Would you be willing to die for your country?

[Erex 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 12 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">about following orders:

I agree that the ability to obey orders is paramount.

if you can't obey you're not worthy to lead in the first place.

authority which doesn't get any active respect through submission, ceases to be authority, and then you have anarchy which hinders all progress.

but there's definitely a threshold where you have to refuse orders.

what I mean is what they called "befehlsnotstand" in germany after ww2.

so many soldiers had done things under orders which they said they didn't want to do, that the country faced a giant moral dilemma afterwards.<span id='postcolor'>

As I already told a lot of posts ago:

Soldiers in democratic countries are primary citizens of those countries and they are peg down by same law as citizens of those countries. Thats a fact, that peoples sometimes forget, even tought it for british army clearly entact british parliament already in 1693, after regime of Argylles massacred MacDonalds from Glencoe:

"Even tought the order of officer is absolute, no order against the law should be fulfilled; soldier, which wants to keep his pay, should refuse to coomit a barbarian act, because soldier, which get the order, to shot an innocent civilian, this order will not protect him against pusniment for murder"

As far as i remember noone ever promised me that being a soldier/policeman its easy. Theres always gonan be time and place for making crucial decisison shoot/not shoot etc. An its up our soldier/policeman honor to select the option that we select the goodone.

Usualy you make this decision under pressure (under fire) but thats a part of soldier/policeman life. We all know it well before and we are still doing it. Each of us do have probably different reasons but overall we feel that is it our duty to protect the others and to ensure that our streets and homes gonna be a safe place to live.

Thats my point of wiev on it.

Now i have to go to sleep, huge medical exams tommorow at O7:OO

And finaly few things from bible, maybe its OT but i do like them (even when im not orthodox catholic):

Blessed are the peacemakers,

      for they will be called sons of God.

Matthew 5:9

A policeman prayer as i have it heard here in CZ and later found on inet:

Lord, I ask for courage;

Courage to face and conquer my own fears...

Courage to take me where others will not go.

I ask for strength;

Strength of body to protect others...

Strength of spirit to lead others.

I ask dedication;

Dedication to my job to do it well...

Dedication to my community to keep it safe.

Give me, Lord, concern;

For all those who trust me...

And compassion for those who need me

And, please, Lord, through it all; be at my side

Amen

[Othin 0]

8--></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 12 2002,148)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">in the US they don't like to call them deserters. make that going AWOL (absent without leave ).

in a democracy you can't just shoot the nervous critter for hopping into the bushes.

this is supposed to be government for the people by the people. can't kill peoples sons just so.<span id='postcolor'>

That is not entirely true.  The following is from the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice).

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">885. ART. 85. DESERTION

(a) Any member of the armed forces who--

(1) without authority goes or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to remain away therefrom permanently;

(2) quits his unit, organization, or place of duty with intent to avoid hazardous duty or to shirk important service; or

(3) without being regularly separated from one of the armed forces enlists or accepts an appointment in the same or another on of the armed forces without fully disclosing the fact that he has not been regularly separated, or enters any foreign armed service except when authorized by the United States; is guilty of desertion.

(b) Any commissioned officer of the armed forces who, after tender of his resignation and before notice of its acceptance, quits his post or proper duties without leave and with intent to remain away therefrom permanently is guilty of desertion.

© Any person found guilty of desertion or attempt to desert shall be punished, if the offense is committed in time of war, by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct, but if the desertion or attempt to desert occurs at any other time, by such punishment, other than death, as a court-martial may direct.

886. ART. 86. ABSENCE WITHOUT LEAVE

Any member of the armed forces who, without authority--

(1) fails to go to his appointed place of duty at the time prescribed;

(2) goes from that place; or

(3) absents himself or remains absent from his unit, organization, or place of duty at which he is required to be at the time prescribed; shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.

887. ART. 87. MISSING MOVEMENT

Any person subject to this chapter who through neglect or design misses the movement of a ship, aircraft, or unit with which he is required in the course of duty to move shall be punished as a court-martial may direct.<span id='postcolor'>

Also, depending on your job, rank, and security clearence you're considered a deserter rather then AWOL or UA (unauthorized absence) regardless if it is wartime or not.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 12 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you might not be dying for your country, but for your ideals at the hand of your country.

(I imagine this is very hard to do for somebody without faith in God. )

<span id='postcolor'>

Why do you think that? Do you really think that the only ideals in the world are religious ones?

[Frisbee 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 12 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">about following orders:

I agree that the ability to obey orders is paramount.

if you can't obey you're not worthy to lead in the first place.

authority which doesn't get any active respect through submission, ceases to be authority, and then you have anarchy which hinders all progress.

but there's definitely a threshold where you have to refuse orders.

what I mean is what they called "befehlsnotstand" in germany after ww2.

so many soldiers had done things under orders which they said they didn't want to do, that the country faced a giant moral dilemma afterwards.

germany changed though. they've been working this out. I personally like their concept of "innere führung", of being led in accordance with your convictions. (I have a friend in the german gsg. an officer, not an active commando. )

there's a time (very seldom, especially in the army of a liberal nation ) when you have to refuse. and then you'll have to be ready to bear the consequences.

then you might not be dying for your country, but for your ideals at the hand of your country.

(I imagine this is very hard to do for somebody without faith in God. )

<span id='postcolor'>

Yeah it's very hard for me to have ideals as I'm a godless heathen...

At least my ideals are my own.

[Oligo 1]

Sven Hassel once wrote: "The reason for shooting deserters is this: After the first day of war, all grunts from boths sides would want to go home. And where would that lead? The officers would be left standing stupidly on the fields of glory. All those generals ashamed with no army to lead. That's why we shoot deserters."

I have served in a conscription unit and at least 25% of the people in there would definitely desert. Hell, they would not even report for duty if there was a war. Instead of cursing these people, I am GLAD that they would do that, because I would definitely not want to be in a foxhole with a man, whose only motivation is to avoid being shot by his own leaders. These men do not make good soldiers. A soldier with good motivation does not desert his buddies. So I want to fight with motivated men, not with intimidated man.

Ran, I would definitely want you as my squad leader in a war situation.

Denoir, you can foam away about shooting deserters, but remember this: Also grunts have justice. It is surprising how often hated officers are found shot in the back by the "enemy" while "running away" from the battlefield. Do not piss off a bunch of people with assault rifles, when you're only wielding a Glock.

I have read about the executions of deserters during WWII in Finnish army. And in all instances, the fighting spirit of the unit went down instead of up, because the troops understood that not even their own officers are on their side.

[ran 0]

a 1rst class feels better with a motivating and sympathic leader ... including in war time ...

a sub-officer has to push his men by motivating , understanding and being an exemple for his men , not by threatening them with your side weapon (as oligo said : do not piss off the bunch with assault rifles while you only have a tiny 15 shots semi auto combat handgun in your hands)

oligo has some really good points there

[ran 0]

the sub(warrant) officers have to be close to their men (in a certainlimit , which i try not to pass) if they want to get anything from them

[Sam Samson 0]

balshoiw

how do you know what my friend told me about orders?

(to tell you the truth: we were mostly busy with his p6 sigsauer. )

thx for enlightening us anyway.

I'm aware that the grenzschutzgruppen are a subdivision of the bundesgrenzschutz police, not the bundeswehr.

othin, too. I don't think I said anything contrary to your remarks.

appreciate you posting the text, though.

erex

I'm no catholic either. (protestant. that's what put that annoying swagger into my stride. )

I agree with you and compliment you for having a spiritual life.

'preciate that piece from the beatitudes.

[Sam Samson 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 13 2002,00:04)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 12 2002,23:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">then you might not be dying for your country, but for your ideals at the hand of your country.

(I imagine this is very hard to do for somebody without faith in God. )

<span id='postcolor'>

Why do you think that? Do you really think that the only ideals in the world are religious ones?<span id='postcolor'>

no, silly. I know better than that.

but folks with an acknowledged set of values, which faith unvariably brings with it, are more predictable in their judgments.

they know right from wrong when they see it.

moral relativists on the other hand, who always peg their ethics to the current situation, are a plague to everybody who has to deal with them, because what was not okay today may be okay tomorrow.

they're hard to figure out.

more to the point:

when you know right from wrong because you have an established moral compass you're not as prone to get suckered into obeying orders which you later find out violated your conscience and were against decency and humanity.

with believers there are fewer gray areas.

remember: the grunt in the wehrmacht was my example. (I pity him. )

some folks I know remind me of groucho marx, who said:

"...these are my principles! and if you don't like them... I have other ones."

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 13 2002,23:15)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">moral relativists on the other hand, who always peg their ethics to the current situation, are a plague to everybody who has to deal with them, because what was not okay today may be okay tomorrow.

they're hard to figure out.<span id='postcolor'>

You mean like those who think that it is ok for the US to have nukes, but not for Iraq?

[Supah 0]

Hey i dont believe in god but i sure as hell know right from wrong. One could even argue that my judgement of right and wrong is better because mine isnt clouded by dogma and indoctrination by a religious group. I dont think in ways like " Well to bad he got killed but he was a ...... not a christianlike us" Not being religious is one less reason to go to war at the very least. I dont believe my country has god on its side (To qoute bob dylan ) we have no more rights then a mainly muslim hindu or boedhist country. The part about religious people being better able to make their own decisions is bull. Haven't you ever seen or heard stories about devout christians following their sects leader to their death? Would you call the branch dividians at waco independent thinkers? Would you call the catholics around the world who are contracting aids or having more kids then they could possibly ever raise right just because the pope says contraceptives are wrong independent thinkers? Would you call the religious fanatics (from all faiths) who bomb, murder and mutilate innocents just because they dont believe in the same god as them independent thinkers? I sure as hell dont!!

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Nov. 13 2002,11:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sven Hassel once wrote: "The reason for shooting deserters is this: After the first day of war, all grunts from boths sides would want to go home. And where would that lead? The officers would be left standing stupidly on the fields of glory. All those generals ashamed with no army to lead. That's why we shoot deserters."<span id='postcolor'>

Well, isn't that a nice fantasy? If you show me that war isn't needed and how we can avoid a military then I will agree with you on the deserter part.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I have served in a conscription unit and at least 25% of the people in there would definitely desert. <span id='postcolor'>

That is the difference between you and me. I have served in a unit where 0% would desert.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Hell, they would not even report for duty if there was a war. Instead of cursing these people, I am GLAD that they would do that, because I would definitely not want to be in a foxhole with a man, whose only motivation is to avoid being shot by his own leaders. These men do not make good soldiers. A soldier with good motivation does not desert his buddies. So I want to fight with motivated men, not with intimidated man.

<span id='postcolor'>

They should never even consider deserting, so there is no reason for them to be afraid. People who do not want to fight don't get into special units. First they would have not chosen it, second they would have never passed the psychological examinations and tests.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Denoir, you can foam away about shooting deserters, but remember this: Also grunts have justice. It is surprising how often hated officers are found shot in the back by the "enemy" while "running away" from the battlefield. Do not piss off a bunch of people with assault rifles, when you're only wielding a Glock.

<span id='postcolor'>

Actually I estimate it more likely that the deserter will get shot by his squadmates sooner then by an officer. Your trying to make this an enlisted vs. officer thing, which it isn't. As I said, I was much more militant on that point when I was an NCO then I am now. And I also know that the enlisted men that I have served with agree with me.

[Renagade 0]

yes but u seem like these guys

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,00:33)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Actually I estimate it more likely that the deserter will get shot by his squadmates sooner then by an officer. Your trying to make this an enlisted vs. officer thing, which it isn't. As I said, I was much more militant on that point when I was an NCO then I am now. And I also know that the enlisted men that I have served with agree with me.<span id='postcolor'>

I only say this: As an officer or a NCO, execute one of your men and the rest will hate you.

For example in Äyräpää, when finns were retreating across a river and a Major decided retreat was not an option. This was a direct order, so according to your ideals Denoir, it should have been obeyed. The result no doubt would have been the slaughter of the whole unit by the soviets. The men, however decided to retreat regardless of the order given by the Major. So the Major aided by the military priest (! started to shoot his own men with a rifle and since back then execution of deserters was legal, he was acting perfectly legally. Luckily "soviet snipers" killed both the Major and the priest in a very short time and the unit was saved by the retreat.

The point is, the more power the officers have, the easier it is for them to abuse it. I thank the lucky stars that the idiot politicians have realized this and abolished death penalty even in war time in both Sweden and Finland.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Nov. 14 2002,07:32)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">For example in Äyräpää, when finns were retreating across a river and a Major decided retreat was not an option. This was a direct order, so according to your ideals Denoir, it should have been obeyed. The result no doubt would have been the slaughter of the whole unit by the soviets.<span id='postcolor'>

That is not derertion, its disobeying an order and perhaps

cowardness in the face of an enemy or something similar.

I don't know what system you have in Finland, but in Sweden we trust our squad leaders and platoon leaders to do tactical decisions. Withdrawing from an impossible battle is one of those. But when you give your men that liberty, you must also know that you can trust them and that they wouldn't chicken out just because that they wouldn't want to fight. It is a two way street - my squad leaders and platoon leaders have a lot of autonomy, but I must know that they are always doing their best.

Deserting is the planned act of leaving your comerades in the shit. It is not the same as withdrawing from a battle. It is not the same as when a soldier freaks out. Desertion is done on purpose.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The point is, the more power the officers have, the easier it is for them to abuse it. I thank the lucky stars that the idiot politicians have realized this and abolished death penalty even in war time in both Sweden and Finland.<span id='postcolor'>

Why that hateful attitude towards officers? Did some officer pee in your corn flakes? The funny thing is that I have several Finnish friends who have served in your military and they have about the same opinion as you. Makes you think how good state the Finnish military is in. A military where the men don't trust their officers can't be in good health.

[Bart.Jan 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">

Why that hateful attitude towards officers? Did some officer pee in your corn flakes? The funny thing is that I have several Finnish friends who have served in your military and they have about the same opinion as you. Makes you think how good state the Finnish military is in. A military where the men don't trust their officers can't be in good health.<span id='postcolor'>

I agree.

I know several absolutely non-competent officers. They are much more clerks than soldiers. Several times I think that I should personaly shoot them during figt so they can not bring destruction to whole group. (I was at several field exercises with them)

On the other side I know (very few ) officers that can be followed and trusted without doubts.

It's because there are lot of old officers in CZ Armed Forces, that are spoiled by previous communistic regime and there are lots of officers generally. But they are leaving step by step and they are replaced by new younger officers and warrent officers with different attitude towards military-life. Thanks to reform of CZ Armed Forces.

I'm talking about regular not the elite troops. Men of elite troops are selected very carefully.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 14 2002,09:18)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is not derertion, its disobeying an order and perhaps

cowardness in the face of an enemy or something similar.

I don't know what system you have in Finland, but in Sweden we trust our squad leaders and platoon leaders to do tactical decisions. Withdrawing from an impossible battle is one of those. But when you give your men that liberty, you must also know that you can trust them and that they wouldn't chicken out just because that they wouldn't want to fight. It is a two way street  - my squad leaders and platoon leaders have a lot of autonomy, but I must know that they are always doing their best.

Why that hateful attitude towards officers? Did some officer pee in your corn flakes? The funny thing is that I have several Finnish friends who have served in your military and they have about the same opinion as you. Makes you think how good state the Finnish military is in. A military where the men don't trust their officers can't be in good health.<span id='postcolor'>

I'd call the Äyräpää situation "reluctancy to be uselessly slaughtered".

It is too bad (very good actually) that Sweden hasn't been to war for hundreds of years. You cannot look back at battle accounts and learn from them. Luckily (not luckily actually) Finland has made war about 60 years ago, so we can always look back at the recollections of those who participated to see how it actually goes in a REAL war (no peacekeeping).

In a perfect world officers and NCOs are supposed to make good decisions. But they definitely do not nearly always do so in the real world, because they are blinded by glory, duty, patriotism, idealism or something else. This applies to all the armies I know, including finnishs and swedish armies. That's why you cannot give the execution rights to officers, period. Besides, I'd fight for Finland partially because we are not barbaric enough to use the death penalty. If the bastards used death penalty in wartime, I'd lose my motivation to defend my country.

When I served, most of my officers and NCOs were sadistic shits. There were only a few I'd follow to battle, because they took care of their men. Thus any new officer or NCO would first have to earn my respect before I would consider him my leader. I don't just want to follow the insignia, because those trinkets are way too easy to come by at least in the finnish army.

But that's even traditional, because the past has shown that officers and NCOs who are not first into the fray are not followed by his finnish men, because finns do not have much fear of authority.

[KingBeast 0]

I think shootin/hanging desserters is something that worked in the past, but wouldnt be so effective in modern times. And in a conscript army, it IS murder. Its different for a volunteer/professional army in my opinion, because when you sign up you would know the risks of desserting.

[brgnorway 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Nov. 14 2002,12:01)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There were only a few I'd follow to battle, because they took care of their men. Thus any new officer or NCO would first have to earn my respect before I would consider him my leader.<span id='postcolor'>

What you said made me remember a few things from my own experience in the military. There were four troops at the coast artillery-fort where I served. Each troop had 4 squads lead by a petty master/sergeant. Most of the pettymasters had gone right from high school to (under-)officers school and were not experienced with dealing with conscript soldiers. They were generally hated by their men. There were exceptions though. Some of the pettymasters had been conscripts first and then went on to officer school. They had a totally different attitude and their men loved them. Generally speaking I would say these officers had a much more lax attitude towards their soldiers, but nevertheless their squadrons always beat the other soldiers in tests and effectiveness. They were simply MUCH better soldiers with MUCH better morale. I doubt they would desert in a war-like situation.

[Guest]

In Sweden you have to do your conscript military service and serve as an NCO before you go to the military academy. Not too seldom junior officers are NCO's that got promoted (like myself) and that havn't had any higher military education (like the military academy).

As for officers, we did not hate them at all. We feared them yes and were from time to time very pissed at them, but it was always clear to us that they pushed us to make better soldiers of us and not for some sadistic pleasure.

Of course there are always morons, including officers. There are a number of officers that I have served with that I wouldn't trust with my life unless I was really forced to. By far the most officers that I have served under have been strict and hard but fair and competent and I would trust their leadership with my life.

Of course then there is the fact that the whole military apparatus is during peacetime a big excercise in pointlessness and stupidity. But that is another issue.

[Sam Samson 0]

I think the issue is leadership.

even in a rigid environment like the armed forces, with its wall between officers and enlisted men, there are true leaders on both sides of the wall.

in every crowd there are some that others are more willing to listen to than others. it lies in the personal makeup of a leader that he attracts followers.

let's say people can have a "leadership quotient" of between 1 and 10.

a 5 will never willingly follow a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4.

he will want to follow a 6 or 7...

now, when you have a real leader among the NCOs and only follower quality types among the officers, you have yourself a problem.

I admit that I personally have a very hard time to follow somebody's order which I percieve to be inferior because I can come up with a better alternative myself.

I only want to submit to folks I look up to.

(good thing I command an army of one    )

[Mr.Fork 0]

Die for my country?

Patton once said...

"No poor bastard ever won a war by dying for his country. He won it by making other bastards die for their country."

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Sam Samson @ Nov. 14 2002,23:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I think the issue is leadership.

even in a rigid environment like the armed forces, with its wall between officers and enlisted men, there are true leaders on both sides of the wall.

in every crowd there are some that others are more willing to listen to than others. it lies in the personal makeup of a leader that he attracts followers.

let's say people can have a "leadership quotient" of between 1 and 10.

a 5 will never willingly follow a 1 or a 2 or a 3 or a 4.

he will want to follow a 6 or 7...

now, when you have a real leader among the NCOs and only follower quality types among the officers, you have yourself a problem.

I admit that I personally have a very hard time to follow somebody's order which I percieve to be inferior because I can come up with a better alternative myself.

I only want to submit to folks I look up to.

(good thing I command an army of one    )<span id='postcolor'>

You have a very good point there. I think the problem in the finnish army emerges from the fact that low-rank officers and NCOs are picked from the fresh conscripts only after ten weeks of service. There is no way that true leaders can be picked from the crowd in that time. So what we end up with is a bunch of physically fit and military life-style appreciating (qualities that are easy to screen) officers and NCOs. These people then go to separate units to train for their commission and then come back to command their peers, who have meanwhile trained for the art of grunt. The problem with these peope is that they're arrogant because they have been trained to feel superior to the common grunt, they totally lack initiative, because they have been crushed mentally in the officer/NCO academies and that very few of them are natural leaders that people automatically look up to. God save us from ever going to war with these leaders.

The problem with the regular higher-ranking officers is that the military in Finland is totally underpaid, so officer salary is poor. Furthermore, finnish army never fights anywhere, so the military is just a pointless exercise in stupidity. Thus no "cream of the crop" never want to go to the army to become a regular officer. All they get is a bunch of idealistic, sadistic, no-leadership material morons.

The end result is that the finnish grunt is trained to the max (as much as is possible with a conscription army of peacetime), because they never do anything else except hone their actual war fighting skills. (As a result I can fire that mortar in my sleep in only so few xeconds.) But it is only after this period of training that true leaders start to emerge from among the grunts. Unfortunately the receivers of brass have been picked a long time ago...

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ Nov. 15 2002,08:51)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">The end result is that the finnish grunt is trained to the max (as much as is possible with a conscription army of peacetime), because they never do anything else except hone their actual war fighting skills. (As a result I can fire that mortar in my sleep in only so few xeconds.) But it is only after this period of training that true leaders start to emerge from among the grunts. Unfortunately the receivers of brass have been picked a long time ago...<span id='postcolor'>

That is not so surprising. A mortar element is a support unit and taking own initiative can only lead to bad things. The tactical decisions are not made by the mortar units but from the ones who call in your support. Your only important function is that you have high mobility and a good delivery on target. Therefor it is not surprising that you only focus on the physical and operational part. That's your role. Different styles of leadership exist for different combat roles.

For instance in Kustjägarna the squad and platoon leaders have much greater freedom because we operate mostly in autonomous (tactically at least) squads and platoons. Therefor the NCO's recieve a far more solid leadership training then average and are expected to take initiative and to think for themselves.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (denoir @ Nov. 15 2002,11:03)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">That is not so surprising. A mortar element is a support unit and taking own initiative can only lead to bad things. The tactical decisions are not made by the mortar units but from the ones who call in your support. Your only important function is that you have high mobility and a good delivery on target. Therefor it is not surprising that you only focus on the physical and operational part. That's your role. Different styles of leadership exist for different combat roles.<span id='postcolor'>

Ahh, but you've misunderstood what I meant by lack of initiative.

I served in the heavy mortars, that is we have a 120mm tube to operate. This thing cannot be very easily carried around, so we generally transported it by towing with a truck. And like you pointed out, our most important function is high mobility and a good, fast delivery on target. This requires traveling into the (preferably prepared) positions and putting up the tubes as fast as possible, firing and then packing up and rolling ASAP.

But this is not as simple as it sounds. All kinds of shit can come up, like trouble with the terrain, trouble with communications, trouble with the fact that enemy troops have overrun the prepared positions... The fact is, every time there was a problem, our dear leaders froze, because they needed to make a decision and they could not, because they were afraid of making the wrong call and being chewed by the superior officers.

All this resulted in us having a poor mobility and slow delivery on target, which in combat means death by enemy counterbattery fire. Even a mortar element needs initiative in overcoming unexpected situations. Rear-echelon units can become front-line units in case of an enemy breakthrough. There you need bloody initiative.

Oh, yeah, the lack of initiative also resulted in major pissed offedness factor in the troops. Our fucking platoon leader could not even decide where to put up the fucking tents without asking the regular officer who was our platoon trainer.