In a message dated 95-11-23 21:27:42 EST, you write:
>Thomas, you wrote that if officers relinquish some of their control, it
>"undermines the command structure required of the USMC unique mission."
>
>I wonder... is our current "command structure" really required, or do we
>assume that it is because "we've always done it that way"?
As a former Marine on both sides of the commissioning "line" I disagree
with Thomas. Our Corps was founded on the principles of total
responsibility at all levels. One of the great things about our Corps is
the fact that a unit which loses its commander contiues to perform quite
as well as if he were still there. The next person in line "steps up" to
the job. This is no insult to the fallen commander but is, rather, a *KEY
REASON* why the Corps always wins.
Someone once told me that they believed the Marine Corps brainwashes its
people. Nothing could be further from the truth. What they DO is take
away your "props" - hair, clothing, etc. - then if you have REAL character
it stands out. I've never known an organization more full of
individuality. Capt John W. Thomason in World War I wrote about the
Marine regulars:
"They were the leathernecks, the old breed of American regular, regarding
the [Corps] as home - with drilled shoulders, a bone-deep sunburn, and a
tolerant scorn of nearly everything on Earth. And they transmitted their
professionalism and their character to the high-hearted ranks that filled
the Marine Brigade."
Now, tell me, does that sound like stifling Chain of Command BS to you?
Is this the enlisted man that we worry about empowering? As I recall, you
can't STOP his empowerment! And no one who's ever commanded Marines would
even try.
-- Hal Popplewell Chairman; The IntelliSys Companies GaltJohn22@aol.com