ethical behavior in ANY given setting occurs, is agreed upon, is standardized, and is incorporated into policies and procedures from the top down, with clearly deifined and appropriate consequences for violating the agreed upon and standardized ethics in any way, either by action, inaction or through the development of policy.

Perhaps the subtext of MAJ Pryer's call for more ethics training in the Army goes far beyond your simple conception of yet another powerpoint presentation you have to huff your way through in a classroom for three hours while you impatiently wait to get back to beating your squad over the head with your cro-magnon conception of leadership. Perhaps what MAJ Pryer suggests is the amount of emphasis placed on a certain area conveys a loud signal to the relevant importance of that area. A literal example would be three weeks spend on intensive combat training with three hours of ethics training attached. This curriculum would allow anyone to draw resonable conclusion to the relevant importance of combat as compared to ethics.

Is the call here for more isolated ethics classes, or to recognize that ethics needs to just be the foundation that the Army's policies and training are built upon, but also the mortar between the bricks, the insulation inside the walls, the single in the roof and the wires that connect every system.

By separating ethics from other training and approaching it as a separate, curious subject - a relic from the days of chivalry to be held up from time to time and admire before getting back to the serious business of killing anything that moves - ethics is actually removed from the actions and policies that are performed and formed on a daily basis.

For any system to be ethical, the consideration and discussion of the agreed upon set of ethics must an inseparable part of the fabric of every activity. To prevent the headline grabbing abberations or reason and morality such as those being discussed here, the clearly defined and agreed upon ethics of the organization mus be considered in every action, policy or training event in a way that is not forced or artificial, but in a way that is a natural and consistently expected as breathing.

Better leadership in the absence of an acceptable ethical code is not what soldiers need, sorry B Squad Leader. I'm sure even Hitler, who by all accounts was an outstanding "leader", would disagree with you. He throroughly incorporated his own twisted ethical code into the fabric of policy-making, training and operations throughout his army. Leadership always has an ethic, even if that ethic is having none.

If only those with the power to truly make the seismic institutional changes required to affect an organization the size of the U.S. Army would heed to the sage advice of MAJ Pryer!

Atrocities will always occur in any power-weilding institution; humans are by nature imperfect, this is outside of our power to change. What can be changed is to acknowledge what happens when ethics is only a three-hour slide show, and then vow to use every future opportunity to rebuild the Army with the the American ethics of goodness - dignity, respect, freedom, honor for oneself and others - as a vital and ingrained component of everything the Army does or plans to do moving forward.

MAJ Pryer cries out like John the Baptist in the wilderness, beard covered in locust, and is laughed at by fools self-satisfied with their petty accomplishements and total lack of self-awareness. He sees a possible future, a future where the institution itself is guided by and created of only the highest ideals. A future where the perpetuators of atrocity are simply that - abberrant members of an organization with a clear moral vision. An Army where all members are baptized in everything they do with the knowledge of what we aspire to be, an Army where those who violate those ideals have no recourse, no "institutional guilt" to take solace in and blame for their transgressions. An Army where the ideals and expectations are as clear as the consequences who fail to meet them.

I believe in the ideals MAJ Pryer has laid out, and the path he is attempting to persuade others to follow. It takes a brave man indeed to point out the flaws of those in power, moreso when one is within the power structure itself. Kudos to you MAJ Pryer - keep up the good fight to never give up the fight to hold ourselves to a higher ideal. Perhaps you will be heard, our Army and our country made the better for it, and fools such as B Squad leader restrained from positions of authority on ethical grounds of placing responsibility for the lives of others in the hands of those with limited capacity for reason.

That was a very well written polemic, I enjoyed it but what I think "B" Sqd was attempting to say was that people are over analyzing things and if that is what he was indeed saying (in his own way) then I agree with him and your post goes to that point. Ethics are something that has and always will be in the mix, they are taught in Boot, in AIT/A School/Selection/etc..even Scout/Sniper School Teaches them..but they are either taken on board or they are not, goes back to the old "lead a horse to water" metaphor. More training on them or more analysis is not what is needed. These things happened due to poor leadership. The fact of the matter is that Spc. Darby had those ethics you speak of, reported it up the CoC and was ignored and it was his ethics that made him go directly to CID with what was going on and it was his ethics that got the investigation going. Those ethics are what has driven the majority of our investigations via CID/NCIS or other groups because it was the average soldier/sailor/marine/airman who reported the wrong doings. Like you pointed out, war crimes are going to happen, no matter what we do they will continue, but I think to our credit we have had very few incidents when you look at our numbers and even now our Marines and Soldiers are acting with great restraint in Afgahnistan and have acted with great restraint over the course of these conflicts.

i know doug pryer. i know he is a pompous ass. his ideas and rhetoric are almost beside the point, because what matters in the Army is the ACTIONS of leaders, especially in challenging situations like we face in the GWOT. and though his ideas may or may not be great, when officers like him are leading our troops, then the reality is always going to be something different than what they write.

good that you got the reference to The Life Aquatic. You are highspeed.

the john the baptist thing almost had me crying tears of laughter. thanks for that.

"When I was in Iraq during OIF I, I was truly profoundly impressed by the ethical stands made by the HUMINT professionals I knew. Today, even though I out-ranked most of these professionals, I acknowledge that many of them were my mentors with regard to military ethics."

what would your rank have to do with your ethics? who would even think that way?

Your continued personal attacks against MAJ Pryer are illuminating. Your previous incoherent ramblings now make perfect sense - not in content, of course - but in their existence. Obviously you have served under MAJ Pryer at some point during your career, been measured, and been found wanting. That is one theory, the easy one.
Another theory follows the "Great men have great needs" line of reasoning. This theory posits that someone you loved, perhaps frustrated by your limited mental and physical capabilities to satisfy, was overwhelmed with lust for the shining light cast by MAJ Pryer into the dank world she was sharing with you. Perhaps MAJ Pryer took pity on this poor soul - her tender young heart sullied from association with your life so full of self-contempt, envy of others, and self-imposed sacraments of ignorance - and gave her a glimpse of what a truly positive man full of passion, ideals and vitality could bring into her life. Maybe it was just a glimpse. Maybe it was more. I don't know. But whatever it was that she got changed her life forever, and now she is gone - and you are left a bitter and hateful man.
Or maybe MAJ Pryer is your Steve Zissou, and you are his Ned - eager to receive his approval and acceptance, but afraid it may never come. Things ended badly for Ned, but they didn't have to. Drop your grievances against MAJ Pryer, whatever they may be - and open yourself to accept his gentle love and mercies. It is your only chance for redemption, as your road of self-hatred is the path to destruction.
MAJ Pryer - keep the faith. B Squad Leader may never be able to appreciate your wisdom, but he would make a fine case study in your powerpoint presentation.

Between B Squad and Adamczyk I am absolutely entranced! And now I will have to see that damn Aquatic movie - even though I am no real fan of that director, whose name fails me. Guess I just ain't one of the cool kids.

Bottom line is every organization has ethics, even as Adam says that ethic is no ethic. We inculcate new servicemembers into the military and try to convey that ethic...because our SMs come from all walks of life and may come from a world that doesn't share those values. It is part and parcel of their indoctrination. Some of that stuff has to be revisited after time - and esp. warrants revisiting prior to deployment to a warzone where different ethics and values may operate. yes, we are all better served if that training is embedded in realistic scenarios instead of boring Powerpoint shit. But sometimes there just isn't time for much else.

As for those who cry and malign their leadership, I find that those who do the most yelling demonstrate the least leadership of their own. Having said that leadership is a sorely abused term, often overstated, and less understood. It is so abused that it really should be replaced with something with more meaning.

In the end if you want something done and done right it is often best if you do it yourself. If you are waiting for the "on high" to institute change you will be waiting a long time. this quote seems most appropriate:

"Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead

As always, you get to the point and make common sense observations and do not over analyze things (Adam ;) ) I love your point about the waiting for the higher ups to make changes, so true, but you have to admit, at AB it was a serious failure in the CoC that lead Darby to go to the CID on his own and why that crap was allowed to continue?

Hunter: For my overall high regard of my fellow military servicemembers, higher-ranking, peer, and subordinate, see the comment I wrote two days ago. This comment is on Tom's earlier blog about my book. I'm not sure if you were thinking of me as someone who thinks little of his chain-of-command or military leadership in general, so just in case...

Although I love my Army and am proud of the recent largely positive changes we have made with regard to doctrine and force structure, I don't believe that we are essentially a more moral institution than we were in 2003. And this troubles me, not just from my admittedly idealistic view of what it means to be an American but from a practical point of view as well. To win our nation's small wars in the 21st Century, our leaders and soldiers have to make decisions that stand up to international and national scrutiny. And, despite truly admirable and wise restraint shown in such recent operations as OP Moshtarak, I don't believe we're close to being where we need to be as an Army (or military) yet.

Don't get me wrong. I am EXTREMELY proud of the decisions the vast majority of leaders and soldiers make on a routine daily basis now, just as I am very proud of how most interrogators behaved during OIF I. But there have been far, far too many exceptions to these general rules, and these exceptions will continue if we don't fundamentally change as a military.
Although I have some ideas on how we may groom more ethical (and hence more effective "flat world") leaders and soldiers, I haven't shared them with anyone yet. Thus, I've been a little surprised by the numbers of comments posted here assuming that I've already said one thing or another in this regard. Truly, I am more interested in listening to the good ideas of the commentators here than to leaving my young ideas on this subject exposed, more infant than John the Baptist, in a cyberwilderness.

Especially with lean wolves like B Squad Leader roaming about. :-)

Simplicity of thought exists only in the thoughts of the simple.

When commanding a brigade, doing it all yourself is no longer a viable option.

* CLARITY *

My comment on leadership was directed at B S L who was complaining bitterly about the leadership he had suffered under

i.e. "Ethics is management, not leadership.Try more ethics training at Goldman Sachs, not in the US Army. Better leadership is what Soldiers need."

...not towards you.

I've spent the last decade intensely studying "leadership" as a concept, while trying to live it as a practice. Even got a PhD in the subject - yes really - not that that means much. Sadly, Or maybe fortunately, I no longer believe in leadership. It's a fairytale told by Mommies and Daddies to make children feel safe at night. It's based on mythology that we originated at the dawn of man. Like Ra's travel across the sky, or Apollo's similar traverse we universally created these gods in our minds to explain that which we feared or could not explain. We abdicate our own responsibility, and oh we also like to place blame, on those we elevate into these positions - many of which are no better equipped than we are to make decisions or do what is right.

It's a different world these days, instant information on the internet, or even pseudo instant knowledge on the battlefield, makes most of the hierarchical control of the past industrial age go away (or it should). Everyone shares the knowledge, everyone has the power to make a decision. Those closest to the action should be the ones empowered to do so. Then the most right decision can be made. But to contrast B Squad's comment. He argues that ethics is management. Not at all, ethics is required to ensure that the right decision made is not only the right decision from a on-the-ground tactical standpoint but from a moral and ethical standpoint.

To the latter point of "do it yourself." (Next post?) This is not to mean that the BDE CDR does everything within his organization. Instead it means that if the BDE CDR doesn't like what he is seeing elsewhere he must set the conditions properly within the limits of his own power. Do what is 'right' within his command, and damn the consequences. This is no different from the highest general to the lowest private. As ESIII points out SPC Darby did it at Abu Ghraib.

Warning: long personal anecdote alert. In Iraq our BDE stance was to maintain a bubble around the 44 truck convoys to prevent Iraqi civilian traffic from co-mingling and protect the convoy. It was a dumb policy and I refused to do it. My Bn's convoys allowed Iraqi traffic to travel alongside and while we discouraged co-mingling we weren't assholes about it. Meanwhile our counterparts in the BDE were treating every civilian vehicle (usually passing from the rear) as a threat, forcing them to cross the median and then drive in the opposite direction of prevailing traffic.

This was dumb, counterproductive, and ultimately dangerous to our other convoys that were headed in the opposite direction. More significantly it was counter to part of my desired endstate which was to "improve the Iraqi peoples' outlook on coalition forces". It inconvenienced the Iraqis, often scared the shit out of them, and made them pissed off at our convoys. My BDE counterparts were often attacked - they were being assholes after all - we were not. BTW they were largely assholes to our convoys too.

Later as things continued to shift for the better in Iraq there were articles in the Stars and Stripes about "sharing the road" in areas much hotter than those we normally travelled. I cut it out and gave it to my boss. Nothing changed. It wasn't until some weeks or months later that the MNC-I directive came down that everyone needed to "share the road."

There was much consternation at the BDE HQs, we had a big meeting to discuss how would we do this. Omigosh what will we do!? How can we possibly do that? I told the collected commanders and sergeant majors, "we've always been sharing the road." The BDE CDR looked at me crosswise and asked me "You have?" but he didn't fire me - or even chew my ass. My fellow CDRs probably weren't too happy but I had already tried to turn their points of view before in private. Instead, our BN-level "rules of the road" eventually became the BDE's. I'm not saying this to say what a hero I was, I'm saying it as an example that doing the right thing pays dividends in the end. I could have been fired for going a different way - but I would have left the job knowing I did what was right. My soldiers knew it was right too, and they benefitted greatly by not being jerks on the road.

We did lots of other things "different" like translating our convoys from dumb day missions to nighttime. Go figure, there is less traffic, fewer inconvenienced Iraqi drivers...and oh by the way more comfortable, cooler gun truck crews and gun trucks. With curfew even fewer Iraqis on the road to share road with. Another win, win.

Our results speak for themselves. In 9 months on the road we expended a total of nine rounds of ammunition (yes 9) in only four Escalation of Force incidents. (Heck I think we also expended 4 rounds in negligent discharges - not everything was perfect in my BN). Our predecessors encountered 60 IEDs in just over 9 months on the road, we experienced 2, 1 exploded, 1 was found and cleared.

Meanwhile our BDE counterparts expended whole boxes of ammunition anytime they encountered anything remotely like a hostile act. I give absolute credit to the SSG convoy commanders and SGT truck commanders that implemented my harebrained policy. They did all the heavy lifting. They also often made their own decisions - as they should - when they were far away from home and BFT was our only less than useful link. I got into fights with my boss about that too - about who was making decisions on convoy actions out on the road. He wanted Field Grades in the TOC making those tough calls... micromanagement, dumb, counterproductive, emasculating, and ultimately not smart when the soldiers 400 miles away have the better information. I'm proud of my troops they were empowered and they did what they had to. Sometimes they didn't make the decision I would have chosen, sometimes I critiqued them for it or asked them to look at things in a different way in an AAR, but most times I supported them all the way.

We talk about empowerment, but often times when people are offered empowerment they look askance and fear the responsibility that goes with it. Some would rather have a leader to blame. Some would rather sit paralyzed and await direction. Again "Never doubt that a small group of dedicated individuals can change the world. In fact, it is the only thing that ever has." Margaret Mead "

Back to Abu Ghraib, anyone in that chain of command could have done the right thing. Sadly, or fortunately it was a SPC who finely stood up and did it. "First Do No Harm" it's a good maxim for living in Iraq/Afghanistan....it's a good maxim for life.

Adamczyk, so doug stole my bird, and that's why i believe that the actions of leaders, and not what they say or write, is what is actually important in what does and does not happen (in part based on my observations of doug)? BRILLIANT!

and why do you assume i served under him? major is a relatively lowly rank for an officer. and one that 98% or so of captains around when doug would have been selected attain. As OPTAJOE would tweet, *SELECTIVE*

the more you write the more entertaining you become.

and doug, when are you going to give us your keys to the kingdom to solve all our ethical problems? im sure that tom could use his press corps contacts to get something together for you.

hunter, i never complain bitterly about anything. like the dude, i abide.

isnt leadership pretty much the antithesis of getting a phD in it? but yes, i agree, it is an almost meaningless catch-all term, but then what would your erudition suggest i use for something we may not be able to define but know it when we see it?

Yep, my overactive schooling gland was crying out for an itch. My civilian employer has a great tuition assistance program so FREE MONEY was at least one driving concern.

As for that thing "you know when you see it" - I think that is pornography. In serious answer to your question I haven't found the answer to Leadership 2.0, that new name I mean. I've toyed with some things (all copyrighted I assure you - there's money to be made here) but none of them have settled out well.

Many say you can't get rid of such a engrained, socially-constructed term as Leader or Leadership. To those among you I refer you to the Germans. They decided, some time ago that Der Fuhrer was a bad thing to keep on using. They replaced it with Das Leiter.

There is hope for us all. Regardless of what we call 'it' we should recognize that the more it is spread around and the less concentrated the better off we all may be. Our post-industrial Information age may actually offer much more latitude than we give credit for.

If you need another example of this repsonsibility/blame dichotomy....look no further than our President. I have no particular love or hate for the man, but he was viewed as a Messiah before his election and now is a pariah. We raise them all up so we can tear them down, and then go back to munching our Cheetos in front of the boob-tube trying to find out who 'won' The Bachelor.

We could do with alot more "ask not what your country can do for you....etc." around here.

i am a bit intrigued by your post, but i still dont understand what you are getting at. but maybe thats me and not you. my definition of leadership would be the actions that a person in power makes. i think that for that definition the Der Leiter/Der Fuehrer distinction is not especially important. but thats not to say my rough definition is any good. and as you should know from my criticism of dougs leadership philpsophy, i am totally against the idea of subordinated blindly following orders. lets face it, most of the time in the army, the leader is just a guy filling a sot who will be forgotten ten minutes after they change command or leave as staff section primary. so im not a big guy for the fuehrerprinzip (whoops, thats three).

i think the more useful german term here would be verantwortungsfreundlichkeit (i read that in a rommel bio, so now i can say carry on i a conversation in german using that and my other favorite word, which is of course fahrvernuegen), which i think gets better at your point about "distributed leadership." a good leader should have that, though not out of the fear that is typical in a micromanaged organization where the leader is not confident enough to let anything out of her control lest she be blamed for any mistake that occurs.

I have been called out accurately. My purpose was to entertain, not enlighten - though written language has an incredible rorschach quality that often enables others to draw profundities lurking within, from the absurd that lies without.

Well done, BSL! Perhaps your IQ is in the double-digit range after all - then again, even a blind squirrel finds a nut in the woods from time to time.

Nice post above, Hunter. I wholeheartedly agree with you that leadership (in the commonly accepted definition) exists only as a concept. Leadership would no doubt be better defined as a choice, as choice not made by the "leader", but a choice made by others to defer to someone else as a "leader". Some individuals are more naturally skilled than others in getting many to make that choice.

My true personal opinion regarding ethics in the Army? It is a moot point. The Army, at its most basic level, is nothing but a tool. The internal ethics espoused make no difference at all if the tool is being used in an unethical fashion.

The clearest statement of this concept might go something like this: "Doing a thing that is unethical in an ethical fashion, is still unethical." The Army, from its highest ranking member to the lowliest grunt, are ultimately only as ethical as the commands of the master it serves - and in this regard the Army ultimately has no choice but to serve its master, regardless of the ethics of that master. The Army's internal leadership and members may espouse the highest ideals as much they wish, train on them day in and day out, but when orders come down from the master to go kill "the enemy", the Army will carry out this order - ethics be damned. The only ultimate ethical choice each member of the Army has is whether or not to serve that master.

As far as MAJ Pryer delivering to us all the "ultimate answer" like Moses bringing down the tablets from the mount, this will never happen. It is clear that MAJ Pryer is not a "pompous ass", or even a policy genius for that matter. He is clearly something more, and quite frankly I'm surprised none of you have recognized it by now.

It is clear from even the most precursory examination of MAJ Pryer's words that he is a SEER, though he himself is apparently not yet aware of this fact. He is still blinded by the mass of details, nonessential inanities, in which his earthly existence is consumed. His words show that he clearly sees a higher plane of consciousness, his thoughts often float into a higher realm. He brings back to us snippets of wisdom from this higher realm, but they are only the faintest glimpses of what he is no doubt capable of seeing, should he choose to realize his own potential.

His actions are no doubt often misunderstood by others, as he struggles with the difficulty of combining the two realities he is able to see - the world as it really is, and the world as most see it. Unfortunately for us, when the day comes that he does finally close his earthly eyes and begins to see only the world as it truly is, and is able to comprehend truths of the higher realm in their fullness - he will no doubt take the same path as many mystics before him - abandon us all to our madness.

Say what you will - I personally will be collecting his wisdom while is is willing to share it with the rest of us.

Which means this conversation is better continued in another thread.

I've enjoyed the chat (as almost always) with ESIII, BSL and Adam. I'll summarize with these two thoughts.

1. A great definition of leadership was generated by a smart guy named Joseph Rost:

"Leadership is an influence relationship among leaders and follwoers who intend real change that reflects their mutual purposes. (Wisely he later changed 'leaders and followers' to 'collaborators')."

I stole from him and a few other sources to come up with:

1a. ____(word that is not leadership)______ is a relationship between collaborators, who influence one another by purpose, direction and motivation in order to achieve mutual change.

Noteworthy here - doesn't require one to be in a position of power over another. It's shared episodically.

2. My favorite German word (I am half German) is "fingerspitzengefuhl" - also a Rommelism - it means "he saw all the battlefield as if it was at his fingertips." That's situational awareness and the ability to make good decisions with the limited information available. We could use lots more of that too.

could choice on another great german word

HUNTER: I thoroughly enjoyed your last post! Now that was written from the kind of insightful, constructive perspective I had hoped for, when I happily agreed to write a guest blog for Tom. Don’t get me wrong. There have been some other great comments on here. But I enjoyed your lengthy comment so much that I went back and re-read not just it but all of your other comments consecutively, to see if I had missed anything. Indeed, I had. There is much that shines to be panned from your comments.
For starters, I truly related to your story about Iraq, though my role during OIF I was less important than yours. Here’s just one memory your story jogged...
In very early May 2003, as the assistant operations officer for an MI Battalion, I was the TC for the lead humvee of our battalion convoy from Kuwait to Baghdad. Before departing, we had received very explicit and clear orders, which I think originated with my division commander (Sanchez), that we were not to encourage locals to come anywhere near us: we weren’t to wave; we weren’t to smile. And if locals did come anywhere near our vehicles, we were to ensure they backed away by waving our weapons at them, and if necessary, even pointing our weapons at them.
From a detached, purely force-protection perspective, this order made sense. Overwhelmed by friendly locals at stops, soldiers had had items stolen. And of course there was always the fear that one of these “friendly” locals might be a suicide bomber.
So, our convoy drove to Baghdad, in the midst of impoverished, liberated Shiites often lining the road, sometimes in the middle of the desert without a home or car in sight (how far had they walked?), their smiles and fierce waves met with soldiers’ mostly stone faces and equally fierce waves of M16s. While we should have felt as allied troops felt when they liberated Paris, instead most of us exhibited all the emotion and friendliness of faceless stormtroopers occupying an alien planet.
In short, U.S. forces—or certainly my division--really blew it at the start.
For the record, I disobeyed that particular order. I personally smiled and waved like crazy—shook hands and talked to the kids at stops when the field grades weren’t looking. And I doubt, although I didn’t see anyone else doing it, that my vehicle was the only vehicle whose occupants acted that way.
Perhaps strangely, to this day, I have slightly mixed feelings about disobeying that particular order. I had been given an order, although unwise in retrospect, which had been at bottom a lawful and moral order. And I’m a soldier, obligated to follow such orders.
But my feelings are only slightly mixed here. What I did looked and felt right. It’s hard to rationalize one’s way to what right looks like sometimes. Or as Eric Stratton said here, it’s easy “to over analyze things.” :-)
I also empathized with the tone you set for your battalion. My battalion commander did the same, and so did I as one of his company commanders in downtown Baghdad. I truly had a great company, full of good soldiers. Like your battalion, my unit knew that treating locals well was extremely important. But occasionally, individuals in my unit, usually under the influence of the poor examples of neighbours in other units, made bad decisions (such as driving wildly). When this happened, my subordinate leaders and I knew, like you and your unit knew, to correct their poor judgment.
Again, I identified fully with the challenges you faced and the tack you felt you had to take in Iraq. I also admire much that you’ve written elsewhere here. Another one of your shiny flecks of gold is that quote from Rost (revised version). I’d be truly honored if you were to look me up on AKO and drop me a personal note sometime...
Lastly, knowing my current interests, are there any books you recommend I add, from the ethics or leadership disciplines, to my reading list?
v/r,
Doug

B SQUAD LEADER: As excited as I’ve been by some of the constructive comments on here, I’ve been just as disappointed by your mediocre input. Frankly, you haven’t even tried to say much that might be useful to anyone. With regard to me, you’ve not only gone the low ad hominem route, incredibly, you haven’t gotten a single one of my views right.
Most ridiculously, you keep claiming that I believe that subordinates must blindly follow their leaders. In my recent writings about interrogation operations during OIF I, I’ve consistently talked about a failure of ethical decision-making across multiple command levels. I have also, for example, decried annual “Army Values” briefs—which are generally meaningless powerpoint productions attended by both soldiers and their appointed leaders—as a woefully inadequate solution for fixing poor ethical decision-making. I don’t see that anything that I’ve written here contradicts my belief that our Army needs a robust ethics program that targets all soldiers, appointed leaders and otherwise.
Perhaps what you misconstrued is my opening statement that America suffered from torture scandals (and strategic defeat) due to a failure of “ethical leadership.” What I meant by this is that a failure of ethical leadership occurred at all levels, from certain political leaders at Washington, D.C., to certain low-level influencers (like Graner and Frederick at Abu Ghraib). Those two yahoos at Abu Ghraib encouraged soldiers around them to join them in heinous deeds, and those folks influenced by them influenced still others to do the same until a small cadre of soldiers were acting like the real monsters of the old Frankenstein movie—the mob, replete with torches and pitchforks, driven by fear and excitement to kill the monster. Finally, an Army specialist didn’t just say "no" to joining the mob, but shouted it—a strong example of personal courage and ethical leadership.
So in short—good grief! Of course subordinates can, should, and do disobey illegal and/or amoral orders. The challenge is getting them to know, in their heart of hearts if not rationally, that something “doesn’t look right.” And then their having the courage to say “no.”
You might save yourself the embarrassment of completely misstating other people’s positions by asking questions first. But that doesn’t appear to be your style. You’d rather play the role of assassin than builder. For, that is what leaders with “honor”—that value you emphasized so much in your first comment--do, right?
Hardly. If you possessed an ounce of honor, you would stop the character assassinations, step out from behind the curtain, and let me see who you are. If you’re uncomfortable unveiling your identity publicly, you would drop me a private note. Then, you would drop the personal attacks completely and join the real discussion. Unfortunately, from the little I’ve seen of you on this website thus far, I doubt you are thus capable of practicing what you preach.
Regardless of what you think of me on a personal level, you should think more of yourself, and rise above such pettiness. If you do, I'll also do my human best to meet you on the high ground.

ADAM: I appreciate the support, and I love your creative language and use of allusion. I really do. But let's be a little more civil here please. Thank you.

doug, this is an anonymous forum, and if you are uncomfortable with that fact, im sorry for you. if you dont like being criticized, then dont put yourself out there. nothing that i have written has been in the realm of the personal, and i have not done anything in the way of "character assassination."

i have simply pointed out that i know you, and in my estimation and in the estimation of the vast majority of those that i knew that knew you, you are a poor leader. so whatever ideas that you espouse, the reality of how you put them into practice is much different. and if thats true of you, its probably true of others as well. so beware those who espouse some simplistic solution like "ethics training" to a problem as complex as how to get US Soldiers to treat detainees with dignity and respect.

i have personally heard you say that your ideal of leadership is the subordinate blindly following the orders of his/her leader. that probably doesnt sound great in a paper, so ive no doubt why you are pretending youve never said that before. and you may have changed your views, i dont know know, but were i to guess, when the rubber hits the road i think you would revert to the "old doug."

that you do not understand my point that a good idea (and im not judging your ideas as such) coming from a poor leader is of questionable value does not really surprise me. you are you, and i was not aiming to influence you.

so thats it, there is no more....

B S L:
I'm not going to respond on a blogsite again to a fallacious "abusive ad hominem argument," as I did last night to yours. That was a complete waste of my time, time that would've been much better spent with my family or reading a good book. Thanks for the lesson, and good luck to you.