"Mission first, then men" or "Mission first, men always"?

1LT William Clardy — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 12:27:37 -0400

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.

Response by MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca made Oct 12 at 2014 1:33 PM

MAJ Robert (Bob) Petrarca — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 13:33:50 -0400

"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.

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 2:17 PM

CW5 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:17:32 -0400

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.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 2:31 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 14:31:09 -0400

When I went to NMMI, it was explained to us that the whole point of us getting our paycheck at the end of the day was to support the mission. However, your job is to make sure that the people under you have the tools training to accomplish the mission. People Always is supposed to remind you that at the end of it all it is the people that make the mission happen. No matter how good our equipment is and how advanced the weapons systems are they are useless without competent well trained people using and maintaining them.

If people feel marginalized and not appreciated they are less inclined to take charge of the mission 100% If they feel that there is at honest attempt to take care of their well being they will be more motivated to put more effort in accomplishing the job.

Response by MSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 3:27 PM

MSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 15:27:14 -0400

From an NCO stand point yes the mission is first and must be accomplished at all cost. But we must also make sure our troops are prepared and outfitted to complete the mission successfully. So we are always thinking about the mission but taking care of those that we have been entrusted with. Mission first, Troops always.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Oct 12 at 2014 7:02 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Oct 2014 19:02:43 -0400

"Take care of your Soldiers and they will take care of you".

Basically you need Soldiers in order to accomplish the mission. And yes sometimes your mission is the Soldier. As a leader you have to make the call what works for you and the mission and that point in time and you have to live with that decision for the rest of your life.

Response by Sgt Todd Hinkle made Oct 18 at 2014 10:28 AM

Sgt Todd Hinkle — Sat, 18 Oct 2014 10:28:25 -0400

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.

Response by SSG Tim Everett made Dec 22 at 2014 10:31 AM

SSG Tim Everett — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 10:31:07 -0500

No troops?

No mission.

That's not putting the cart before the horse, as you [sort of] put it. That's simple logic. You need eggs to make an omelet. You need bacon to make a BLT. You need troops to accomplish a mission.

Mmmm bacon. BRB need breakfast.

Response by SSG Stephen Arnold made Dec 22 at 2014 1:00 PM

SSG Stephen Arnold — Mon, 22 Dec 2014 13:00:04 -0500

My take? I'll give an example:

One year during our annual FTX (what did they call those unit evaluations back then?) we went as a battalion. They decided to include an obstacle course competition as part of the training.

I had a couple of troops who were concerned about specific obstacles. We agreed to make sure all made it through.

When the starter pistol went off, I forgot and took off at a strong pace. When I got to the 6' vertical wall, I remembered and stopped to help the others across. My first sergeant was beside himself and began yelling for me to continue without them.

I did not.

When the operations sergeant spoke to me after the race, I told him, "I owe whatever success I have to my troops. Without them I can do nothing." We all finished in a decent time. No, I did not get the "medal" that would give my 1SG bragging rights. Too bad.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Dec 23 at 2014 1:28 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 13:28:14 -0500

I'm going to go with "Mission First". Failing that, there is no hope for the men.

Leaders have a responsibility to their men, to insure that they have the training, equipment, and leadership to accomplish the mission. However, leadership requires making hard decisions that sometimes place the mission over the welfare of the men.

Interestingly, Hollywood made one motion picture that dealt with this very topic very well. U-571. At one point the mission leader, a young officer, is schooled by an CPO on his responsibilities to the men and the mission. Later in the story, the officer is tested in the heat of battle. I recommend you watch it. Sadly, I couldn't find it listed on Netflix as available for streaming. Probably, you have to rent it somewhere else.

Response by COL Ted Mc made Dec 23 at 2014 2:37 PM

COL Ted Mc — Tue, 23 Dec 2014 14:37:39 -0500

1LT William Clardy Allow me to provide you with a few quotes from the Retirement Dinner remarks of an old friend of mine:

"An officer is concerned about his officers and their men. An outstanding officer is concerned about his men and their officers."

"An officer makes sure that his troops do what he tells them to do. A GOOD officer makes sure that his troops want to do whatever he wants done."

"Any Officer can win any battle if they are wise. The wise Officer ensures that the requisite supply of miracles has not only been laid on, but has actually been delivered before commencing one."

"Until about 1970, the military had made steady, but slow, progress in learning how to conduct a barbarous business in a civilized manner. The introduction and dissemination of "remote killing" technology - where the soldier is never able to identify "the enemy" as human beings, bodes well to negate all of that progress, and WILL do so unless the military's leaders are constantly on guard against it happening."

"War is an auction and troops are the currency you bid with. The highest bidder ALWAYS wins. Unfortunately for military planners, there are Pounds, Dollars, Marks, Roubles, Pesos, Yen, Francs, and a host of other currencies, each with their own value and with values that change from day to day, so that a winning bid today may well be a losing one tomorrow."

"No matter how good he is, no officer is ever "good enough". No matter how good he is, men die."

And you ask "Am I the only one who thinks the whole "Nothing is too good for our heroes" sentiment has gotten out of hand?" to which the REAL quote is "Nothing is too good for our heroes, and that is what we'll give them - BUT we won't say that in public."

Response by 1SG Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2014 1:30 PM

1SG Private RallyPoint Member — Wed, 24 Dec 2014 13:30:34 -0500

Hard to complete the mission without the personnel.

BLUF..do what you can to take care of the people first.

Response by CMSgt James Nolan made Dec 26 at 2014 5:56 PM

CMSgt James Nolan — Fri, 26 Dec 2014 17:56:17 -0500

Sometimes, things get spun way out of control. Let me say this please:

Troops are the most important asset of the military. The loss of even one, hurts. That being said, each and every one of us is replaceable. In fact, if we are worth a crap, we have already trained up someone to step into our shoes (they may not do as good a job, because, we would all agree that we are all awesome), in the event something happened. It is called continuity.

That being said...

The mission comes First. We think about the troops Always.
So, when we can, we do what we can for the troops, knowing that some day, there will be hardship.

We attempt to mitigate risk of the troops, but, sometimes the mission will be inherently dangerous, and there is a benefit that outweighs the risk. We all know and get that. Nobody wants to get themselves or their Troops killed, not what I am saying at all. I imagine that Commanders who have sent those Troops in, have had to think long and hard about it, perhaps forever, and I do not envy that, but I certainly respect them for it.

Response by SMSgt Judy Hickman made Dec 27 at 2014 12:24 AM

SMSgt Judy Hickman — Sat, 27 Dec 2014 00:24:44 -0500

If you don't take care of your people, then you cannot accomplish the mission. Therefore, I agree with "Mission first, people always". If your people are not prepared mentally, physically and spiritually to accomplish, then they will fail when our country needs them the most.

I do not believe in raising mealy mouthed airman, but I do believe in taking care of my people and that means a lot of honesty.

Response by CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Mar 4 at 2019 9:10 AM

CMSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Mon, 04 Mar 2019 09:10:10 -0500

They do not present in the same time and space. It is not "either mission or men". Your prepared men accomplished the mission. If that is a true statement, you can tell me how you express it.