trying to get them rightly placed, the need is not a formula, since no
formula will work. It is only by keeping principles uppermost in our
thoughts that the greatest measure of common sense will prevail in our
actions. That is what is needed, rather than clairvoyant powers, or a
master's degree in psychology, if the service officer is to handle
personnel efficiently. There are no great wizards in this field: there
are only men who know more about the human nature of the problem than
others because they have had a zest for meeting humanity and have
built a text out of what others have told them.
The job begins by the search for data on the individual--all of the
data that may be obtained. It goes on from that to sitting down with
the subject, getting him to open up and talk freely about himself,
what he has done, what he would like to do with his life, and his
reasons for so feeling, et cetera. But the information from all
sources has to be balanced against one's impression of the outer man,
not just what he says but how he talks, the degree of his
attentiveness, his bearing, his eye, his self-control. The decision is
made on the basis of all these reckonings. This is common sense in
action, and the only alternatives to it are to act upon a hunch or
purely emotional grounds; one might, with better reason, determine
another man's fortune by the flip of a coin.
Let's see briefly how the method works out in practice.
If the record shows that a man is a bad speller, careless about
punctuation, not interested in writing, non-experienced at clerkship,
and something of a rough diamond in his nature, he would be a bad bet
for the administrative side, or in supply work, or in a communications
role, though with a little polishing, and provided that he seems
self-assured and is what we would call a "likeable" man, he might
become a capital leader of a tactical group.
On the other hand, the man who says he had tried in vain to develop a
manual skill, but has always been clumsy with his hands, and is
supported in what he says by the records of his service, isn't
necessarily excluded from becoming a good weapons or demolitions man,
if he seems strong in body and nerve, though he would hardly do for a
mechanic's berth, or a carpenter's assistant or as a radio repairman.
Weapons and demolitions require strength, carefulness and good sense
rather than great dexterity.
Take the man who is uncommunicative, or morose or unusually shy. From
the day that he starts his service, his superiors should do their best
to help him to change his ways; these ingrown men are roadblocks to
group cooperation. But if he does not pick up and become outgiving, he
hasn't the quality of a junior leader and there is no point in wasting
space by sending him to any school or course out of which it would be
expected that duties as an instructor would devolve upon him.
However, there is one word of extreme caution on this point. For as
long as 6 months after entering service, some men are under abnormal
constraint because they are in a new element, and feel a little
frightened inside. Whether this is the case is to be judged best by
getting full information on the man. If the record shows that he had
led his class in college, managed an athletic team, headed a debating
team in high school, been the main wheel in a boy's club or a Scout
troop, or led any kind of group, this is to be taken as a sign that
the potential is there and that he is a sleeper. The most common error
made in the services is that we are prone to underscore that a man was
a lieutenant in a cadet company while taking no note of the file who
had greater prestige in other activities because of his natural
qualities as a leader.
These are only a few average samples of personnel handling, and of
elementary reasoning. As Mother Goose might say, if the list had been
longer, the case still wouldn't have been stronger. Far more
profitably, we can dig a little deeper into the subject of principles.
In two senses, every decision as to the placing of men in the armed
service is a moral decision, and therein it differs from average
civilian responsibility. What is best for the man has always to be
measured against the ultimate security and fighting objects of the
establishment.
For example, it is dead wrong, even in time of peace, to commit
tactical leadership to the hands of the man whose moral force clearly
falls short of what is required on the field of war, no matter how
congenial he may be. And it is just as wrong to let a blabbermouth
work his way into security channels, even though the hour is such that
he can do no immediate harm.
What importance should be attached to a man's estimate of his own
capabilities? It is always pertinent, but it is by no means decisive.
This is so for two reasons, the first being that the majority of men
tend to over-sell themselves on the thing they like to do, and the
second, that very few men know their own dimensions. Almost
consciously, men resist the thing that they do not know, because of
premonitory fears of failure. When the Armored Force School was first
organized in 1941, a private from a unit stationed in Georgia was
arbitrarily assigned to take the radio course. He protested, saying
that he did not like anything about the field and therefore had no
talent for it. But his commander sent him along. Within 1 week after
arriving at Fort Knox, he was operating at a faster rate than any man
in the history of the Army. Every service could tell stories of this
kind; they are not miracles; they are regular features of the daily
show.
At the same time, the man who volunteers for a particular line of
duty--especially if it is a hard duty--already has one mark in his
favor. The fact that he wants to do it is one-half of success. Before
turning him down, there must be a substantially clear showing that he
lacks the main qualifications. It must be a _compelling_ reason,
rather than the overweening excuse that it is more convenient to keep
him where he is. In any case, he should be thanked for coming forward,
and earmarked as a good prospect for the next likely opening.
There is a slack saying in the services that "the good man never
volunteers." That is an outright canard. The best men still do.
In job placement, mistakes are inevitable. Any authority in this work
will say so. Every experienced man who has had conspicuous success in
picking the right men, and in getting scores of individuals started up
the right ladder, will also shudder a little as he recalls his
particularly atrocious blunders. Outward appearances are so greatly
deceiving! The prior estimates placed on men are so frequently highly
colored or outright dishonest!
As to the making of mistakes, it is just not enough to comment that
they have value, provided one has sufficient breadth to learn from
hard experience. What is vastly more important is that the mistake,
once made, will not be needlessly compounded. That is a normal, human
temptation. The attitude, "I don't care if he is a chump; he's my
chump," has nothing in its favor. Yet it becomes a point of pride in
some men that they will not admit their judgments are fallible.
Consequently, having chosen the wrong man for a given responsibility,
they will sustain him there, come hell or high water, rather than make
public acknowledgement of error.
With what result? Mainly this, that for the sake of the point, they
win, with it, the contempt of their other subordinates. For there is
something very childish about this form of weakness, though it is a
failing not unknown in many men otherwise qualified for high
responsibility. To put it plainly, _no man_ has the moral right to
suffer this upon any organization he is professing to serve.
The advice of one's subordinates, as to the placement and promotion of
men with whom they are in close contact, is not to be followed
undeviatingly. Men play favorites: they will sometimes back an
individual for no better reason than that they "like the guy." Too,
each small group leader, even the best one, will work to advance the
interests of his own men, because so doing is part of his own buildup.
Unless decisions are made from a central point of view, the
subordinate who talks the most convincingly will get an extra portion
of favor for his men, and jealousies will wrack the organization.
There is one last point. No officer can progress in fitting men to
jobs except as he becomes better informed about job requirements. This
is an essential part of his education. There is no administrative
technique which is separate and apart from knowledge of how basic work
is performed in the fields which have to be administered. A great many
officers resist this truth, but it is nonetheless valid.
What is eternally surprising in the fighting services is how the
aggressive questing for knowledge continues to pay large dividends,
and leads, in the average case, to a general forgiveness of one's
little sins and vices.
CHAPTER TWENTY-EIGHT
AMERICANS IN COMBAT
The command and control of men in combat _can_ be mastered by the
junior leaders of American forces short of actual experience under
enemy fire.
It is altogether possible for a young officer his first time in battle
to be in total possession of his faculties and moving by instinct to
do the right thing, provided that he has made the most of his training
opportunities.
Exercise in the maneuvering of men is only an elementary introduction
to this educational process. The basic requirement is a continuing
study, first of the nature of men, second of the techniques which
produce unified action, and last, of the history of past operations,
which are covered by an abundant literature.
Provided always that this collateral study is sedulously carried
forward by the individual officer, at least 90 percent of all that is
given him during the training period becomes applicable to his
personal action and his power to lead other men when under fire.
Each service has its separate character. The fighting problem of each
differs in some measure from those of all others. In the nature of
things, the task of successfully leading men in battle is partly
conditioned by the unique character and mission of each service.
It would therefore be gratuitous, and indeed impossible, to attempt to
outline a doctrine which would be of general application, stipulating
methods, techniques, etc., which would apply to all Americans in
combat, no matter in what element they engaged.
There are, however, a few simple and fundamental propositions to which
the Armed Services subscribe in saying to the officer corps what may
be expected of the average man of the United States under the
conditions of battle. Generally speaking, they have held true of
Americans in times past from Lexington to Okinawa. The fighting
establishment builds its discipline, training, code of conduct and
public policy around these ideas, believing that what served yesterday
will also be the one best way tomorrow, and for so long as our
traditions and our system of freedoms survive. These propositions are:
I
When led with courage and intelligence, an American will fight as
willingly and as efficiently as any fighter in world history.
II
His keenness and endurance in war will be in proportion to the zeal
and inspiration of his leadership.
III
He is resourceful and imaginative, and the best results will always
flow from encouraging him to use his brain along with his spirit.
IV
Under combat conditions he will reserve his greatest loyalty for the
officer who is most resourceful in the tactical employment of his
forces and most careful to avoid unnecessary losses.
V
He is to a certain extent machine-bound because the nature of our
civilization has made him so. In an emergency, he tends to look around
for a motor car, a radio or some other gadget that will facilitate his
purpose, instead of thinking about using his muscle power toward the
given end. In combat, this is a weakness which thwarts contact and
limits communications. Therefore it needs to be anticipated and
guarded against.
VI
War does not require that the American be brutalized or bullied in any
measure whatever. His need is an alert mind and a toughened body. Hate
and bloodlust are not the attributes of a sound training under the
American system. To develop clearly a line of duty is sufficient to
point Americans toward the doing of it.
VII
Except on a Hollywood lot, there is no such thing as an American
fighter "type." Our best men come in all colors, shapes, and sizes.
They appear from every section of the Nation, including the
territories.
VIII
Presupposing soundness in their officer leadership, the majority of
Americans in any group or unit can be depended upon to fight loyally
and obediently, and will give a good account of themselves.
IX
In battle, Americans do not tend to fluctuate between emotional
extremes, in complete dejection one day and in exultation the next,
according to changes in the situation. They continue, on the whole, on
a fairly even keel, when the going is tough and when things are
breaking their way. Even when heavily shocked by battle losses, they
tend to bound back quickly. Though their griping is incessant, their
natural outlook is on the optimistic side, and they react unfavorably
to the officer who looks eternally on the dark side.
X
During battle, American officers are not expected either to drive
their men or to be forever in the van, as if praying to be shot. So
long as they are with their men, taking the same chances as their men,
and showing a firm grasp of the situation and of the line of action
which should be followed, the men will go forward.
XI
In any situation of extreme pressure, or moral exhaustion, where men
cannot otherwise be rallied and led forward, officers are expected to
do the actual physical act of leading, such as performing as first
scout, or point, even though this means taking over what normally
would be an enlisted man's function.
XII
The normal, gregarious American is not at his best when playing a
lone-handed or tactically isolated part in battle. He is not a
kamikaze or a one-man torpedo. Consequently, the best tactical
results obtain from those dispositions and methods which link the
power of one man to that of another. Men who feel strange with their
unit, having been carelessly received by it, and indifferently
handled, will rarely, if ever, fight strongly and courageously. But if
treated with common decency and respect, they will perform like men.
XIII
Within our school of military thought, higher authority does not
consider itself infallible. Either in combat or out, in any situation
where a majority of militarily-trained Americans become undutiful,
that is sufficient reason for higher authority to resurvey its own
judgments, disciplines and line of action.
XIV
To lie to American troops to cover up a blunder in combat rarely
serves any valid purpose. They have a good sense of combat and an
uncanny instinct for ferreting out the truth when anything goes wrong
tactically. They will excuse mistakes but they will not forgive being
treated like children.
XV
When spit-and-polish are laid on so heavily that they become onerous,
and the ranks cannot see any legitimate connection between the
requirements and the development of an attitude which will serve a
clear fighting purpose, it is to be questioned that the exactions
serve any good object whatever.
XVI
On the other hand, because standards of discipline and courtesy are
designed for the express purpose of furthering control under the
extraordinary frictions and pressures of the battlefield, their
maintenance under combat conditions is as necessary as during
training. Smartness and respect are the marks of military alertness,
no matter how trying the circumstances. But courtesy starts at the
top, in the dealing of any officer with his subordinates, and in his
decent regard for their loyalty, intelligence, and manhood.
XVII
Though Americans enjoy relatively a bountiful, and even luxurious
standard of living in their home environment, they do not have to be
pampered, spoon-fed and surfeited with every comfort and convenience
to keep them steadfast and devoted, once war comes. They are by nature
rugged men, and in the field will respond most perfectly when called
on to play a rugged part. Soft handling will soften even the best men.
But even the weak man will develop a new vigor and confidence in the
face of necessary hardship, if moved by a leadership which is
courageously making the best of a bad situation.
XVIII
Extravagance and wastefulness is somewhat rooted in the American
character, because of our mode of life. When our men enter military
service, there is a strong holdover of their prodigal civilian habits.
Even under fighting conditions, they tend to be wasteful of drinking
water, food, munitionment and other vital supply. When such things are
made _too_ accessible, they tend to throw them away, rather than to
conserve them in the general interests. This is a distinct weakness
during combat, when conservation of all supply is the touchstone of
success. The regulating of all supply, and the preventing of waste in
any form, is the prime obligation of every officer.
XIX
Under the conditions of battle, any extra work, exercise, maneuver or
_marching which does not serve a clear and direct operational purpose_
is unjustifiable. The supreme object is to keep men as physically
fresh and mentally alert as possible. Tired men take fright and are
half-whipped before the battle opens. Worn-out officers cannot make
clear decisions. The conservation of men's powers, not the exhaustion
thereof, is the way of successful operation.
XX
When forces are committed to combat, it is vital that not one
unnecessary pound be put on any man's back. Lightness of foot is the
key to speed of movement and the increase of firepower. In judging of
these things, every officer's thought should be on the optimistic
side. It is better to take the chance that men will manage to get by
on a little less than to overload them, through an over-cautious
reckoning of every possible contingency, thereby destroying their
power to do anything effectively.
XXI
Even a thorough training and long practice in weapons handling will
not always insure that a majority of men will use their weapons freely
and consistently when engaging the enemy. This is particularly true of
Americans. In youth they are taught that the taking of human life is
wrong. This feeling is deep-rooted in their emotions. Many of them
cannot shake it off when the hour comes that their own lives are in
danger. They fail to fire, though they do not know exactly why. In
war, firing at an enemy target can be made a habit. Once required to
make the start, because he is given personal and intelligent
direction, any man will find it easier to fire the second and third
time, and soon thereafter his response will become automatic in any
tactical situation. When engaging the enemy, the most decisive task of
all junior leaders is to make certain that _all_ men along the line
are employing their weapons, even if this means spending some time
with each man and directing his fire. Reconnaissance and inspection
toward this end, particularly in the early stages of initial
engagement, are far more important than the employment of weapons by
junior leaders themselves, since this latter tends to distract their
attention from what the men are doing.
XXII
Unity of action develops from fullness of information. In combat, all
ranks have to know what is being done, and why it is being done, if
confusion is to be kept to a minimum. This holds true in all types of
operation, whatever the service. However, a surfeit of information
clouds the mind and may sometimes depress the spirit. We can take one
example. A commander might be confronted by a complex situation, and
his solution may comprise a continuing operation in three distinct
phases. It would be advisable that all hands be told the complete
detail of "phase A." But it might be equally sensible that only his
subordinates who are closest to him be made fully informed about
"phase B," and "phase C." All plans in combat are subject to
modification as circumstances dictate; this being the case, it is
better not to muddle men by filling their minds with a seeming
conflict in ideas. More important still, if the grand object seems too
vast and formidable, even the first step toward it may appear doubly
difficult. Fullness of information does not void the other principle
that one thing at a time, carefully organized all down the line, is
the surest way.
XXIII
There is no excuse for malingering or cowardice during battle. It is
the task of leadership to stop it, by whatever means would seem to be
the surest cure, always making certain that in so doing it will not
make a bad matter worse.
XXIV
The Armed Services recognize that there are occasional individuals
whose nervous and spiritual makeup may be such that, though they erode
rapidly and may suffer complete breakdown under combat conditions,
they still may be wholly loyal and conscientious men, capable of doing
high duty elsewhere. Men are not alike. In some, however willing the
spirit, the flesh may still be weak. To punish, degrade or in any way
humiliate such men is not more cruel than ignorant. When the good
faith of any individual has been repeatedly demonstrated in his
earlier service, he deserves the benefit of the doubt from his
superior, pending study of his case by medical authority. But if the
man has been a bad actor consistently, his officer is warranted in
proceeding on the assumption that his combat failure is just one more
grave moral dereliction. To fail to take proper action against such a
man can only work unusual hardship on the majority trying to do duty.
XXV
The United States abides by the laws of war. Its armed forces, in
their dealing with all other peoples, are expected to comply with the
laws of war, in the spirit and to the letter. In waging war, we do not
terrorize helpless non-combatants, if it is within our power to avoid
so doing. Wanton killing, torture, cruelty or the working of unusual
and unnecessary hardship on enemy prisoners or populations is not
justified in any circumstance. Likewise, respect for the reign of law,
_as that term is understood in the United States_, is expected to
follow the flag wherever it goes. Pillaging, looting and other
excesses are as unmoral where Americans are operating under military
law as when they are living together under the civil code. None the
less, some men in the American services will loot and destroy
property, unless they are restrained by fear of punishment. War looses
violence and disorder; it inflames passions and makes it relatively
easy for the individual to get away with unlawful actions. But it does
not lessen the gravity of his offense or make it less necessary that
constituted authority put him down. The main safeguard against
lawlessness and hooliganism in any armed body is the integrity of its
officers. When men know that their commander is absolutely opposed to
such excesses, and will take forceful action to repress any breach of
discipline, they will conform. But when an officer winks at any
depradation by his men, it is no different than if he had committed
the act.
XXVI
On the field of sport Americans always "talk it up" to keep nerves
steady and to generate confidence. The need is even greater on the
field of war, and the same treatment will have no less effect. When
men are afraid, they go silent; silence of itself further intensifies
their fear. The resumption of speech is the beginning of thoughtful,
collected action, for self-evidently, two or more men cannot join
strength and work intelligently together until they know one another's
thoughts. _Consequently, all training is an exercise in getting men to
open up and become articulate even as it is a process in conditioning
them physically to move strongly and together._
XXVII