- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 50
Re: What‘s In a Name???
Posted by Michael A. Dorosh from Canada on April 21, 1999 at 13:30:37:
In Reply to: What‘s In a Name??? posted by Rob Clarke on April 21, 1999 at 10:16:42:
The passage I quote is a direct quote from a book by J. Robertson - I don‘t know much about him from the context of the quote I presume he was a wartime Brigade commander in Normandy. The men mentioned in the quote Horrocks, Simonds, Crerar were all corps or army commanders, so I am pretty sure that Robertson‘s perspective, and observations, were with reference to div/corps/army command. I haven‘t read that book, but I did read the book that the quote is in - The Generals, by Granatstein, a survey of Canadian general officers of the Second World War. It is more of a series of biographies and a look at the politics of command than any kind of study of command or leadership styles, but is nonetheless good reading.
I disagree that we live in a society where individuals have few responsiblities, but I will agree that those same individuals should have more responsibilities placed upon them - and should also suffer the consequences of not living up to them. We had a woman in Calgary shoot her husband something like 6 times with a handgun not, apprarently, in direct self defence, and was acquitted of murder because she claimed she was in a "robotic trance". As a member of society, she is responible for not killing other people, unless she is herself threatened. She didn‘t live up to that responsiblity. She was set free anyway.
We are all responsible for a lot of things following the rules of the road including stop signs, to further that point, keeping our sidewalks clear of ice and snow, paying our taxes, wearing clothes in public, curbing our dogs, and the list goes on. But the list does not go far enough. Apparently, we are not responsible for finding ourselves living accomodations I walk past the Calgary Drop In Centre every morning on the way to work, of providing ourselves decent jobs how many people live off of welfare for a large portion of their lives, or adequately planning our families - because the welfare state we have created embraces those people who don‘t want to take responsibility for themselves there are people who can‘t take such responsibility for legitimate reasons, these remarks are not aimed at them.
That being the case, I don‘t think the military reflects that aspect of society. No one in the military lives under a bridge, and everyone is tasked with a job. No one gets a free ride, as everyone works for their keep. As far as the big issues go, anyway.
So while it seems to me that we have the little responsibilities down, we really don‘t have the big ones pinned to people. God help you if you‘re a home owner and the mailman breaks his leg because you didn‘t shovel your walk, but if you don‘t have a house at all because you would rather beg on the streets, that‘s ok. I would say we have our priorities a little mixed up.
I‘m not sure I understand why you would say the military is "supposed to" reflect society. Certainly, the military should embrace, to a degree, the morals and principles of its founding society, as the purpose of the military is to defend those principles. Yet at the same time, the military is clearly a society of its own. I would hope the average soldier feels more responsibility than the average civilian. Certainly, he is subject to more rules and regulations, where the civilian is subject to the Criminal Code, the soldier is also subject to QRandOs, CFAOs, Routine Orders, Standing Orders, etc., etc., etc.
I think the issue that started this whole thread was in the application of those rules and regulations. Sometimes, rules are meant to be broken. If a man is hit by a bus, and a man runs across the street to administer first aid, should that man be fined for jaywalking because he didn‘t cross at the corner? If Sergeant R‘s wife comes to the armoury looking for her husband, and I direct her, in earshot of a private, by saying "Denny is over there", should I be charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Good Order and Discipline?
There is a fine line between ruthless administration of rules and common sense application of the rules. No set of regulations will ever be able to completely govern human action and interaction there are simply too many variables. Better we all understand the general intent behind those rules, and trust one another to apply those rules with the intent in mind.
My opinion, anyway.
Posted by Michael A. Dorosh from Canada on April 21, 1999 at 13:30:37:
In Reply to: What‘s In a Name??? posted by Rob Clarke on April 21, 1999 at 10:16:42:
The passage I quote is a direct quote from a book by J. Robertson - I don‘t know much about him from the context of the quote I presume he was a wartime Brigade commander in Normandy. The men mentioned in the quote Horrocks, Simonds, Crerar were all corps or army commanders, so I am pretty sure that Robertson‘s perspective, and observations, were with reference to div/corps/army command. I haven‘t read that book, but I did read the book that the quote is in - The Generals, by Granatstein, a survey of Canadian general officers of the Second World War. It is more of a series of biographies and a look at the politics of command than any kind of study of command or leadership styles, but is nonetheless good reading.
I disagree that we live in a society where individuals have few responsiblities, but I will agree that those same individuals should have more responsibilities placed upon them - and should also suffer the consequences of not living up to them. We had a woman in Calgary shoot her husband something like 6 times with a handgun not, apprarently, in direct self defence, and was acquitted of murder because she claimed she was in a "robotic trance". As a member of society, she is responible for not killing other people, unless she is herself threatened. She didn‘t live up to that responsiblity. She was set free anyway.
We are all responsible for a lot of things following the rules of the road including stop signs, to further that point, keeping our sidewalks clear of ice and snow, paying our taxes, wearing clothes in public, curbing our dogs, and the list goes on. But the list does not go far enough. Apparently, we are not responsible for finding ourselves living accomodations I walk past the Calgary Drop In Centre every morning on the way to work, of providing ourselves decent jobs how many people live off of welfare for a large portion of their lives, or adequately planning our families - because the welfare state we have created embraces those people who don‘t want to take responsibility for themselves there are people who can‘t take such responsibility for legitimate reasons, these remarks are not aimed at them.
That being the case, I don‘t think the military reflects that aspect of society. No one in the military lives under a bridge, and everyone is tasked with a job. No one gets a free ride, as everyone works for their keep. As far as the big issues go, anyway.
So while it seems to me that we have the little responsibilities down, we really don‘t have the big ones pinned to people. God help you if you‘re a home owner and the mailman breaks his leg because you didn‘t shovel your walk, but if you don‘t have a house at all because you would rather beg on the streets, that‘s ok. I would say we have our priorities a little mixed up.
I‘m not sure I understand why you would say the military is "supposed to" reflect society. Certainly, the military should embrace, to a degree, the morals and principles of its founding society, as the purpose of the military is to defend those principles. Yet at the same time, the military is clearly a society of its own. I would hope the average soldier feels more responsibility than the average civilian. Certainly, he is subject to more rules and regulations, where the civilian is subject to the Criminal Code, the soldier is also subject to QRandOs, CFAOs, Routine Orders, Standing Orders, etc., etc., etc.
I think the issue that started this whole thread was in the application of those rules and regulations. Sometimes, rules are meant to be broken. If a man is hit by a bus, and a man runs across the street to administer first aid, should that man be fined for jaywalking because he didn‘t cross at the corner? If Sergeant R‘s wife comes to the armoury looking for her husband, and I direct her, in earshot of a private, by saying "Denny is over there", should I be charged with Conduct Prejudicial to the Maintenance of Good Order and Discipline?
There is a fine line between ruthless administration of rules and common sense application of the rules. No set of regulations will ever be able to completely govern human action and interaction there are simply too many variables. Better we all understand the general intent behind those rules, and trust one another to apply those rules with the intent in mind.
My opinion, anyway.
