• Changing RCF's index page, please click on "Forums" to access the forums.

The Military Thread

Do Not Sell My Personal Information
Tornicade said:
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
Click to expand...

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?
 
King Stannis said:
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?
Click to expand...
The Human Q-Tip said:
It's embarrassing to think a guy like that made it to commanding a regiment in combat. He actually thinks the effect of a relief on the commander's personal life and self-esteem should be weighted more heavily. Da fuq? What about the lives of the people he was leading -- the ability to carry out orders and accomplish the mission? How are those considerations not infinitely more important than the feelings of the commander being relieved?
Click to expand...
I don't have a larger argument. simply disputing this take.

You agree that Dowdy was an embarrassment?
Do you think that Dowdy did not care about the lives of the men he was leading?
Do you believe he did not carry out his orders or accomplish his mission?

My response to this is that Dowdy followed his orders. He complete his mission and successfully met his objectives.

Mattis wasn't satisfied with that and removed him from command.

Ive provided information that supports exactly what witnesses and other military people as well as Dowdy himself has indicated. Occurred.

I don't think anything Joe Dowdy did or has said is anything remotely embarrassing.

However Human q tip keeps arguing that Dowdy didn't follow orders or endangered his men or other people men or failed in his mission.


Mattis himself told Dowdy that he seemed tired and hadn't faced combat before. The post removal review by the Marine committee told Dowdy his performance was impacted by excessive exhaustion.

And Mattis own right hand man stated that the removal wasn't the result of any violation on the part of Dowdy.
 
Tornicade said:
I don't have a larger argument. simply disputing this take.

You agree that Dowdy was an embarrassment?
Do you think that Dowdy did not care about the lives of the men he was leading?
Do you believe he did not carry out his orders or accomplish his mission?

My response to this is that Dowdy followed his orders. He complete his mission and successfully met his objectives.

Mattis wasn't satisfied with that and removed him from command.

Ive provided information that supports exactly what witnesses and other military people as well as Dowdy himself has indicated. Occurred.

I don't think anything Joe Dowdy did or has said is anything remotely embarrassing.

However Human q tip keeps arguing that Dowdy didn't follow orders or endangered his men or other people men or failed in his mission.


Mattis himself told Dowdy that he seemed tired and hadn't faced combat before. The post removal review by the Marine committee told Dowdy his performance was impacted by excessive exhaustion.

And Mattis own right hand man stated that the removal wasn't the result of any violation on the part of Dowdy.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a personality conflict. You and @The Human Q-Tip have a different view.

I would say a commander's personal opinion of a subordinate naturally influences decisions. If Mattis felt he was dragging ass, and that speed was the most important consideration, ok, fine.

I would say if Dowdy acted in a manner he thought was best, and that saving lives was worth a tactical pause, then also fine.

It is possible neither guy was wrong. It then becomes a matter of stars trumping a Bird. I fault neither. This isn't a case of gross criminality nor negligence by either party.
 
Isn't this incident covered in HBO's Generation Kill? I swear that it is.
 
Tornicade said:
you haven't presented any facts other than a quote
Click to expand...

I've presented two quotes from battalion commanders on the scene. How are those not facts?

do you know what "chaos" is?
Click to expand...

Yeah -- it was Mattis' call sign, and illustrated the mindset he wanted on the part of his division. Move rapidly, and know that you're going to be creating even more chaos within the enemy than you are going to be experiencing yourself.

There are some people who don't like that -- they want everything to be controlled, know exactly who is on their right or left, ensure their rear is completely secure, etc.. Disorder can be pretty freaking scary for subordinate units in the attack.

The problem with a more ordered advance is that maintaining that degree of control and order in an attack is going to permit the enemy to retain much more order and control in defense. You will end up fighting more set-piece battles, and you will give their artillery more of an opportunity to engage you with convention or chemical munitions. If you move fast enough, they won't have the chance to do that. It's modern blitzkrieg -- doing what Guderian did in 1940 by racing to the sea.

Now, not everyone was in favor of what Guderian did. In fact, Halder had vetoed Manstein and Guderian's concept for seven armored divisions running wild in the French rear. It's just that Guderian ended up doing it anyway through a "reconnaissance in force". France fell in six weeks precisely because of the chaos and sense of defeatism that their rapid advance inflicted on the French.

That, in essence, was Mattis' (and Conway's) plan for Iraq as well. Heck, the entire concept of maneuver warfare that changed the way Marines did things (starting in the mid-80's) largely came from studying Germans and those, like Boyd, who studied them. Like it or not, agree with it or not, that was official Marine Corps doctrine from 1989 on.
 
King Stannis said:
It is possible neither guy was wrong. It then becomes a matter of stars trumping a Bird. I fault neither. This isn't a case of gross criminality nor negligence by either party.
Click to expand...

Right. Again, the entire reason I brought up this incident was not to debate the tactical merits, but rather to raise the more general issue of when relief is appropriate. Should a commander only be relieved when they've disobeyed a direct order, or are grossly criminal or negligent? I think not.

A core premise of maneuver warfare is the taking of aggressive initiative by subordinates. It simply does not work if subordinates only act in response to direct orders, or lack decisiveness. Therefore, if a commander believes that a subordinate is not showing sufficient aggressiveness/initiative/decisiveness despite urgings to do so, relief is appropriate as long as there is a suitable replacement available. Gross negligence, criminality, direct disobedience of an order are not, and should not be, required.

Dowdy was not relieved at Nasiriyah, nor was he relieved when his column was not reacting properly during the advance to Al-Kut. It was only when he again failed to demonstrate sufficient decisiveness again at al-Kut that he was relieved, and replaced by someone who would.

What I do think was certainly wrong on the part of Dowdy was his recommendation that decisions to relieve should put more emphasis on how it will affect the mindset and career of the individual relieved. When you're talking about the lives of 6000 troops under your direct command, and the lives of more than 10,000 others that are dependent upon your unit's success in the overall scheme of an operation, the personal emotions/career aspirations of the commander should not be a significant consideration in deciding whether or not to replace him.
 
Last edited:
King Stannis said:
Isn't this incident covered in HBO's Generation Kill? I swear that it is.
Click to expand...

Read the book -- didn't see the HBO series. There's a mention of the Nasiriyah delay in which Wright says that Dowdy "simply can't make up his mind" - though that's likely second/third hand. But there's no mention of Dowdy being relieved at al-Kut

The book (don't know about the show) also mentions -- and this is in both the official history and in The March Up - that RCT-1's movement to al-Kut was essentially a feint. It was to draw Iraqi units down south to engage on the traditional invasion route while the other two regiments in the division took a western route bypassing all that, trapping Iraqi units south of Baghdad so they could not participate in the fight for the city. It was part of a plan to avoid large-scale urban warfare in Baghdad, where casualties could have been catastrophic.

That's part of the reason RCT-1 was being pushed to be aggressive. For a feint like that to work, you have to push the enemy hard and make them think it is your main effort.
 
So many attacking Mattis for his speeches to the troops.

Killing a fellow human is very much against the mores of the typical American. I suppose Mattis should have counseled our troops to be nice to the enemy.

It is war. A war of which Obama is responsible for 50%. If you voted Obama and oppose the war, you underwrote the wrong fucking guy. You are on the hook and accept that the blood is on your hands.
 
Speeches to troops can get you in trouble..Ask Patton...
 
King Stannis said:
So many attacking Mattis for his speeches to the troops.

Killing a fellow human is very much against the mores of the typical American. I suppose Mattis should have counseled our troops to be nice to the enemy.

It is war. A war of which Obama is responsible for 50%. If you voted Obama and oppose the war, you underwrote the wrong fucking guy. You are on the hook and accept that the blood is on your hands.
Click to expand...
I have yet to see anything negative regarding Mattis. I must not be reading the proper biased MSM sources.
 
There is an element of showmanship in great leadership. As a history geek, Mattis knows that, and knew how to motivate the troops he led.

Really interested to see who gets the Service Secretary appointments.
 
New Wireless Sights Show U.S. Soldiers Exactly Where Their Machine Gun Fire Will Hit

http://www.popularmechanics.com/military/weapons/a24234/the-armys-heavy-weapons-are-going-wireless/

Doesn't say if it takes wind into account, so i'm curious how accurate it is at the ranges they're discussing. Boresighting and laser rangefinding doesn't help with that. And i wonder how well it works on moving targets where the point of aim isn't on the actual target. Seems to me that adjusting with tracers should work better at least sometimes because of those two issues.

@King Stannis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Video

Episode 3-14: "Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey"

Rubber Rim Job Podcast Spotify

Episode 3:14: " Time for Playoff Vengeance on Mickey."
Top