There's a WWII incident I think about periodically, though in looking it up there may not have been any truth to it (assuming this is the one I'd heard about).
The Allies had cracked the code and were able to read German transmissions, so they knew that the Germans were going to bomb the village of Coventry (though apparently this is not so? They knew an attack was coming, just not the specific location).
The part I think about, the dilemma, was that if they acted on that knowledge it would give away the fact that they'd cracked the code, so in order to defeat the Germans they chose not to... and let the village get attacked without warning them in advance.
Although it may never have happened, I think about situations where that may occur. Where you, as a leader, have to decide between using that advantage to save the village or strategizing to use it to win the war.
World War II...
Well, deception operations happened on a level we rarely think of these days. Like sidelining General Patton in order to make the Nazis think D-Day was a feint.
Or using inflatable tanks and sound tracks to create a pretend army.
Or hiding false information on a corpse, and leaving the body where the Germans would find it.
I think about it, because on the one hand we need leaders to make the tough calls in war, and sometimes distancing yourselves from the effects allows you to think through strategy better. To think of it like a game of chess, and not worry about the loved ones the pawns leave behind.
And yet, on the other hand, it's the type of thinking that leads to horrible results... where people lose sight of what they are fighting for, and why they're fighting, growing callous and harsh and wasting lives needlessly because they've successfully distanced themselves from the human suffering left behind.
It's part of why 'the greater good' is such a dangerous concept.
Go back to World War I, for example, when guns had improved to the point where charging them led to slaughter... in previous wars guns were less reliable, had less thoroughput, and even though a few soldiers would die in the attempt you could still take a position (and ultimately win the war)... except circumstances changed, and the awareness of it hadn't, so leaders kept telling their people to charge forward only to have most of them die in the attempt.
Soldiers know, going in, that they are risking their lives. They each have their reasons for signing up, motivations as varied as people themselves.
And so I conclude that the obligation, as an officer... as a leader... is to use what they are giving you wisely and well.
Not to waste their lives stupidly, but to risk them when it's called for.
You know, have a sound strategy.
I was reminded of all this because, well.... Iran has been in the news a lot lately. That's a big ol' tangled mess that I could write a bunch of other posts on, but that wasn't what I wanted to get at today.
See, here's the thing. In Vietnam our leadership lost the trust of the people. The belief was that they weren't using the lives of their soldiers wisely and well...
I remember being in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006. Remember the screw ups made (like the way the Sunnis were handled), and I know such decisions led directly to unnecessary loss of life.
'Stay the course' irritated me no end, especially if I dwelled on it, because even though stubbornly outlasting the enemy can lead to victory... it's not really a strategy.
Of course, then came the surge, and COIN operations, and things changed. As one soldier told me, we seemed to be putting our resources in the right place.
And then... well, then the gains made were not capitalized on. You could argue that our leadership failed to live up to the trust bestowed on them by those willing to serve.
That comes out harsher in writing then I really feel, and yet I think I need to emphasize that to make my point.
Because Iran? Yeah, our relationship with them is complicated. The Iranian revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis, their extreme remarks on Israel, etc...
Maybe a case could be made for more direct action, but I haven't seen much of an indication that our leadership really learned their lessons.
It's sort of like... we need a scalpel wielded with surgical precision, and instead they're wielding machetes and blundering about. I'd rather we don't get involved, tbh, not unless there's truly an existential threat, because these yahoos are trying to play chess with people's lives.
Sure, soldiers will do as their ordered. I'm not advocating disobeying or anything. But as a voting and engaged citizen?
These are not the people I want making those sorts of decisions.
The Allies had cracked the code and were able to read German transmissions, so they knew that the Germans were going to bomb the village of Coventry (though apparently this is not so? They knew an attack was coming, just not the specific location).
The part I think about, the dilemma, was that if they acted on that knowledge it would give away the fact that they'd cracked the code, so in order to defeat the Germans they chose not to... and let the village get attacked without warning them in advance.
Although it may never have happened, I think about situations where that may occur. Where you, as a leader, have to decide between using that advantage to save the village or strategizing to use it to win the war.
World War II...
Well, deception operations happened on a level we rarely think of these days. Like sidelining General Patton in order to make the Nazis think D-Day was a feint.
Or using inflatable tanks and sound tracks to create a pretend army.
Or hiding false information on a corpse, and leaving the body where the Germans would find it.
I think about it, because on the one hand we need leaders to make the tough calls in war, and sometimes distancing yourselves from the effects allows you to think through strategy better. To think of it like a game of chess, and not worry about the loved ones the pawns leave behind.
And yet, on the other hand, it's the type of thinking that leads to horrible results... where people lose sight of what they are fighting for, and why they're fighting, growing callous and harsh and wasting lives needlessly because they've successfully distanced themselves from the human suffering left behind.
It's part of why 'the greater good' is such a dangerous concept.
Go back to World War I, for example, when guns had improved to the point where charging them led to slaughter... in previous wars guns were less reliable, had less thoroughput, and even though a few soldiers would die in the attempt you could still take a position (and ultimately win the war)... except circumstances changed, and the awareness of it hadn't, so leaders kept telling their people to charge forward only to have most of them die in the attempt.
Soldiers know, going in, that they are risking their lives. They each have their reasons for signing up, motivations as varied as people themselves.
And so I conclude that the obligation, as an officer... as a leader... is to use what they are giving you wisely and well.
Not to waste their lives stupidly, but to risk them when it's called for.
You know, have a sound strategy.
I was reminded of all this because, well.... Iran has been in the news a lot lately. That's a big ol' tangled mess that I could write a bunch of other posts on, but that wasn't what I wanted to get at today.
See, here's the thing. In Vietnam our leadership lost the trust of the people. The belief was that they weren't using the lives of their soldiers wisely and well...
I remember being in Iraq in 2004, 2005, 2006. Remember the screw ups made (like the way the Sunnis were handled), and I know such decisions led directly to unnecessary loss of life.
'Stay the course' irritated me no end, especially if I dwelled on it, because even though stubbornly outlasting the enemy can lead to victory... it's not really a strategy.
Of course, then came the surge, and COIN operations, and things changed. As one soldier told me, we seemed to be putting our resources in the right place.
And then... well, then the gains made were not capitalized on. You could argue that our leadership failed to live up to the trust bestowed on them by those willing to serve.
That comes out harsher in writing then I really feel, and yet I think I need to emphasize that to make my point.
Because Iran? Yeah, our relationship with them is complicated. The Iranian revolution, the Iranian hostage crisis, their extreme remarks on Israel, etc...
Maybe a case could be made for more direct action, but I haven't seen much of an indication that our leadership really learned their lessons.
It's sort of like... we need a scalpel wielded with surgical precision, and instead they're wielding machetes and blundering about. I'd rather we don't get involved, tbh, not unless there's truly an existential threat, because these yahoos are trying to play chess with people's lives.
Sure, soldiers will do as their ordered. I'm not advocating disobeying or anything. But as a voting and engaged citizen?
These are not the people I want making those sorts of decisions.
