I'd actually like to read it. Especially Question #2. I chose what I did because of a book on command I read based around the story of General Fred Franks Jr. (CO VII Corps during Desert Storm). He later went on to command TRADOC and he implemented a lot of stuff based on the USMC's style of maneuver warfare. During Desert Storm, he had good people working for him but the intelligence was kinda shitty. So, he came up with a basic game plan, with measurable objectives, and then wrote fast and loose orders for the individual commanders to follow in spirit, if not in letter. when the tactical situation determined a change in position or tactics. My take was that it was an extension of the old saying that's attributed to General Patton. Something along the lines of "Set the objective, and then let your subordinate commanders surprise you in how they achieve it."
General George Patton Leadership Attributes: Patton was an innovative commander from the start. He learned how to use the tank – a new weapon – from the French and British during World War I. He considered it the weapon of the future before others appreciated its potential. He liked to lead from the front, and he first distinguished himself on the battlefield by leading a tank brigade in WWI. He was more of a warrior than diplomat. In an infamous incident that almost cost him his career, he verbally abused two sick soldiers, even slapping one. After the German surrender, he argued for political taboos: a combined Allied-German campaign against the Soviet Union and using ex-Nazi intelligence personnel. Personally, he was known for racy language and flamboyance.
OK. Here's my critique I'm actually taking the USMC career-level course for field grade officers, so these are the "right" answers for up to a battalion commander (around 700 troops): [Answers bolded and in different font] I should've made the other post. I think I explained myself better in that one. It'd be interesting to see the reasoning behind the choices for the person who built this quiz--and who they were (background, experience).
I went the same as Elwood on 1 and 2, but I went to the front on three, because IMO the phrasing implied that trip was a relatively short one, I also chose differently on #4.
Exactly. Goes all the way the way down. Sometimes you even need dumb ol' NCOs to give a fresh take it on it. I mean, what officer when faced with the problem of doing a smash and grab in the middle of malhalla (ie rabbit warren) is gonna gonna look over at some Fobbits and say "What if we stuck 240s on the back of them there Gators?"
In this scenario you have the opportunity to immediately accomplish your objectives while sparing the lives of your own men and granting relatively minor concessions to the enemy. That's a take all the way unless you don't mind killing your troops over a matter of pride. Oh, and I was Robert E. Lee.
I don't think I was ever formally introduced to any of my commanders in the military, so I went with the other option for No. 1 - if you want something done right, do it yourself. For No. 2, I'm a 'cover all your bases' kinda girl. Had to go with that option. No. 3. What can I say, Captain Kirk? dumbass. you know how many times he could have been killed? The captain never leaves the ship. No. 4. The humanitarian in me, save as many lives as possible. I wouldn't ruin any religious structures anyway. Negotiate myself. I am George Washington! I led a bunch of farmers and merchants to defeat the most powerful military in the world.
