What is Leadership

To clarify on your earlier post both the fire service and the coast guard will let people die if saving them is judged to be too big a risk? The cowardly shits eh? They should just formulate a plan immediate and rush in like you would.
Nothing "cowardly" about it, as I explained. No point going over exactly the same ground again.
You volunteered to go out without a weapon and armour because it was part of the job? Who were you fighting Jonnyboy? The Watutsi warriors at Mboto Gorge ?
I wasn't "fighting" anyone. In that particular example I was an UNMO in Cambodia and all the Brits (schoolies, medics, inf, cav, sigs, etc) were volunteers and unarmed, as were those from the many other nationalities - it was a job requirement. In my team's case we were only able to don flak vests once when we came under fire when we were in camp with the Royal Dutch Marines and we all had our assorted flak vests at hand, as it was simply impractical the rest of the time (my PLA captain's vest was made of chain mail and metal plates) so I made it an individual choice ... and while I happily spent most of my time in Thailand, others weren't so fortunate and not only knew they were risking flying home in a body bag but ended up doing so.

That's not 'heroic' or 'cowardly', just part of the job.

(Edit: and FWIW I've never "covered up gang rape" in my life. I simply enabled the victim to get the justice and compensation she wanted, which was entirely her choice. Adding rather childish asides to saying that you'd ditch your mates hardly does you credit)
 
Last edited:
I didn't say he was. You talked about someone who ran away. I didn't realise you were talking about Carlisle because you failed to mention that the bloke you were describing tried to rugby tackle Massoud in an attempt to save Palmer. Why that oversight? Did you hit a character limit that nobody else on arrse seems to have a problem with?

If you're going to be deliberately disingenuous and misrepresent what happened then I don't see much point in continuing.
Oooo, have we been caught out? You called the man a coward now you are back pedaling like mad.

So the rest of the Police Officers who retreated were cowards as well?
tried to rugby tackle Massoud
But he didn't try to rugby tackle anyone did he? He ran forward with the intention of as he said 'rugby tackle shoulder barge' but he did not get into a position to try. He did however distract Massoud

I am not being disengenuous or misrepresenting anything it is you that is flying around in a self pitying indignant rage.
 
It also helped that most of them had distinguished records from World War One, with the notable exception of Eisenhower, whose major command fault was that he was more of a manager.
I can't read that criticism without thinking of the blanket absolution that he granted his troops with his "failure" note immediately after he had said "Go".
 
I can't read that criticism without thinking of the blanket absolution that he granted his troops with his "failure" note immediately after he had said "Go".
That's a fair point but about the only thing that Patton and Montgomery ever agreed on was that his broad front strategy probably prolonged the war. That said, his other qualities more than compensated and it was probably unrealistic for one of the Allies to do most of the heavy lifting and take most of the casualties. I'm not suggesting that he was personally risk averse.
 
Fwiw, getting into a technical discussion about leadership styles (which is of course not a problem) detracts from the point that a person's response to the attack is likely instinctive. Even if it is conceded that Mackey was correct to stay in his vehicle, his decision to immediately leave the scene means there were two failures to lead - the first when he saw the attack, and the second when the attack appeared to be over. Considerations about whether the attack was over of course applied to all present and I would be willing to bet that, immediately after the attack, there were more people trying to help, because it was the right thing to do, than the situation required. Upon reflection, and consideration of other posts, Mackey deciding to leave the scene was the more serious failure. His decision to lock the car doors was instinctive. He then had time to consider whether to remain post attack - and to reflect upon whether his instinctive response was leadership - and made the wrong choice, both in terms of being a leader, and in falling back on the defence that he was leaving to lead from elsewhere.
The Pattons, Wingates, Monty's of this world had front line experience before they became senior officers. In extremis, their credentials did not need to be demonstrated. Mackey appears to have become Commissioner because of being a good business manager rather than a leader.
 
His decision to lock the car doors was instinctive. He then had time to consider whether to remain post attack - and to reflect upon whether his instinctive response was leadership - and made the wrong choice, both in terms of being a leader, and in falling back on the defence that he was leaving to lead from elsewhere.
Can't fault that at all.

Your summary that is, not his fast exit stage left. (Just for the moon howlers)
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
Oooo, have we been caught out? You called the man a coward now you are back pedaling like mad.
I called a man who you described as running away a coward. I took on faith that you were telling the truth and that this person exists. It now turns out that he doesn't exist but a police officer was present who actually did something very different to what you describe.

It transpires Carlisle ran at Massoud to distract him, before retreating in the belief that he had bought time and that armed officers would stop Massoud. He clearly proved in doing so that he isn't a coward. I still don't understand why you didn't feel the need to describe this when you mentioned him earlier; if you have to misrepresent the truth to make your point then it probably indicates you don't have a very strong argument.

If you insist on treating this like a schoolboy debate rather than engaging honestly then please stop posting and leave the thread to people who do want to discuss this sensibly.

I am not being disengenuous or misrepresenting anything it is you that is flying around in a self pitying indignant rage.
Even by your usual standards, this is a weird personal attack. I'm merely responding calmly to your posts. If you feel the need to launch into unsubstantiated personal attacks then I think that shows who is in a rage about this...
 
Last edited:
I can't read that criticism without thinking of the blanket absolution that he granted his troops with his "failure" note immediately after he had said "Go".
Pondering further, and without being too cynical about a future POTUS, had it been Wellington or Slim, I doubt that the unused note would have ever seen the light of day.
 
I called a man who you described as running away a coward. I took on faith that you were telling the truth and that this person exists. It now turns out that he doesn't exist and actually did something very different to what you describe.
Listen, I had previously described the two officers as one in PPE and the other with a Glock so I referred to the officer in PPE a second time.
It now turns out that he doesn't exist a
Yes he does exist and I have named him and yet again you avoid mention of the others who were running away.
It turns out he actually ran at Massoud to distract him
No he ran at him to try to take him down or at least stop the assault, remember 'shoulder barge' rugby tackle?
before retreating in the belief that he had bought time
Totally wrong again he moved back as the very angry Massoud was very near and moving towards him with the knives in his hands “He came at me with knives up. I was very close.” the fact is this seemed to distract Massoud
retreating in the belief that he had bought time and that armed officers would stop Massoud
Not how he describes it at all, he simply mentions that after Massoud turned on him he saw the CP Officers

Now on the subject of misrepresenting the truth?
 
So being fat and old, despite rather senior in rank and serving, is an excuse for legging it? ... I don't think so ...
What was your excuse for letting gang rapists get away with their crime?
 
Nothing "cowardly" about it, as I explained. No point going over exactly the same ground again.
I wasn't "fighting" anyone. In that particular example I was an UNMO in Cambodia and all the Brits (schoolies, medics, inf, cav, sigs, etc) were volunteers and unarmed, as were those from the many other nationalities - it was a job requirement. In my team's case we were only able to don flak vests once when we came under fire when we were in camp with the Royal Dutch Marines and we all had our assorted flak vests at hand, as it was simply impractical the rest of the time (my PLA captain's vest was made of chain mail and metal plates) so I made it an individual choice ... and while I happily spent most of my time in Thailand, others weren't so fortunate and not only knew they were risking flying home in a body bag but ended up doing so.

That's not 'heroic' or 'cowardly', just part of the job.

(Edit: and FWIW I've never "covered up gang rape" in my life. I simply enabled the victim to get the justice and compensation she wanted, which was entirely her choice. Adding rather childish asides to saying that you'd ditch your mates hardly does you credit)
Ok hero, you justify letting gang rapists go free however you like.
 
In Trumpton the concept is known as operational discretion and can be employed by the most junior OIC on the spot as long as the circumstances justify it. It’s not disobedience of orders per se, it’s more freedom to act without being utterly constrained by protocols, especially if the situation encountered isn’t exactly textbook.
..and therein lies the problem.

Modern society as portrayed through the media and the legal system has an aversion to any concept of discretion, and assumes that no situation that occurs cannot be covered by prescribed protocols..

... someone must be to blame, and all heads must be mounted on poles!

Utter bollox of course, but there are far too many leeches in the system that profit from such an attitude, regardless of the effect on those who have to do the dirty work..
 
Listen, I had previously described the two officers as one in PPE and the other with a Glock so I referred to the officer in PPE a second time.

Yes he does exist and I have named him and yet again you avoid mention of the others who were running away.

No he ran at him to try to take him down or at least stop the assault, remember 'shoulder barge' rugby tackle?

Totally wrong again he moved back as the very angry Massoud was very near and moving towards him with the knives in his hands “He came at me with knives up. I was very close.” the fact is this seemed to distract Massoud

Not how he describes it at all, he simply mentions that after Massoud turned on him he saw the CP Officers

Now on the subject of misrepresenting the truth?
That's what I like about you Caecillius, very little indeed.
 
Not really, we can fantasize, we can wish we will react the right way but when push comes to shove we haven't really a clue
I'm not suggesting that it's foolproof but it is an actual thing that humans do in a vast amount of situations. You call it fantasising because you're maintaining a line of argument but actually, even if things don't go according to the fantasy, the pre-decision that you'll do something might actually work. Similar to having an idea of what to do in the event of a fire.

It's how planning works - inventing scenarios and fantasising ways of addressing various circumstances.
 
Last edited:
I'm not suggesting that it's foolproof but it is an actual thing that humans do in a vast amount of situations. You call it fantasising because you're maintaining a line of argument but actually, even if things go according to the fantasy, the pre-decision that you'll do something might actually work. Similar to having an idea of what to do in the event of a fire.

It's how planning works - inventing scenarios and fantasising ways of addressing various circumstances.
Not dissimilar to visualisation as recommended by sports psychologists and used by elite athletes. You visualise success and it helps you drive towards it.
 
I'm not suggesting that it's foolproof but it is an actual thing that humans do in a vast amount of situations. You call it fantasising because you're maintaining a line of argument but actually, even if things go according to the fantasy, the pre-decision that you'll do something might actually work. Similar to having an idea of what to do in the event of a fire.

It's how planning works - inventing scenarios and fantasising ways of addressing various circumstances.
I do not totally disagree, but we have training and repetition and drills in the Army to embed that sort of reaction. Thinking about it is just the first step and it also depends on your fight or flight reflex, training makes it instinctive.
 

Caecilius

LE
Kit Reviewer
Book Reviewer
That's what I like about you Caecillius, very little indeed.
As I said, I've got no interest in continuing to engage with someone who misrepresents the events in order to score silly debating points. I'm even less inclined to do so when you insist on making baseless personal attacks instead of discussing the issue.

Happy to re-engage once you calm down and disscuss things like an adult.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top