What's more important: Mission or Soldiers

2015-11-03T10:22:51-05:00

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?

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 10:24 AM

2015-11-03T10:24:30-05:00

I guess you can't edit. Lol

Response by 1stSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 10:32 AM

2015-11-03T10:32:08-05:00

Mission First, Marines Always

Response by SFC Michael Hasbun made Nov 3 at 2015 10:51 AM

2015-11-03T10:51:25-05:00

Without personnel, all missions fail....

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 11:21 AM

2015-11-03T11:21:07-05:00

Personnel are a vital cornerstone to a successful mission. That means leaders need to take care of their people so that they can ensure that the mission can be successfully completed every time. If you take care of your people before and after the mission, you never have to worry about determining which is more important.

Response by PO3 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 11:36 AM

2015-11-03T11:36:39-05:00

that is why there is a General ... ...

Response by CW5 Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 11:44 AM

2015-11-03T11:44:52-05:00

My old Aviation Support Battalion Commander's priorities were:
1) Take care of Soldier's and their family
2) Establish and maintain our reputation
3) Accomplish the mission

During a trying 12 month train-up and 15 month deployment we had zero DUIs or serious incidents. We accepted and accomplished every mission and our morale was high. As a service provider of maintenance, fuel and the like, the reputation was important. We wanted our unit and all units to know that we were ready and able to serve any and all.

Response by SMSgt Thor Merich made Nov 3 at 2015 12:39 PM

2015-11-03T12:39:45-05:00

Both are equally important. But if I had to lean one way or the other, I tend to lean towards the troops. You cant succeed without the right folks doing the right thing. I have found that well trained troops, with high morale will accomplish great things without that much pushing. A well motivated team will go above and beyond. But if you continually sacrifice your troops for the sake of the mission, you soon become combat ineffective.

Response by SSG Warren Swan made Nov 3 at 2015 12:52 PM

2015-11-03T12:52:30-05:00

"Accomplishment of my MISSION, and the welfare of my Soldiers". Creed tells you the order. Might not always agree with it, but....

Response by MAJ Ken Landgren made Nov 3 at 2015 1:01 PM

2015-11-03T13:01:25-05:00

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.

Response by MAJ Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 1:36 PM

2015-11-03T13:36:05-05:00

My take (from a few years of experience) is simple. Take care of your Soldiers, they'll take care of the rest. Including mission accomplishment.

Response by CSM Michael Poll made Nov 3 at 2015 1:38 PM

2015-11-03T13:38:36-05:00

yes.. both It is a delicate balance to ensure the mission accomplishment and taking care of the Soldiers in that mission. There is not right or wrong answer to this question as both are important.

Response by Sgt Aaron Kennedy, MS made Nov 3 at 2015 2:45 PM

2015-11-03T14:45:31-05:00

Our Mission is to Support & Defend the Constitution. The Nation. The Troops, whether they be Marines, Soldiers, Sailors, or Airmen are resources to accomplish that Mission.

As such, the mission is always more important. You can expend all your resources and still accomplish your mission. It doesn't work in reverse.

Yes, we can harp about "if you take care of your troops, the mission will get done..." all day long, but there has to be a priority. Sometimes we are the Pawns, an expendable protecting the King that is the People who is our Nation.

Now, the major guideline in there is not to NEEDLESSLY WASTE resources to accomplish said mission. Failure to take care of your folks is needlessly wasting resources. This is a basic management skill (as opposed to leadership).

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Nov 3 at 2015 3:10 PM

2015-11-03T15:10:19-05:00

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.

Response by SSG David Bray made Nov 3 at 2015 4:30 PM

2015-11-03T16:30:37-05:00

Men 1st, mission always. Ifyour unit doesn't have the right number of people mos'q in the right places, it's considered non-mission capable. After 650 combat missions outside the wire in Iraq Afghanistan, I can tell you fora fact that when your men understand that they and their welfare are your #1 priority, they will bend overbackwards to do what nweds to be done. Both in Army 101 and mission prep /execution. Proof? 12 casualties in 3 tours, not 1 KIA. 2003 Invasion, 2007-08 Rye Clearance inAl-Anbar Fallujah and Ramadi; Zabul Province, Afghanistan 2010-11.

Response by SSG Greg Miech made Jan 25 at 2021 10:54 AM

2021-01-25T10:54:29-05:00

Soldier is there for the mission. Just as long the soldier is trained, supported, well lead for the mission the welfare of the soldier has been taken care of. It is not trying to baby them or keep them out of difficult environments or situations. That is what they are trained, lead and supported for.