Lt. Gen. Harold G. Moore's respect for his former enemy is noteworthy. Although he is closely acquainted with the violence and hatred that are the natural by-products of kill-or-be-killed, he nevertheless acknowledged that they 'fought and died bravely' (xxv). This way of regarding men whom you killed while they were killing your soldiers is peculiar, but it somehow seems right. It is gallant and respectful, wresting a sense of honor from the unimaginable horror of war. It seems that the author has a healthy respect for the enemy, which in turn raises my regard for him. One of the biggest flaws that one can have, from the outside looking in, is a lack of respect for the enemy. It is much, much better to overestimate and win by a larger margin that to understimate and needlesly lose men.
Another point in the book that I took special notice of was General Kinnard's emphasis on decentralizing leadership. Pushing authority down to the man on the ground by having everyone know the mission and plan well enough to execute it in the absence of leaders is an invaluable tool.
The emphasis of how the NCO sargeants were the most important people in the battalion was not lost on me. I remember Capt. Ambrose talking about how important it is to meet with your sergeants and discuss goals and plans, and Hal did exactly that.
Lastly, the observation stemming back to the Civil War that a good officer should ride his horse as little as possible makes perfect sense. A commander who only operates from a high vantage point has the potential to misjudge the actual situation, which I feel was perfectly summed up by this quote on pg. 45: "...too easy to demand the impossible of your troops; too easy to make mistakes that are fatal only to those souls far below in the mud, the blood, and the confusion."
No comments:
Post a Comment