B
Boondocksaint375
Guest
ok so how would you classify events like Haditha? I dont put terrorism and those bad eggs (who go against orders) in the same category, at least from an overall perspective.
Was there someone hanged???
- Thread starter Polar Bear
- Start date
B
Boondocksaint375
Guest
maybe by the immediate chain of command, but are you you saying Washington should be held liable? That would be the same as saying GW should be held liable for Haditha atrocities.
pardus
Verified Military
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 10,535
Not that he should be held accountable, but that he could be.
Im not saying anything against Washington, dont want it to seem like that.
What evidence was there of the guilt of hitler, saddam, pol pot, stalin, tojo etc... the trails at the end of WW2 charged the vanquised with starting a war that included war crimes therefore making them guilty because they started the war, under those conditions Bush could be held accountable for Haditha because he started the war.
Does that make sense?
Im not saying anything against Washington, dont want it to seem like that.
What evidence was there of the guilt of hitler, saddam, pol pot, stalin, tojo etc... the trails at the end of WW2 charged the vanquised with starting a war that included war crimes therefore making them guilty because they started the war, under those conditions Bush could be held accountable for Haditha because he started the war.
Does that make sense?
104TN
Verified Military
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2006
- Messages
- 921
This conversation serves pretty well to highlight probably the only aspect of military life I ever really developed a problem with, accountability. It seems to me that historically; and even now watching current events play out on the tube, that the military hierarchy does a tremendous disservice to its own.
I understand how the chain of command works. My point is that while those in charge are capable of exerting control over their subordinates, there is only so much interaction they have with those outside of their immediate person. The murderers and psychopaths above being exempted because they ordered the atrocities carried out by their troops.
I guess what I'm getting at is that while I agree that by accepting the burden of command you also accept responsibility for the actions of your subordinates, I am not quite sure it is right...well maybe moral, to always point the finger at "the man". Take the crap going down at the 50Deuce, I foresee it being a career-ender for pretty much everyone affiliated from the BN down, but is it realistic to expect the CO to know what Joe's doing in the field if he's deviating from mission? Or for those who have probably never laid eyes on him to be responsible for his actions? Thoughts?
I understand how the chain of command works. My point is that while those in charge are capable of exerting control over their subordinates, there is only so much interaction they have with those outside of their immediate person. The murderers and psychopaths above being exempted because they ordered the atrocities carried out by their troops.
I guess what I'm getting at is that while I agree that by accepting the burden of command you also accept responsibility for the actions of your subordinates, I am not quite sure it is right...well maybe moral, to always point the finger at "the man". Take the crap going down at the 50Deuce, I foresee it being a career-ender for pretty much everyone affiliated from the BN down, but is it realistic to expect the CO to know what Joe's doing in the field if he's deviating from mission? Or for those who have probably never laid eyes on him to be responsible for his actions? Thoughts?
A lot of times the officers you see getting into trouble are the ones who were willfully negligent of what was going on during their watch (Abu G.) or tried to something up (Haditha).
Due dilligence is the responsibility of every commander. You've got to be proactive, be in your troops' business (if you're an NCO) and regularly inspect the things that are important (if you're an officer). You can't be everywhere at once, and micromanaging is counterproductive, but you've got to establish and enforce the standards all the time.
In most organizations, "Big boy rules" are a cop-out excuse for poor leadership.
Due dilligence is the responsibility of every commander. You've got to be proactive, be in your troops' business (if you're an NCO) and regularly inspect the things that are important (if you're an officer). You can't be everywhere at once, and micromanaging is counterproductive, but you've got to establish and enforce the standards all the time.
In most organizations, "Big boy rules" are a cop-out excuse for poor leadership.
