Posted on Oct 12, 2014
"Mission first, then men" or "Mission first, men always"?
17.6K
73
35
3
3
0
Way back when I was being mentored by alumni from the South-East Asia war games, I remember being taught that as military leaders our priorities should always be "Mission first, then the men". As was pointed out to me on more than one occasion, the Army did not exist to serve my needs.
Then in the '80s, as an ROTC cadet, I had field-grade officers telling me that it was really "Mission first, men always". Honestly, I always considered that to be a mealy-mouthed attempt to get all Kumbayaish.
Now, I sense a continued shift to where today's military leaders seem to think that the troops *are* their mission. You can probably guess what I think of that bit of cart-horse mis-sequencing.
What do you folks? Am I the only one who thinks the whole "Nothing is too good for our heroes" sentiment has gotten out of hand?
-----
Judging by the responses so far, I'm definitely feeling like a minority of one on this.
Then in the '80s, as an ROTC cadet, I had field-grade officers telling me that it was really "Mission first, men always". Honestly, I always considered that to be a mealy-mouthed attempt to get all Kumbayaish.
Now, I sense a continued shift to where today's military leaders seem to think that the troops *are* their mission. You can probably guess what I think of that bit of cart-horse mis-sequencing.
What do you folks? Am I the only one who thinks the whole "Nothing is too good for our heroes" sentiment has gotten out of hand?
-----
Judging by the responses so far, I'm definitely feeling like a minority of one on this.
Honor
Leadership
Discipline
Service
Public Service
Edited >1 y ago
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 14
5
5
0
1LT William Clardy, I've served in units over the years where that was an unofficial motto: "Mission First, People Always." I like MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca's reply. And your exchange with CPT Dan Santos is troubling to me. I agree with CPT Santos that there may be times when the welfare of the troops must take a back seat to mission accomplishment, but to call (or consider) Soldiers "expendable" is not right, in my personal opinion. I could be wrong, that's just my personal opinion.
(5)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca, if you think I didn't treat my soldiers as soldiers, you are sadly mistaken.
But at the same time, the reality is that soldiers must be fungible. The United States has almost always won battles and wars because of logistical superiority -- we get there with the mostest. If you ever find yourself doing mobilization planning, you will quickly learn that for, planning purposes, it takes 4-6 months to make a batch of new soldiers to replace the ones which have been killed. If you start running out of soldiers, you start losing just as surely as if you run out of ammunition.
Perhaps you might be less shocked if I had drawn my comparison between expending soldiers and expending aircraft? After all, during Vietnam, I believe we expended between 3 and 4 times as many soldiers as we did aircraft.
But at the same time, the reality is that soldiers must be fungible. The United States has almost always won battles and wars because of logistical superiority -- we get there with the mostest. If you ever find yourself doing mobilization planning, you will quickly learn that for, planning purposes, it takes 4-6 months to make a batch of new soldiers to replace the ones which have been killed. If you start running out of soldiers, you start losing just as surely as if you run out of ammunition.
Perhaps you might be less shocked if I had drawn my comparison between expending soldiers and expending aircraft? After all, during Vietnam, I believe we expended between 3 and 4 times as many soldiers as we did aircraft.
(0)
(0)
COL Randall C.
1LT William Clardy, your choice of words is at best unfortunate and poorly chosen and at worst an indication of a leader that everyone would run from. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming the former.
When you say expendable, the reason people have a negative reaction to it is that they know the meaning of the word. If you look it up in the various dictionary, you'll get a variety of definitions (before you reference the military definition of expendable, I'll remind you that it applies to equipment, not people):
- normally used up or consumed in service
- more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected
- designed to be used only once and then abandoned or destroyed
- of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned
I absolutely agree with the sentiment that personnel could perish in the accomplishment of the mission and there are times when it is an almost certainty that it will happen. Yes, prepare for the death of a soldier. Yes, compute likely combat losses and plan for the replacements. No, do not treat them as interchangeable widgets so that when one breaks you get another.
Referring to military personnel as "expendable" is to denigrate their worth and treat them with the view of the "North Korea" or "PRC" military model where the individual IS expendable, fungible, etc. 20 soldiers die? Just give me 20 more.
Finally, your last comment that "the United States has almost always won battles and wars because of logistical superiority" is correct, but not from the point you're trying to make. Mass is only one of the principles of warfare that you are referring to and that has evolved from "throw the mostest at the other guy" to "concentrated firepower at the decisive place and time to achieve objectives". Additionally, you are ignoring the reciprocal principle of Economy of Force which is about "accepting prudent risks in selected areas in order to achieve superiority at a decisive time and place with the main effort".
The last time the United States viewed military personnel as 'expendable' was in the industrial age where Mass WAS defined as the 'mostest'. Now the capabilities are based significantly on being a combat multiplier in which the effectiveness of the soldier is significantly enhanced by the information available. As such, the need for throwing bodies has changed as well as societies acceptance of body counts such as WWII, Korea, and Viet-Nam.
When you say expendable, the reason people have a negative reaction to it is that they know the meaning of the word. If you look it up in the various dictionary, you'll get a variety of definitions (before you reference the military definition of expendable, I'll remind you that it applies to equipment, not people):
- normally used up or consumed in service
- more easily or economically replaced than rescued, salvaged, or protected
- designed to be used only once and then abandoned or destroyed
- of little significance when compared to an overall purpose, and therefore able to be abandoned
I absolutely agree with the sentiment that personnel could perish in the accomplishment of the mission and there are times when it is an almost certainty that it will happen. Yes, prepare for the death of a soldier. Yes, compute likely combat losses and plan for the replacements. No, do not treat them as interchangeable widgets so that when one breaks you get another.
Referring to military personnel as "expendable" is to denigrate their worth and treat them with the view of the "North Korea" or "PRC" military model where the individual IS expendable, fungible, etc. 20 soldiers die? Just give me 20 more.
Finally, your last comment that "the United States has almost always won battles and wars because of logistical superiority" is correct, but not from the point you're trying to make. Mass is only one of the principles of warfare that you are referring to and that has evolved from "throw the mostest at the other guy" to "concentrated firepower at the decisive place and time to achieve objectives". Additionally, you are ignoring the reciprocal principle of Economy of Force which is about "accepting prudent risks in selected areas in order to achieve superiority at a decisive time and place with the main effort".
The last time the United States viewed military personnel as 'expendable' was in the industrial age where Mass WAS defined as the 'mostest'. Now the capabilities are based significantly on being a combat multiplier in which the effectiveness of the soldier is significantly enhanced by the information available. As such, the need for throwing bodies has changed as well as societies acceptance of body counts such as WWII, Korea, and Viet-Nam.
(6)
(0)
CW5 (Join to see)
What COL Randall C. said. Thank you for that post, sir. You articulated what a couple of us were trying to say, but apparently without success.
(3)
(0)
LTC Paul Labrador
I think "expendable" is too strong a word, although the meaning is still there. We don't throw the lives of troops away for no reason, but we have to accept the fact that we cannot shy away from risks that may get people killed to accomplish the mission. To paraphrase a line from the movie Gettysburg that I really love: "To be a good soldier you have to love the Army. To be a good officer you have to be willing to destroy that which you love." You take care of your men, but at the end of the day, you may have to order some of them into a situation that may cost them their lives to accomplish a mission.
(1)
(0)
5
5
0
"Mission first, people always" that's how it was instilled into me. Yes, there can be times when SMs are the mission - insuring their safety, getting them through a records review, individual soldier issues, but the majority of the time its keeping the job going.
(5)
(0)
4
4
0
9 years in the Marines, 6 as an NCO I found that when I took care of my Marines there was no mission we couldn't accomplish. They would walk through walls for me if I asked because they knew two things; 1) I wouldn't them to do something I wouldn't do or hadn't already done myself, and 2) they knew that I always had their backs and would jump through hoops to take care of them.
This whole notion of "Mission Acomplishment then Troop Welfare" as it's referred to in the USMC, is garbage in my opinion. Obviously as trained professionals we are going to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Not because of the actual mission, but because we don't want to let our fellow Marines, Soldiers, etc down.
If you look back over history most of the greatest leaders, across all branches of service, have one thing in common. Their troops loved them. Their men would go to hell and back for them. Their men wouldn't do that if those leaders didn't take care of them.
It's simple to me, and it was my motto while I was a leader of Marines. Troop Welfare and the Mission will take care of it's self.
This whole notion of "Mission Acomplishment then Troop Welfare" as it's referred to in the USMC, is garbage in my opinion. Obviously as trained professionals we are going to do whatever it takes to get the job done. Not because of the actual mission, but because we don't want to let our fellow Marines, Soldiers, etc down.
If you look back over history most of the greatest leaders, across all branches of service, have one thing in common. Their troops loved them. Their men would go to hell and back for them. Their men wouldn't do that if those leaders didn't take care of them.
It's simple to me, and it was my motto while I was a leader of Marines. Troop Welfare and the Mission will take care of it's self.
(4)
(0)
CMSgt (Join to see)
Wisdom, Marine. Thank you. Whatever the mission, troops are first prepared. They came first in order to place the highest priority on mission accomplishment. It is not a situational ethics question, I don't know why this is so much of a riddle to some folks in leadership.
(1)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google