Posted on Oct 12, 2014
"Mission first, then men" or "Mission first, men always"?
20.1K
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 11 y ago
Posted 11 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)
4
4
0
"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.
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.
(4)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Very well expressed, CMSgt James Nolan, and* finally* an expression of "men always" that I find militarily rational.
(2)
(0)
(1)
(0)
3
3
0
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.
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.
(3)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
And you need a pig to make bacon.
If your mission is to have a BLT, no matter how essential Wilbur is to your tasty success, he's not going to enjoy the way the story ends.
If your mission is to have a BLT, no matter how essential Wilbur is to your tasty success, he's not going to enjoy the way the story ends.
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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."
"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."
(2)
(0)
2
2
0
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.
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.
(2)
(0)
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.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
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.
(1)
(0)
1LT William Clardy
Except sometimes they do present in the same time and space, CMSgt (Join to see).
Bastogne. Little Round Top. Guadalcanal. Iwo Jima. Task Force Smith. The Battle of Hue. LZ X-ray. Heck, the 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion throughout the battle of Ia Drang. And countless others which elude my memory right now, where victory only came with a butcher's bill that today's generals would have a hard time comprehending.
Bastogne. Little Round Top. Guadalcanal. Iwo Jima. Task Force Smith. The Battle of Hue. LZ X-ray. Heck, the 229th Assault Helicopter Battalion throughout the battle of Ia Drang. And countless others which elude my memory right now, where victory only came with a butcher's bill that today's generals would have a hard time comprehending.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google