2
2
0
I think of them as two sides of the same coin. Can't take care of your soldiers if you don't take care of yourself. Likewise, we can't accomplish our mission without our soldiers. The over all purpose of all missions is to protect the lives of the greater military, Americans, and civilians. And we don't want to loos our joes to complete or missions; "...make the other basters die for their country." However, can't win a fight without getting in a fight. So safety can't be the #1 priority in combat, and we need to "train as we fight."
So, what does right look like?
So, what does right look like?
Safety
Mission
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 15
3
3
0
"Accomplishment of my MISSION, and the welfare of my Soldiers". Creed tells you the order. Might not always agree with it, but....
(3)
(0)
SSG Audwin Scott
Well we know of course it's the mission first, but what if the mission jeopardizes the soldiers life?
(0)
(0)
SSG (Join to see)
Well said SSG, but you forget one thing. You cant accomplish the mission without your soldiers. They are both equally important to me.
(1)
(0)
SSG Warren Swan
SSG Audwin Scott - It's honestly a no win situation. SPC(P) John Higgins, I agree, but in some cases you have to fall back on the standard; the same standard that would be used on you. I want both, but the mission HAS to be done. Catch 22.
(1)
(0)
SGT William Howell
It is Mission First, Soldiers Always! We are all soldiers and sometimes soldiers die. The mission is always top priory, but you always take care of your soldiers even if we may all die in battle. It is a matter of making the best decisions for what is the mission. If soldiers were the priority we would have never took Normandy. We all know the risk and we accept it in order to be called a United States Soldier. So sometimes we are going to be sent into harms way, but that does not mean we don't take care of our troops while doing it.
(1)
(0)
2
2
0
They are not juxtaposed. The mission is determined from the top down to take care of people. Soldiers are important, but are not the only people being considered. US Citizens, civilians in the AO, and US and allied Soldiers, are all considerations in the big picture. The mission changes to accommodate the needs and interests of people. So, every mission is about people. The needs of Soldiers are included in the determination of the mission. When everyone does their job right, each mission is the best course of action after all the needs/interests of our country and our Soldiers are considered. Within the span of your control as a leader, you consider the welfare of your Soldiers as you develop the mission for your subordinate units and as you represent the needs of your Soldiers while you communicate with higher HQ.
You mentioned safety in combat, and you're right. As a rule of thumb, safety is not the #1, security is. Why? Because security IS "taking care of Soldiers." For example, if your platoon leaves the company flank to conduct CASEVAC during a firefight, you may be saving 1 but killing 100. If disengaging the enemy now to save 1 means the loss of the opportunity to end their operations in your AO, you might be saving one now but costing yourself several later. If you drop security to tend to a casualty, you might be saving 1 but compromising the lives of the rest of your unit. In an extreme and critical situation, failing the mission might have a cascade effect that causes mission failure all the way up to the highest level which costs uncounted lives.
Leaders make the right decisions and weigh the needs of the many to determine the priorities of the mission in every situation. In contrast to those aforementioned "hard decisions," is your relatively routine "presence" patrol a higher priority than the suffering Soldier that was just injured with risk to life, limb, or eyesight? Probably not! The situation and needs/interests of the people has changed. The needs of that Soldier have become a higher priority than the previous mission. Therefore, the mission has changed. Just be sure to take into consideration METT-TC, adjacent units, security, impact/consequences on future missions, severity of injury, communication with higher HQ, commander's intent, alternate courses of action, etc... Also make sure the decision is elevated to the correct level of authority.
CASEVAC is the extreme situation where it may seem that mission conflicts with "taking care of Soldiers." However, all of the non-extreme considerations inherent in "taking care of Soldiers" are likewise an important consideration in every mission or in the FRAGOs to a mission. Enlightened leaders and Soldiers understand and expect this, and they trust their leaders to do the best they can to take care of them within the context of the bigger picture.
You mentioned safety in combat, and you're right. As a rule of thumb, safety is not the #1, security is. Why? Because security IS "taking care of Soldiers." For example, if your platoon leaves the company flank to conduct CASEVAC during a firefight, you may be saving 1 but killing 100. If disengaging the enemy now to save 1 means the loss of the opportunity to end their operations in your AO, you might be saving one now but costing yourself several later. If you drop security to tend to a casualty, you might be saving 1 but compromising the lives of the rest of your unit. In an extreme and critical situation, failing the mission might have a cascade effect that causes mission failure all the way up to the highest level which costs uncounted lives.
Leaders make the right decisions and weigh the needs of the many to determine the priorities of the mission in every situation. In contrast to those aforementioned "hard decisions," is your relatively routine "presence" patrol a higher priority than the suffering Soldier that was just injured with risk to life, limb, or eyesight? Probably not! The situation and needs/interests of the people has changed. The needs of that Soldier have become a higher priority than the previous mission. Therefore, the mission has changed. Just be sure to take into consideration METT-TC, adjacent units, security, impact/consequences on future missions, severity of injury, communication with higher HQ, commander's intent, alternate courses of action, etc... Also make sure the decision is elevated to the correct level of authority.
CASEVAC is the extreme situation where it may seem that mission conflicts with "taking care of Soldiers." However, all of the non-extreme considerations inherent in "taking care of Soldiers" are likewise an important consideration in every mission or in the FRAGOs to a mission. Enlightened leaders and Soldiers understand and expect this, and they trust their leaders to do the best they can to take care of them within the context of the bigger picture.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
There will be times when a unit cant disengage because other units are counting on them, or future operations depend on the success of the unit. This is when brotherhood means the most.
(2)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google