On Wed, 26 Jan 2005 19:11:35 -0500, Robatoy
wrote:

In article ,
"Swingman" wrote:


[snip]

What's so hard about understanding that, as a military commander charged
with a mission, you are duty bound to do your utmost to perform that
mission, regardless of whether you have "armored" vehicles for the
situation?

Shouldn't there be a measured chance of succes in undertaking any
mission? Will a man, blindly, go over a hill with a pocket knife to take
out a machine-gun nest? (I amplify the hypothesis to illustrate a point)
Is there NO point at which a CO says: "Can't be done, my men will not go
commit suicide (or commit crimes)." ?

Again... just asking.

0¿0


Rob

Rob.. In my experience, that's a squad or platoon level decision...
The brass in the choppers make decisions based on the "big picture"
and the pressure on them from higher up brass...
The guys on the ground that are taking fire are the ones that have to
decide whether they're going to disobey the order from "above" to
avoid needless loss of their people..

I was one of many NCO's that were busted for not letting my people do
stupid things that were ordered by people that were too new "in
country" to understand what was going on where the rubber meets the
road...

As to your question about men going blindly forward when ordered,
that's why they drafted teenagers... they still think that they're
immortal..

Try getting a large group of middle age guys to charge that gun, and
you'll have a discussion like this one first.. lol



mac

Please remove splinters before emailing