what?

http://abcnews.go.com/International/Afghanistan/exclusive-gen-mcchrystal-patrol-afghanistan/story?id=10209346#.TwW_HYGymtY

"And so started a common foot patrol with a very uncommon guest: Gen. Stanley McChrystal, the four star commander of all American and international troops in Afghanistan and one of the army's most decorated soldiers. "

I think it's important for the old man to get out and show everyone he can hack the pace, as well as convey that he knows your outfit is out there. . .even share some danger, as MajGen Tompkins did by flying into Khe Sahn almost daily under fire. . .Oh Westy, where were you, it was your idea?

I think the funnies thing I ever experienced was going through the chow line at zero dark thirty one morning, as was my habit, to see if the meal was, “fit for human consumption,” and eyeballing the Division commander, future CMC, Al Gray, dishing-out shit-on-a-shingle without any stars on his collar.

Then again, I knew a regimental commander, an old breed, ram-rod straight Yakima Indian, who kicked a brigadier out of his camp on Okinawa for not having the courtesy of letting him know he’d be in town. . .The same individual that as am earlier BLT commander, had his engineers build a bridge over the Inland Waterway that cuts through Camp Lejeune to add some realism to the operation. . .screw the Army Corps of Engineers! : )

Than again, as everyone keeps telling me, things are more complex now?

This is a little off topic, but has there been any posts about the other type of general in the U.S? - the political general?

I ask because I was recently looking at an interview done of MG Harry Vaughan, who was Truman's military aide during his presidency. His career was based on cronism rather than troop leadership and was a regular embarrassment to Truman. In fact, much of the interview was concerned with his work on Truman's various candidacies rather than any military subjects. The only other example that loosely fits that I can think of is Alexander Haig.

Anyway, please let me know if there is any info about that.

I always thought officers (right up through CSA) should have to requalify every 2-3 years to be retained. You'd just report to an airfield somewhere with your ruck and gear. They'd drop you in the desert or swamp or tundra and you've have about 2-3 days to walk 20-30-60 miles (nothing impossible) out to a pick up point. Then you send in search and rescue to look for the bodies. If you make it on time you're still the BN S1, BDE CDR, or Corps CG, or VCSA or whatever, you are retained.

This might be a combination of Smoke Jumpers PT standard (including 1.5 mile in 11 min at 5000') where they see if you are going to be a smoke jumper this year, w a little Starship Trooper (everybody drops) thrown in.

I think it's great that GEN Gantz gets back in touch with his roots like this; however, if given the choice between a leader who maintains his tactical roots and one who mentors his forces, I would choose the former every time. In a perfect world, leaders would do both. Unfortunately, I had the pleasure of working for a division commander who spent more time out of the TOC with the troops than he ever did providing his staff operational guidance and mentoring. I can count the number of times any of the command group interacted with my section on one hand. This left a staff lost as to what the commander wanted, and resulted in numerous flail-ex's. While some might say "so what" to the staff flailing, the impact on mission performance rolled down hill and impacted the supported brigades.

Contrast this to the generals I observed during 1AD's train up; the DCG-O came into a section and stated something to the effect of: "the slide in the BUB did not show what I told you to show. Pull it up and I'll show you what I want." This level of guidance and mentoring continued during the targeting brief, where after the command group shredded the brief, they went over it slide by slide giving feedback on what they wanted and expected.

My overall thought from the exercise was "so this is what leadership looks like," and then I had to go back to the mentoring wasteland of my command.

Do the U.S. military branches do exchanges with the Israelis? Is there a standard group of countries for exchanges?

While in Texas, I remember meeting Canadians and Germans who were serving with an Air Force unit. I read something about Robin Olds leading an RAF squadron, and Tom wrote about a Marine NCO who spent a few/several years with the Dutch Marines. Besides personal enrichment for the exchange personnel, does the U.S. military get much out of friendly exposure to foreign militaries?

In any case, effective generals don't need to go on patrol as long as they are doing their jobs. If they're any good, they'll cut through any BS they are getting handed by staffs and subordinates, and their subordinates will appreciate any kind of leadership that keeps them motivated, supplied, and alive.

Israel seems to be such a macho culture that generals probably have to get tactical to maintain cred. In addition, I recall reading that the IDF and IAF are conspicuous about valuing competence over rank, which means an IAF LT might lead a mission if s/he's the best person for the job. I imagine that IDF COL's and GEN's are under informal pressure to show they can still fight and lead.

Would join his men on raids in Iraq. Not training but live fire. As a three star. Doesn't get any better.

Incidentally, Gen. Julian Thompson's 'Retreat to Victory' (victory not in the short-term tactical sense but in the longer-term strategic sense) is crisply written (as one would expect from a Royal Marine) and explores the tough fighting between the retreating Brits and surging Germans as the Dunkirk perimeter shrank. The debility of the British Army as a result of twenty years of neglect still did not stop individual battalions and brigades from holding on and knocking the snot out of the German infantry if not the formidably led Panzers.

One thing Thompson describes well was the consistent ability of the German Panzers to get ‘inside of the OODA (Observation - Orientation - Decision Loop) of both the British and even more hapless French Army. This of course left he allies operating at a tempo well behind that of the Germans and without ever achieving a reversal of the initiative. The final chapter titled ‘Reckoning’ is one of the best summations of the issues and errors in learning to fight the Wehrmacht in the Second World War I have read. Some issues in the handling of armor were not resolved even by May 1945. Highly recommended.

Fellows,

Is this another attempt at slapping Army leadership? I fear so. I have seen senior leaders at all levels of our Army do similar things as have been outlined from the CDS IDF to all sorts of Colonels and through all sorts of Generals. Army former CINC SOCOM almost died by drowning in training with Navy Seals, because he was participating......and frankly leading by example, sharing common danger but had not been through BUDS. My son in OIF 3 was with an ADC from one of our divisiosn in his command group. He would constantly inform me that BG Whobotz had a death wish because he was leading his division assault CP down streets and alleys in Baghdad with his M4 at hand. Former CG XVIII Corps had an incredible reputation of going in harm's way while diligently working the streets himself to ensure the elections were successful. Even former CSA of the Army got hurt in Baghdad vaulting a fence in order to participate in activities while serving as CG MNFI. And, there are many people out there who could go on and on with examples of our Army senior leaders doing the same thing. Now, I do not doubt there are some who kept a low profile. But, let's not try to persecute the "general" Army leadership on this one. It just is not true for the institution. Thanks again, Tom.

Nobody is asking GOs to get shot or break boards with their heads or anything. Notice the IDF GO was on a training exercise. My experience w GOs going way down to soldier level is the soldiers like it, the Staff hates it, and the chain of command fears it.

Soldier_Cynic said he'd rather be developed and mentored than to have the senior leaders on the squad assault course.

Way back in the old days I read an art in "Infantry" (I think) about Omega Patrol. It was on Leaders focusing and developing subordinates down a level or two rather than going down and training w a real squad. In Omega Patrol all the officers in the Bn might be going through exercise focused on developing them, it might be just exercise w everyone modeling what "right looks like" (just another platoon w 40 officers) to real officer stuff like MDMP.

MG Grange did some things like this in 1 ID, he would run exercises with Div leadership down to about the LTC conducting a raid or something. Note that MG Grange did not prosper in the Army bureaucracy.

Our top brass aren't all like Gantz, but I have read that our officers get injured at a much higher rate than in any other army, owing to the "command from the front line" philosophy.
The possibility of "command from the rear" took a hit during the last war in Lebanon, where we realized that generals getting reports over the comms weren't getting a clear enough picture of the situation. This has led to us switching back to our natural view of a commanding officer as someone on the front lines.

It might help the ties between superior and subordinate but it's also incredibly dangerous. I recall a mention by Kaplan of how Petraeus casually walked through Baghdad with a small team of soldiers, apparently not realizing how easy a target he was and how important he was politically.

We are too hard on ourselves, and way too enamored of others. Cynics see our leaders always lacking and others are great.

Apply the cynical approach to this photo which looks like a chessy photo op: 1) He is not wearing all the kit and helmet and helmet that he soldiers in the background are (note the beret tucked into the epaulette. 2) Uniform looks pristine. No dirt or sweat. 3) He made sure a photogrpher was close by. 4) Someone made sure it got into the local paper. Doesn't look like a "common soldier" to me.

Good on for GEN Gantz for getting out with the Soldiers.

"Rifle, check."
"Magazine, check."
Helmet, body armor, first aid kit, radio - same uniform as the Soldiers.........fail.

If you're going to send a message, send the right one to Soldiers, forget the photo op.

lead from the front.

I like the idea of getting out with the troops. But I am wary of generals who spend a lot of time out on patrols and other small unit ops. A little of it goes a long way. Too much of it and you may be neglecting the duties of a general--at which you are perhaps failing--in order to get back to something you do know how to do. I saw this pattern in some of the research I did on the wars in Korea and Vietnam.

Also, the important thing with the troops is not just to be there but to listen. To go out and blow them off (I'm thinking of General Barr on the east side of Chosin, for one) is worse than not being there at all.

Best,
Tom

We don't hire Generals to lead fire teams into battle. We hire them to think, make decisions, allocate resources and to motivate.

But, we do have a lot of senior leaders who do participate at levels on operations in both training and combat. Sharing risk is one of the key ingredients for a good leader.

But, Tom again, I re-read your initial comments and I do believe they were a shot at Army leadership and to even a lesser extent Marine Corps leadership.......the latter surprises me.

Israeli general Gantz is wearing normal street dress, and to protect himself from loss has taken off his beret and protected it beneath his epaulet. Confident there would be no untidy rough stuff. Unlike his soldiers elsewhere in the shot, he is not wearing anything like combat gear. It might be coincidental that the photographer was in just the right place to put the general in the foreground of the shot; it might not; the general might just as likely, a la Douglas MacArthur, accommodated the photographer ("Could you just come this way and move in that direction, general?") by moving to the planned foreground. It seems that his pockets are all empty, allowing the majestic lines of his virile figure full display -- the long-established Hollywood practice.

Underwhelming.

Actually the photo (with no gear) made me think of a BG who was our ADCM/Ops. He was had been 2nd ACR CDR and was a maniac. He (allegedly) would be driving around Hohenfels in his jeep, he always carried an M3 Grease Gun, he'd just stop the jeep, jump out (and miles from any live fire range) blast rocks for awhile. The troops thought he was a maniac and loved him (he was boxer and used boxing analogies or metaphors when talking to troops).

JP would like him because he was a VMI grad and history buff and named all the Div Oplans after Stonewall Jacksons Shenandoah Valley Campaign/Battles.

They allegedly had a USAREUR alert when he was 2 ACR CDR, he thought it might be the real deal (no intel on alert) and he flew into Czechoslovakia in his OH-58 to make sure the Czechs and Russians were still in their motor pools then came back and told 2 ACR to stand down.

LTG Rick Lynch, when he was commander of III Corps and Fort Hood, was known to spontaniously join PT formations. I remember turning around and seeing his face and asking my buddy, "Who's the old guy?" Whoops. His CSM (Ciotolo) wore buck sergeant rank on his PT gear and was a common sight during PT.

LTG Lynch would also go "undercover" and pose as a regular civilian to see how post services were serving Soldiers and the community.

From the little I observed, I would bet both of those men joined their troops in the field as often as they could.

As has been implied by others, a general's showing up and then listening is important to the troops. I think that is important that the general not bring his staff entourage - but his PSD is welcome. If it's training as illustrated in the picture, it's enough that word gets around that he was there. As a trained photo interpreter, I am not confident what the two troops in the background are wearing, except that they seem to be wearing helmets. The general looks like he is in shape.

There was a news segment during the early stages of the Iraq invasion where two generals were going over a map on the hood of a Humvee. Shooting broke out behind them and neareby. Both generals with 3 other officers turned and ran towards the gunfire in an effort to see what was going on. One general put his hand on his pistol while the other still held the map. There was not a moments thougt or reflection - it was instantaneous. That got around I'm sure as they joined a fire team to observe the incident. The fighting picked-up and the news piece ended.

Style and caring are important. However, the IDF performed poorly against the Hezbollah. In fact, they employed some dumb tactics and exhibited poor decision-making. Hopefully they have learned that fighting in the open terrain of Southern Lebanon is different from fighting Hamas et al on the West Bank.

In 1965, in one of my assignments I worked on a staff populated by field grade officers (I was an LT). It was a 5 to 5 1/2 day work week. Those who were Army officers joined patrols every weekend. They did so in the same manner as General McChrystal. As combat veterans (Korea and Greece), these men went as mentors and offered themselves as a resource. The unit leader, usually a captain was always in-charge. I have no idea how unusual this was - but it was selfless.

Like Ann Wang's management by creative wandering; there is merit in leadership by creative wandering. On those jaunts, Ann Wang just listened to his employees.

The general, or any leader, needs perspective. If he or she stays locked up in the nice CP, far from the troops, then some perspective is lost. Conversely, trying to keep your boots muddy does the same.

Perspective is gained when you're at the decisive point - be where you need to be, to have the most effect, at the most crucial time. Sometimes you need to train with the troops, some times you need to sit down with your staff, so on and so forth.

When an agenda determines where you go, like needing to get out there with the troops for the good photo op, then you've lost perspective because you're going where you want to go, and not where you're needed.

I think leaders need to be pragmatic. We all have styles we gravitate toward, but you need to do what your mission and your people need, not what your style dictates.