Comment On Paul Yingling article in Task and Purpose

Paul doesn’t smoke dope, but IS high on unwarranted self-esteem.

His Oct. 31 article on Task and Purpose is going to draw flak

https://taskandpurpose.com/advice-troops-mexico-border/

I will not paraphrase the article here, read it yourself. It is self-serving diatribe which deserves no recognition here.

When Russ Honore was the 2nd Inf. Div. commander, Paul did not do well when Pete Curry was the G3.
After he left Korea and went to Iraq he gained some notariety for penning this scathing critique of Army Generalship.
http://www.clarksvilleonline.com/200...n-generalship/ The article was NOT well received by his peers or the Generals. He wasn’t punished for writing it, but he was no longer offered jobs of any responsibilities. This precipitated his "early retirement."

Paul fancies himself another HR McMaster (who wrote his PhD thesis into a book titled Dereliction of Duty). He is a very quick study, but obsessively critical of those who he views as his inferiors (almost everyone). He’s a devotee of Statism, where the experts make all the decisions, but only when those decisions agree with his view.

He’s more than a disgruntled democrat (he is certainly that too). He revels in sowing controversy and discord. His opinions are toxic in the extreme. He also likes the attention from the media when he attacks popular leaders.

Unfortunately there are many like him in uniform today, who those closer to the tip of the spear refer to as the "fake tanned and blow-dried liars." This best describes folks who have “been to a combat theater,” but never been humbled by burying good men who died executing the orders issued in one’s own name. They have never shared the hardship and grief that sear the meaning of selfless service, human mortality, and humility into all good leaders.

My complaints are of individuals, not the US Army as a system. Up to about 2 stars the system works well. Only about 1/3d of flags are sociopaths to that point. Those are the ones who are it to senior 3 and 4 star positions because conscience isn’t an obstacle to doing whatever it takes to “win” the game. Values and morality have nothing to do with it for them.

That’s inherent in the system and mostly unavoidable in a big organization because the bureaucracy limits the amount of damage they can do, and that’s a good thing. A few good men do actually make it to the top tier. They swim among the sociopaths and do the best they can.

The best leaders acknowledge that their oath is in loyalty to the constitution rather than any man. That is the guiding compass. Doing what was right for the men matters. Mission first, men always. Never refused a lawful order, but modify questionable orders quite often. There is no need to risk men needlessly. Let specific leaders know when you think they are in error, whenever you have opportunity to do so. That’s part of the obligation of leadership.

I don’t think the system hangs NCOs out to dry for mistakes in combat. Sometimes rogue guys do get jammed up for trivial things because those are the things that can be proven under UCMJ. But I don’t know of a case where a guy got jammed up for a first offense of bad judgement; it is almost always a series of ignored warnings that leads to a chargeable offense.

Let's block ads! (Why?)

Comment On Paul Yingling article in Task and Purpose