- Joined
- Jul 12, 2014
- Messages
- 26,976
- Reaction score
- 56,899
- Points
- 151
That wasn't the debate.
The debate is that Dowdy did not commit any of the typical violation to be relieved of command. He did not endanger his men [1] and he exercised his command as dictated by the standing orders for that war.
Dowdy had no reason to feel he let his men down or endangered the war effort. so commenting on how the decision impacted his career and family were appropriate.
[2] Mattis decision was an arbitrary one based on confidence and feedback from Kelly.
Dowdy completed his mission objectives. His secondary objective was at his discretion and he made the it to his destination in half the time he was allotted.
The review board did not cite him for any violation they specifically cited "excessive Fatigue"
I'm not arguing Mattis Right to make the decision or anything else although that specific instance did cause a lot of debate amongst marine officers
I don't think Dowdy conducted himself poorly citing the end of his career and family for what was essentially a more conservative tactics that Mattis and Kelly were expecting.
[3] Meanwhile Q Tip wants to define this behavior as typical reasons that the leader, commander, top dog ( whatever Human Q Tip would like Dowdy to be referred to) of 6 thousand men .
It is not
1. Until you read the OPORDER, maybe it is available somewhere, you cannot know that for absolute certainty. No such thing as absolute standing orders. Orders change constantly. They are called FRAGOs to the OPORDER.
2. The fog of war. One makes decisions based off the best available decision. War is an imperfect state and so are the decisions made in them.
3. Dismissing a commanding officers decision to relieve a subordinate simply because, in hindsight, you disagree with the reason, is not really the greatest way to debate military history. Now if you can demonstrate clear malice, negligence or illegality, that is something worth debating.
At this point I am not certain what your general theme is.
Out of curiosity, are you making a larger argument that Mattis is unfit to serve as SECDEF based off of a relatively insignificant event, the relief of a single commander, in the span of his career? Why are you choosing this particular hill?