The Qualities Demanded of an Infantry Officer

The Army Looks to the Future | RealClearDefense:

 Army organizations must be led by the highest caliber of officer. Ideal officers should always take the initiative and be capable of daring feats due to high self-confidence and a creative imagination. Their physical and moral courage must be unquestionable and they need a physical stamina that is equal to their mental flexibility. Leadership is the most important element in the Army and we have been blessed to continue to find excellent combat capable leaders because of our great education system.

I read this article with great interest, because it reflected lessons I had learned during my own limited military experience:



Maverick:
When I joined my company upon arrival at RVN, I met the officer who lead the platoon I had been assigned to.  I'll call him Lt. Maverick, because he was initially inducted into the army as an Enlisted man and, after his first tour in Viet Nam, he elected to attend OCS (Officer Candidate School) and graduated as a 2nd Lieutenant.

He was experienced, wise in the ways of troop management, and was in good physical condition.  We usually broke the platoon into 2 two-squad groups .. he would take one group, I would take the other, and we operated independently in the same general area.  We went on 2-4 day operations and would try to get together halfway through the deployment so we could plan the rest of the operation based on the information we had developed in the first day or two.

Later, Lt. Maverick was rotated back to the Real World, and another officer was assigned as Platoon Leader:

The Rutgers Ranger:

This officer was was a graduate of Rutgers University, where he financed his education by joining ROTC  (Reserve Officer Training Corps).   He was slightly built and frankly not in the best physical condition.  He had served the first three months "in the rear" as Company Executive Officer, in the Division Base Camp.

Apparently, he had avoided the physical training available to him back at Div HQ, because when he joined us in the field he was not only unable to demonstrate any leadership abilities, he couldn't even keep up with the men.

He couldn't read a map and plot the best approach to our objective.

On one mission (we no longer operated as two units ... we were directed to keep the entire platoon together as one unit) we had reached our patrol objective and the LT decided to just keep everyone in place and 'take a break'.      We had a lot of breaks "to allow the men to rest and recover from movement through the jungle".

After he had caught his breath he asked me where I thought we were.  I directed his attention to a large tree on a hill to our front, and suggested that since the maps were created by photo-overlays based on over-flight photo missions, he should look at his map to see if he could spot the Big Tree.

He believed me.

Later, when we were directed to return to the "red line"  (which marked a road, where we would be picked up by trucks and transported back to the Battalion Base Camp) he started the platoon down a convenient trail.  I was uncomfortable with this, and I suggested that we get off the trail.

He said that he elected to follow the trail because it would allow us to move more quickly through the thick brush in the area.

"Well, Yes Sir!  We are moving quickly.  But the trail trends South East, and our pick-up are is directly West of our current position.  Might I suggest that we bust some brush toward the Red Line?  Maybe we can find a trail going that way."

Which we did, and after only a few minutes of crossing trails and moving through rough foliage, we found a clear way to our initial rendezvous point.

When we got to the banks of the stream which lead to our pick-up point, I approached the officer and asked him if we shouldn't move directly to our rendezvous.  And I asked him how much further we had to travel,and if our schedule allowed the extended break he had mandated.  (The men were fine; he was the one who was so pooped that he was afraid to sit down for fear that he wouldn't be able to stand up again.)

He replied:  "I don't know, Sergeant.  My map case is in my right-hand cargo pocket.  Why don't you just reach in there and take a look at them?"

He had no idea where he was, or whether he should have us move upstream or downstream to get to the road where we were to be picked up.

So I grabbed the maps out of his pocket, determined that we could take a slight detour back north to avoid the worst of the brush, and still give the Rutgers Ranger another five minutes to recover.

The difference between the two officers, of equal rank, was astonishing. And it affected the morale of the platoon.

The Maverick always knew where he was, and he was alert to his surroundings.

The Rutgers Ranger was oblivious to both the map and his surroundings.  He was just along for the ride.  In the vernacular: he could have phoned it in.  And he should have.

He didn't have the physical 'hardness' needed to keep the platoon moving; he couldn't even keep up when the point man went through a "bad spot" where we were half-stepping while watching for booby-traps.

He not only was NOT an example for the men, but he was obviously the "Weakest Link".  He wasn't leading us; we were leading him. And he was slowing us down.


SUMMARY:
There are reasons why some men are chosen to lead other men into battle.  These reasons include basic leadership ability, awareness of terrain, personal charisma, mutual respect, familiarity with basic skills and others (map reading, interpersonal relationships, aggressiveness, physical strength and ability to endure under difficult conditions, etc),

Vietnam was an "Unprepared War".  We were not prepared to man the army we needed to successfully meet the perceived needs of our war footing, and so we put the available men into the available slots, regardless of their abilities.

We're fortunate that we are no longer a Draft Army; today,men and women serve because they choose to do so.  They train like they mean it.  When they go to war, it's not because it seems like the best of many poor alternatives, but because they believe that they can make a difference.

This was not the case in Vietnam, which I call "The Incompetent Leading The Unwilling".

It never surprised me that we lost the war in Vietnam.  We had no clear mission, we had no leadership, and we had no will to win.

All we had was the draft, some technology, and a bunch of politicians who were micro-managing the war.

We never had a chance.

We were lucky that the Rutgers Ranger survived the war; I know for a fact that some men in my platoon a grenade with his name on it.

Oh.  Actually, we weren't lucky; we could have been better served without him.  I should have said ....  "HE was lucky".

We never needed him.  We never needed most of the people who fought the war.

Including me.