The Price of Command
By streiff Posted in War — Comments (39) / Email this page » / Leave a comment »
Command.
The be-all-end-all for a military officer.
A commander, as they say, is responsible for all his unit does and fails to do. Command well, or even brilliantly, and you earn the chance, if you are lucky, to command again. A parable told to me as a young lieutenant by a field artillery lieutenant colonel concerned an incident in Vietnam where the commander of a field artillery battalion was nearing the end of an exceptional command tour. The division commander, a two-star general, prevailed upon him to extend his command tour and time in Vietnam by six more months. This would place the man on the fast track to colonel and probably to general. A couple of weeks into his extended tour one of his firing batteries mistakenly shelled a friendly Vietnamese village. The general relieved the man and ended his career.
Every day in command makes you an entrant in the “hero to zero” sweepstakes. Most of us who have commanded have our own stories of close calls and near misses.
Sometimes the dice just roll against you. Despite your best efforts you become the sacrificial victim for a greater policy disaster. Sadly, Commander Kirk Lippold who commanded the USS Cole on October 12, 2000 joins the august company of Admiral John Byng and others who have figuratively or literally been shot by musketry on the quarterdeck of the flagship.
Read on.
The Navy has always been brutal on commanders who, justifiably or no, have their ships damaged while not in combat. The commander of the USS Stark, Captain Glen Brindel, was forced to retire. Likewise the commander of the USS Greenville (surfaced under a Japanese training ship off Hawaii on February 9, 2001 killing nine) and the USS San Francisco (ran into an uncharted undersea mount on January 8, 2005 killing one sailor) had very promising careers truncated through mishaps. The future leadership of naval aviation was gutted by the feckless caving in of the Clinton Administration to a feminist pogrom in the wake of the Tailhook Convention in 1991.
I hold no brief for Commander Lippold. I’m not privy to the classified annexes to the investigation though the unclassified sections ask more questions than they answer. When the Chief of Naval Operations at the time, Admiral Vern Clark, says:
"There is a collective responsibility. We all in the chain of command share responsibility for what happened on board USS Cole.""The investigation clearly shows the commanding officer of the Cole did not have the specific intelligence, the focused training, the appropriate equipment and on-scene security support to effectively prevent or deter such a determined, such a pre-planned assault on this ship,"
It seems to me that the man should be held harmless professionally because we know that he will spend large portions of his life, waking and asleep, reliving that terrible day and wondering what he could have done to prevent it. In short, he has received punishment enough.
Apparently, the Navy believed the same. Commander Lippold was recommended for promotion to captain in 2002, his promotion was not approved by the Senate. It was blocked by Senator John Warner.
Now, five years after the fact the Secretary of the Navy has made official what the Senate has made fact. The Secretary of the Navy has officially pulled Commander Lippold from the promotion list:
But in a written statement Monday, the Navy said Secretary Donald C. Winter concluded after reviewing the matter that Lippold's actions before the attack on Oct. 12, 2000, "did not meet the high standard" expected of commanding officers.
Based on that assessment, Winter determined that Lippold was "not the best and fully qualified for promotion to the higher grade" of captain, said a Navy spokesman, Cmdr. David Werner.
How Winter was able to reconcile that statement with the judgment of Commander Lippold’s peers, superiors, or even his own conscience is beyond me.
The irony here is that the man who approved using Aden as a refueling point in order to curry favor with the Yemeni government, the man who stated in testimony before the Senate that force protection was the responsibility of the Yemeni government, Marine General Anthony Zinni, escaped from this unscathed and his demonstrably flawed judgment in dealing with Islamic terrorism is never mentioned when he appears on television or is quoted in newspapers.
« We need more COIN in the Afghan realm — Comments (0) | The Iranian Trifecta — Comments (24) »
The Price of Command 39 Comments (0 topical, 39 editorial, 0 hidden) Post a comment »
Mostly, so I can use the nifty HTML buttons that Clayton installed.
And...wicked good post, Streiff.
What buttons? None on my screen.
And yes, a goodly post streiff.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
In my unit we had an Officer who fretted so much that something would happen on his watch.
Yep, you guessed it, he did nothing, had no outstanding mind blowing new idea, because it might go wrong for him.
Lucky for the USA he did not make Admiral.
Everyone with a family member suffering from diabetes, Parkinson's disease or heart failure wishes Bush had kept that veto pen in his pocket.
"The Road To Freedom Is Seldom Traveled By The Multitude" Madhouse Thought
Zinni has indeed gotten a pass.
"No compromise with the main purpose, no peace till victory, no pact with unrepentant wrong." - Winston Churchill
Defense Distinguished Service Medal.
Defense Superior Service Medal with two oak leaf clusters.
Bronze Star Medal with Combat “V” and gold star in lieu of a second award.
Purple Heart.
Meritorious Service Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award.
Navy Commendation Medal with Combat “V” and gold star in lieu of second award.
Navy Achievement Medal with gold star in lieu of a second award.
Combat Action Ribbon.
36 unit, service and campaign awards.
In addition to his U.S. military decorations, Zinni holds decorations from Bahrain, Egypt, France, Italy, Kuwait, South Vietnam, and Yemen, including the Vietnam Armed Forces Honor Medal (First Class); the National Order of Merit (France); the Order of Merit of the Republic (Italy); the Vietnam Gallantry Cross Unit Citation with Palm; the Vietnam Civil Actions Medal (First Class); the Vietnam Campaign Medal; and the Kuwait Liberation Medal (Kuwait).
c/o - wikipedia.
This soldier has enough decorations to snap a Christmas tree. His opinions, at the very least, should matter more than mine.
And I suspect yours as well.
---
When a thing defies physical law, there's usually politics involved - P.J. O'Rourke
you clowns don't give the same respect to people, like Tommy Franks, Pete Schoomaker, and Peter Pace who disagree with your message du jour.
I think if a Republican talked that way, he'd be called a fascist before his lips stopped moving.
--
If you're seeing shades of gray, it's because you're not looking close enough to see the black and white dots.
are combat awards that are notworthy honors.
But also worth noting are his lack of accomplishments during his tenure as CENTCOM. His simplistic strategy to "contain terrorism like we contained the Soviet Union during the Cold War" failed and lead to disaster. A fine mess for those who followed him to clean up.
Sure I respect the rank he attained - but I have no respect for his failed strategy at CENTCOM.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
As in "you should simply accept the opinion of Zinni because he has all this experience behind him."
In the marketplace of ideas, it is the quality of the idea, not the identity of the person spouting it, that determines who "wins."
Put another way .....
The equivalent of your Zinniness is:
"Only W. has any experience being President in a post 9/11 world ... so he's the only one who's qualified to speak on the issues facing the President."
Doubt you'd agree to that though ....
the only President we have who has dealt with the Iranians is Carter. Maybe we should send him to Tehran to negotiate with the Mullahs and their sock puppet...
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Do not think that there is no respect for Gen. Zinni when people comment on this. While I can't speak for Streiff, you can criticize without being disrespectful, which I believe is what he was doing.
I spent six years in the Navy, and I will tell you that just because you hold a higher rank or have more decorations does not ensure that you also hold more experience or intelligence. With all due respect to their rank, I've met officers who have no clue on leadership, but are leaders nonetheless, not because of expertise, but because of rank. They will eventually get there, but holding a pretty pin on your collar doesn't ensure you hold expert ideas in your brain.
Gen. Zinni deserves all the praise in the world for his service. However, his actions and opinions are there for others to criticize, as they should be. Insulation from criticism leads to more targets for criticism.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
people who have held CEO posts should be taken more seriously then those who have not when critiquing presidental action.
Based on my very perfunctory knowledge of the Cole incident, I had assumed that the commander of the vessel wasn't going to be stripped of his chances for advancement in this way. Why does Warner want to (putting in crudely) "make an example" out of this officer in this way? As you say, the unclassified sections of the report raise a lot more questions than they answer about the puzzle. Even the most cursory, unsophisticated, civilian reading of that list of recommendations to SecDef argues pretty strongly that this terrible incident was the culmination of a lot of factors that were far beyond Lippold's control, training and organizational support, not to mention his pay grade.
Clearly someone more senior than Kirk should have stepped up to the plate accountability wise - but no one did. The specific threat intel was held at the NAVCENT/CENTCOM level and never made it down to the Cole. Heck the original target was the DDG that preceded them (The Sullivans, I believe).
Without anyone senior taking accountability for the attack - the CO took the hit. Not fair, but command isn't necessarily always a fair thing. The scope of the destruction and the casualties made it imperative that someone be held responsible.
Si vis Pacem, Para Bellum
is that had the captain acted to stop the threat hazarding his ship by opening fire on the attackers he would probably have been reprimanded and passed over for promotion anyway. In my view he was placed in a no-win situation.
John
---------
Why would God invent a thing like whiskey? To keep the Irish from ruling the world of course.
is the "be all end all".
I was privileged to serve under a young infantry Captain in Vietnam. He was the ripe old age of 25. In my opinion, Command of a company in the bush was the most difficult job in Vietnam - bar none.
My old CO never sent men on a mission he would not go on himself. He held true to that axiom of leadership.
Mr. Streiff notes a commander is responsible for all his unit does or fails to do.
Even stuff beyond a commander's control can be held against him as a failure from the guys on the ground he leads and right up the chain of command. Booby traps and screw ups (there were way too many of both) come to mind.
I no longer attend my old company reunions. I grew tired of having to defend my CO - who was not welcomed and never attended.
My hat is off to any and all who have ever commanded a squad, company or division. It is a very lonely job, if it is done the right way.
Drive on.
The USS Cole suffered 17 souls lost in the attack. The rest of the ship's complement survived. Out of 337 ships complement personel, that says a lot for surviving that kind of attack.
It is indeed becoming a sad day in America when wartime heros are subjected to scorn and demotion (and denial of promotion is indeed a demotion).
Thanks, strief, for the post. Tis just sad.
As a former sailor myself, I've read and heard the vast majority of what is out there on CDR Lippold. Based on everything I've read, CDR Lippold deserves the promotion, and deserves command again.
Unfortunately, that is not the way the Navy works. Even if you are exonerated, you are not off the hook, and that is what is at play in this story: the fact that, even though he wasn't responsible for those events, he had enough complicity in the blame to not be entrusted with the chance of command of another vessel.
What is really sad is that Gens. Zinni and Franks didn't get a scratch on them, and I would hold them more to blame for the Cole than the captain. Without the proper inputs, he can't disseminate the information to the crew to be alert. The crew knew of nothing in the area that was specific to that one visit, just that there were general chances of terrorist attack. Furthermore, they couldn't ID the raft until it was too late. It wasn't a fast boat attack; it was a raft that looked much like a refueling accessory vessel. Seeing as it was a refueling stop, there was no reason to assume that anything was other than normal.
While it will rile some that I have also identified Gen. Franks as a person to look towards for blame, he was the (albeit new) commander of CENTCOM. If he had any issues or questions about operations, he should have resolved that before accepting command of CENTCOM. Just as the low-level sailor or soldier is responsible for making sure everything is in order before accepting a watchstation, the incoming commander is responsible for making sure everything is in order before accepting a command. Personally, I think that the majority of the blame rests on Gen. Zinni for allowing the U.S. to use a port where there were obvious terrorist intentions, but Gen. Franks should have disseminated the information down through the chain of command.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
Look, I feel badly for Commander Lippold. He is no doubt an able officer, and we are lucky to have men like him in the service of our country. But the bottom line is that a disastrous failure of force protection took place on his watch that was both foreseeable and preventable. Foreseeable - everyone knew at the time that Yemen was a dangerous place for an American warship, the fact that the precise form of the attack was unknowable ahead of time is no excuse. Preventable - Commander Lippold could have and should have been more aggressive in seeing to it that small vessels did not approach his ship, he had plenty of 50 caliber arguments to prevent them from doing so.
There have to be consequences for failures like this, even if others in higher places unfairly escape their portion of the blame. Ultimately the fault lies with Bill Clinton and the politically correct culture of head-in-the-sand risk aversion his party promoted in the 1990s and still promotes today. The proper sanction for this kind of fault is in the ballot box.
But Commander Lippold's experience will serve as a reminder to other field commanders that, even if your superiors are fools and knaves, you still have an obligation to use the means at your disposal to protect your troops.
While I agree with your point of "it happened on his watch, he's responsible for it," when you are not getting the proper inputs from your chain of command, you are not getting the proper tools to do the job. It's the equivalent of the sailor or soldier on watch going out without the armory equipping him with a pistol or rifle. He was exonerated in the official investigation, which means that he should theoretically be free and clear in future promotion cycles.
I feel that this is a great commander who simply got the short straw. Any commander worth a grain of salt would have given full range to the watchstanders to do whatever was necessary to save the ship had he been given the knowledge that there were serious and imminent threats.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
"Commander Lippold could have and should have been more aggressive in seeing to it that small vessels did not approach his ship, he had plenty of 50 caliber arguments to prevent them from doing so."
I find it hard to agree. This was under President Clinton and perhaps soon to be President Kerry. Can you imagine how fast he'd have been convicted by Washington had he wasted some unarmed boat that was only trying to supply his ship?
"Can you imagine how fast he'd have been convicted by Washington had he wasted some unarmed boat that was only trying to supply his ship?"
Precisely my point. He was overcautious in the instructions he gave to his crew, because he was afraid of the career consequences of overreacting. Commander Lippold wasn't some low level gofer whose tragic error of judgment can be excused on the grounds that he "didn't get the proper inputs from his chain of command". He was the commander of a US warship in a known trouble zone. He was fully aware that a major terrorism risk existed, and he had ample means to deal with the threat that actually presented itself. He would not have been court-martialed for doing so.
Yes, of course, the Clinton crew would have thrown him overboard if he had shot up an innocent dinghy. Tough luck. If you're not willing to risk your career to do what is right for your crew, you shouldn't be in command. The mentality that wants to excuse Commander Lippold is exactly the same "mistakes have no consequences" mentality that inspired Bill Clinton.
Let me state from personal knowledge that he would have faced SEVERE consequences, regardless of the status of the raft, if anyone opened fire without authorization. If it falls on anyone at the level of the Cole, it should be the Command Duty Officer, since he was the individual on watch with the most intimate knowledge of the events of the day. Above that, it is a shared responsibility, because they didn't have information specific to that one visit, but just a general idea that there was terrorist activity in the area.
And, furthermore, they wouldn't have hesitated to hammer him. Even after 9/11, we had a list of about 5 or 10 things that you had to go through while standing your post before you bring it to a physical confrontation. When I asked them about their policy and suggested that more leeway be given, they reminded me that, if I fired without authorization, I would see time in Leavenworth, REGARDLESS of the status of the attacker.
I think that some of the blame probably lies with CDR Lippold, just as some of it lies with Gens. Zinni and Franks, the CDO for the day, and various watchstanders. However, to lay this all at his feet, and deny him promotion when a) an official investigation has exonerated him, and b) he was eligible for promotion (and actually made it before the interference of John Warner)is to punish him in perpetuity for an offense that is not entirely (or even mostly) his fault.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
interpreting you correctly, because this was a known troublespot he should simply have disregarded the rules of engagement (the technical term is "lawful general regulation") and just lit up anything he found vaguely unsettling. Maybe he should simply have destroyed everything afloat in the harbor and sent an armed detachment to take the fuel.
It seems to me that the mentality that wants to blame CDR Lippold for the incident (contrary to the findings of the Chief of Naval Operations) is what creates a cadre of officers which is scared of its shadow because it knows it will be blamed for every incident, even if they aren't responsible.
It used to be said in the Navy that a decision should be made, even if it is wrong, rather than doing nothing. This is whether you are a petty officer in charge of a dozen or a captain in charge of a thousand in a life threatening predicament. If the outcome is bad and you are punished, that’s why they pay you the big bucks. Timid or scared officers also have been ruined, if put in a decision-making situation. All real leaders are gamblers, but they don’t always win. The Navy probably realized that CDR Lippold performed satisfactorily, but politics and public relations override it. Senator Warner thinks the Navy lost face and the ship's captain has to take the hit. This is basically naval tradition.
Politics and public relations often distort the the leadership picture. You end up with bad officers being promoted and good officers passed over. Unfortunately, this has even crept down through the enlisted ranks.
Senator Warner has been "bossing" the Navy for decades. Nobody is going to appoint anybody to anything or promote anybody if Warner strongly objects. He probably threatened to take away an appropriation if they promoted the guy.
And countless casualties to weed out those who should not be in the chain of command.
"Politics and public relations often distort the the leadership picture. You end up with bad officers being promoted and good officers passed over. Unfortunately, this has even crept down through the enlisted ranks."
And there isn't another navy in the world that can cause the neccessary casualties to clean up our own navy. We are victims of our own success...
"Always be honest with yourself even if you are honest with no one else...
...It helps you keep track of your lies..."
--Myself
If we had a military full of "real leaders," as you define the term, we wouldn't have much of a military. It is critical that we can count on an order being followed all the way down the chain of command. You don't want everyone substituting whatever they think is the best coarse of action for an order, because they think the people who gave the order are morons or they want to roll the dice or just because they feel particularly bad*ss that day. That's the stuff Hollywood movies are made out of, but it isn't what the military runs on.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
Presumably, the issue for CDR Lippold, was not whether or not he followed the chain of command or any written orders. I never said that a real leader didn't follow orders. There are situations when a commanding officer must make a decision without the help of the chain of command, and without any written directions for every situation. This is why he is the commanding officer. He is not just a person relaying directives.
When a leader makes a quick and tough decision that affects the welfare of his unit, he is gambling that he is right, because he can lose men, the unit, the objective, his career, if he is wrong. He has been trained for this moment. It has nothing to do with being a bad@ss or Hollywood.
Those decisions have to be consistent with his standing orders. He does not have leeway to change the ROE on a whim. The ROE didn't give him the option to sink suspicious craft and ask questions later. It doesn't matter whether he is a commander, a captain, or an admiral... he still has to follow orders. He can't just disregard them and substitute his own judgment because he gets a bad vibe.
---
"I am a great believer in luck. The harder I work, the more I have of it." -- Thomas Jefferson
We don't know what the Rules of Engagement were, and we don't know whether or not the Cole followed them correctly. I do know that the ROE would not say that you couldn't protect the ship by challenging a suspicious vessel, and firing on it, if necessary. The safety of the ship is paramount.
You are inferring that I think that Lippold did something wrong. I was talking about a ship captain making decisions which could cost him his career (even if he is right). Many skippers
have been removed who followed written orders. Some have gotten medals who didn't.
as to what the ROE's were in that situation, because I've been in that situation. Under all ROE situations, the sentries, watchstanders, etc., must get permission from the commanding officer or his appointed proxy (the Command Duty Officer, in this case) in order to open fire. The open fire order cannot be a standing order, to be followed at any time while inport. It must be situation-specific. Basically, the watchstanders would have to relay the situation to the Officer of the Deck or the CDO and wait for further instruction, which could take 30 seconds or 30 minutes depending on the information at the fingertips of the CDO.
After that, proper procedure dictates playing audiotapes over the intercom system in the host country's language, shooting flares, etc., and all possible intervention tactics before opening fire. If someone were to just simply light up the boat (and, by the way, I'm of the opinion that the watchstander should have, regardless of consequences), they would not be following the ROE. This is not an appeal for the career of CDR Lippold. This is simple military procedure. The watchstander has the OOD above him, the OOD has the CDO above him, the CDO has the XO and the CO above him, the CO has the area commander above him, and so on and so forth. There is no room for a 'maverick' to come in there and lead by the force of his personality. That's just the way the military works.
Don't be afraid to see what you see.-Ronald Reagan
subordinates what to do in a given circumstance.
This can take place during the "training" you mention, or it can take place during a field briefing.
If a leader has it together he has constructed every possibility.
For instance, an artillery officer is told by his superior officer, "If we get incoming at night, your first responsibility is to fire illumination". The artillery officer's superior would then have 100% confidence to expect this order would be followed - unless initial incoming rounds were direct hits on the artillery position.
I would have preferred not to serve under a commander who would have to gamble.
The Navy, which has full access to the man's service record, decided that he deserved a promotion to captain. And John Warner decided he should override the Navy's decision on the matter.
a United States Senator. Harold, I'm surprised at you. You've been around enough to know that US Senators automatically acquire "special knowledge and wisdom" when they join the august body.
I'm sure there is Senate Tradition that says Senators are never to be questioned by peons. ("PEON" = someone who is not a US Senator)
-----
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
Mbecker's tagline is:
If "pro" is the opposite of "con", what is the opposite of "progress"?
"I have come to the conclusion that one useless man is a disgrace, that two are called a law firm, and that three or more are called a Congress."
Zinni is considered the be all and end all by the MSM and DC COcktail Party Circuit when it comes to military matters in the Middle East. Could it be because Zinni is a Democrat?
Nah. Nothing to see here. Move along.