QUOTE(Russ Logan @ Dec 23 2004, 11:20 PM)
So you would "bust him" and maybe, that is the correct response. But when you do realize that you also may lose the best eyes on the field - those for whom the price of failure is not a textbook exercise but a real world nightmare, and now can "see" better than any new guy what needs to be done, and maybe more importantly, what can be.
They used to fire wing commanders for aircraft accidents, despite the CO's having done everything he possibly could have to prevent the final causative decision some young captain made about what he needed to do as the accident unfolded, even when there was no way the CO or anyone else at that time could have persuaded that young pilot to do something else. In those precious few seconds only the captain "had the conn". And no time to think it over or try something else. But even in the absence of any lack - the wing commander got the sack because it happened "on his watch." When a lapse that was the result of not doing things by the book was found - I fully supported the decision. But when the only reason was - it was on your watch that the pilot elected, despite all training to do otherwise, to try to save the aircraft and failed - so call in your second - I flat did not see the logic.
Seems to me that until we find out as many of the facts as we can as to how this op was conducted, and plug any holes we didn't see, that calls to "bust" may be premature. Or we may find it was negligence, and then such action is warranted.
General Ham already takes the failure as his fault. He doesn't know what specific fault(s) yet they were. They may not have been his to see. His enemy may have had a hand in that failure.
As always, YMMV.
[right][snapback]32653[/snapback][/right]
Appreciate your input, sir. Let me be clear. I salute Ham for his plain and clear statement of what chain of command means, as I understand it.
It was his watch. I think that has serious meaning. Responsibility of command goes beyond sins of commission to sins of omission. And a responsible person has honor enough to accept the failure of his command and take it like a man. Ham seems to have honor. I salute that.
It does not matter whether he
actively failed to insure security for his troops' lives. Passively failing counts just as much. I respect Ham for having honor enough to own his command. I doubt he said what he said w/o a clear mind.
No bullet required - I think that's a pretty gross comparison. By 'bust him' I meant put the full weight of responsibility on him. Honorable men accept responsibility.
They do not shy from it. That's the price of command. I think most honorable COs accept that. No weaseling w/'I did nothing wrong - it was the grunt.' Weaseling seems to be coming from top down. Note Abu Ghraib.
"But when the only reason was - it was on your watch that the pilot elected, despite all training to do otherwise, to try to save the aircraft and failed - so call in your second - I flat did not see the logic."To me the logic is, 'the buck stops
here.' A nearly lost principle.
I think he should submit his resignation immediately.
And command should refuse to accept it until a full and thorough inquiry. If indeed it is indeed found he provided maximum leadership to evoke maximum security of his base, then his resignation should be refused. All that done, Ham will come out of it a notably honorable man. His reputation increased. If inquiry shows any laxity of supervision, any failure of command, well then
men died, so any loss of rank is a meagre price in comparison.
He should be no scapegoat, but if need be an example. Command better accept resonsibility. Not for everything on its watch - just most everything on its watch. Chain of command requires compliance with orders from the bottom up, and responsibility from top down. That's my understanding of it.
Otherwise its just a matter of shit rolls downhill, and no one is responsible except the last guy. Some lowly grunt gets the blame, the rest retire w/swell pensions.
So far what I've seen from the WoI is avoidance of responsibility. The whole 911 event notably lacking in responsibility acceptance. You see what changes have instantly occurred since the er, suicider? Not much. Where's the response? Fear of being busted just might focus a few minds.
Every CO should be checking and rechecking the perimeter control. Personally if need be. The only lines seem to be the perimeter of each base - and that has a familiar ring. Each CO should know that their ass is on the line. That might just improve chain of command.
Frankly I am in admiration of Ham's honor. He just could have lamely weaseled as some, "It is an enormous challenge to provide force protection. We have to be right 100 percent of the time." He could have whined about how tough it is to stop er, suiciders. He didn't. He was 4-square. Upright.
He seems willing to accept the consequences. So let him. In that he seems quite an honorable CO. He gets it.
I am not convinced this tragedy was unavoidable. Convince me.
