The Importance Of Following Orders Essay

Introduction

In this paper we will discuss the importance of following orders regarding to the military discipline. Inaction in combat, in a combat situation or in preparation for fighting is unacceptable, because it facilitates the task to destroy the enemy of our soldiers. If you do not act, the enemy acts. Inaction implies defeat and death. This is self-evident truth. It would be logical to assume that the Marines in any environment will do everything possible to damage the enemy and minimize damage to their units. However, practice shows that inaction was and is a common phenomenon in the army. Infantryman should reduce military inaction. Note, however, that the responsibility for execution of orders carries not only the commander but soldiers as well (Powers, R., 2010).
Thesis statement: Mindless adherence to orders of the commander can be a manifestation of the desire to avoid making an independent decision.

Body

Actions in combat defined adopted in accordance with the situation solutions. However, the desire in every possible way to avoid making combat decisions is not uncommon. It arises from the reluctance to carry a big psychological burden that inevitably arises in connection with the adoption of combat decisions. Strong factor having a hard psychological pressure on the decision-maker is the fear of death or personal injury, fear of falling into captivity, including fear for others. This fear is a manifestation of one of the basic human instincts - the instinct of self-preservation. Fear has a so-called "tunnel" effect. All a person's attention focuses on the source of fear, and all actions focused on evading this source. Even high-ranking commander, not accustomed to danger, first of all thinks about himself, not about managing the fight, although the source of the danger it is relatively removed. In the absence of sufficient information a person under the influence of fear began to conjecture, to restore the full picture of what is happening, that is, toward the dream causes fear. Often the soldier begins to seem that he was fighting one against a variety of opponents. Often there is a desire to simply wait until all of this by itself will not end. It seems that the enemy soldiers shoot more accurately and efficiently. Execution of combat solutions is in converging to a source of fear and paying attention to phenomena other than a source of fear. It is known that only a small percentage of soldiers, came under enemy fire, and is more or less accurate fire (about 15%). The rest either do not shoot at all or shoot, only to shoot into the void, wasting precious ammunition. Soldiers tend to fire their means to stop bullets flying in their side. People tend to immediately open fire as soon as take a position, even not defining the purpose and installation of sight. Stop this useless fire is very difficult.
A significant part of the soldiers involved in the battle automatically. Combat activities only imitated, but not carried out. When you expend a lot of effort to fight terror forces on separate meaningful action in the battle remains. Actions which only simulate combat activity are the best gift to the enemy.
The same thing happens in decision making. Falling under the fire of the task do not think all thoughts focused on the simulation of action or evasion of battle. Impediment to decision-making is also a combat stress or psychological exhaustion. Manifestations of combat stress can be varied, as each person reacts differently to a large mental load. The result of combat stress may be overactive, and trying to ignore the difficulties of the situation. But if the response to combat stress is a central nervous system depression, the consequences will inaction, lack of initiative and negligence.
Serious psychological obstacle to the integration of decision-making is the effect of the war at a distance - a soldier without seeing the enemy, regards it as unrealistic and would be non-existent, despite the bursting shells and whistling bullets. A soldier cannot believe that someone wants to cause him real harm. All these factors contribute to the emergence of trends in behavior aimed at avoiding decision-making.
Observance of the field manuals, manuals and other guidance documents is also often a way to avoid making decisions. It should be understood that the field manual or instruction designed for a certain averaged combat situation. It is the result of a generalization of the previous combat experience, and his attempts to extend to future fights. Statutes reflect the state of the art, existing at the time of writing. They are associated with a particular arming his troops and force the perceived enemy, the enemy used a tactic with the terms of the proposed theater of operations. And finally, they are influenced by dogmatic conceptions of a society of the "right things" in the war. Statutes suffer from trying to fix the "most correct and rational" tactics. Securing averaged rules of warfare inevitably generates a certain primitivism. All these factors suggest that the field manual in principle cannot answer all the questions and include solutions for all missions. Any field manual or instruction must not be regarded as a universal law, no derogation is permitted, but as a collection of guidelines.
Formulaic solutions often do not lead to success; they are the biggest enemies in the manual. The Charter is a good tool for organizing battle in haste, for example, to act hastily put together units. Since all the soldiers of the unit know the tactical patterns, the use of the provisions of the Charter is much lowers the inconsistency and lack of uniformity in the actions. In circumstances where there is an opportunity to practice the procedure of interaction between soldiers and units, the decision to follow the statutory provisions must be made for each situation according to circumstances.
As an example of inappropriate use of the statute is the use of artillery preparation. Often there are situations when it is only a warning of an impending enemy attack, causing him minor damage, and misleading its forces on the degree of suppression of enemy defenses.
Often the delay in the implementation of commander’s order is the evasion of duty. The name of this form of evasion decision speaks for itself. The well-known adage army "received the order - do not rush to implement it, as will cancel" may well reflect some moments in the bureaucratic machinery of the army, but on the battlefield is often a conscious way to avoid making combat decisions in the hope that appropriate action will be taken by someone else.
Mindless adherence to orders of the commander can be a manifestation of the desire to avoid making an independent decision. Evading person refers to the presence of the order of the commander and senior enforces it literally, without delving into his tactical sense. You have to understand that, to fulfill the order, the child commander must make their own decisions in the development of decision of the higher commander.
The order to attack the settlement, occupied by the enemy at 15.00, should not be interpreted to mean that the infantry need to drive on a level field for unsuppressed enemy machine guns, as long as not to miss the beginning of the attack. It indicates that the need to prepare 15.00 attack so that it is completed successfully with minimal losses. Order to march does not mean that you just need to sit down and go. It is necessary to carry out all the preparations for facing the enemy. Following orders psychologically removes the burden of responsibility for policy decisions and it very often used, referring to the fact that "the army kept on order." It would be better to say that the army held on the initiative. This does not mean that you can ignore orders. No, the decision to change without good reason cannot, because the interaction of strays and get worse. However, we must understand the strategic objective of the order (the idea of ​​combat) and interpret the order is in line with this objective, not just as an obligation to produce a sequence of actions. Showing the main forms of combat evasion decision-making, we turn to the description of how to combat this scourge. It should be noted that repeated calls to combat regulations and manuals to show initiative in the battle, and its glorification of the literature contribute little to growth initiative soldiers. If the initiative in real life is punishable, and inaction often carries negative consequences, the natural result will be a deviation from the decision-making and inactivity.

Conclusion and Recommendations

In a combat situation you must start from the fact that at any given time each soldier has ordered an independent assessment of the situation and the adoption of self-fighting solutions even in the absence of any kind was the instructions and orders from the top. Soldiers must understand that there are psychological reasons that push him to evade the decision-making to a standstill, which are known most frequent form of evasion. Any soldier or commander must constantly ask yourself the question, not whether he is trying to avoid making combat decisions. We must proceed from the fact that the responsibility for the failure to take a decision should be stricter and inevitable than the responsibility for the decision, which turned out to be wrong. Even in a situation where, like, nothing happens, you can find ways to improve the situation of our troops - it could be holding training, strengthening the position of engineering equipment, conducting patrols, etc. An additional effect is a decrease in activity of fear, because people concentrate on the action performed, rather than on the source of fear.
Hence: in a combat situation, each always has orders to act, improve the position of our troops. Failure to take decisions and actions is punishable.
Another proven way to increase initiative in the armed forces is the introduction of a system under which management does not give detailed orders and subordinates know it themselves determine the order of execution of orders. The only exceptions are cases where senior commander better acquainted with the terrain or situation, as well as the organization of particularly difficult types of battle - forcing rivers, night fighting, waste, etc. Doing battle over large areas, rapidly changing conditions often make out detailed senseless orders and expectation on the part of subordinates’ detailed order leads to passivity and inaction. The slave should not expect from the commander of the detailed order. A commander shall not teach subordinates to overly detailed instructions. It is necessary to follow the principle of "set the task, give money and allow you to perform it yourself." Even when circumstances require detailed return orders should indicate the overall objective of battle that in the event of unexpected changes in the situation was ordered could adjust their actions. If necessary, detailed orders are advisable to consult with those who will carry them out.
The most important, but not the most obvious way to increase the initiative is to change approaches to justice those who ordered it. As mentioned above, in the battle may surprise and even complete preparations for the conduct of a particular type of battle does not guarantee 100% success rate. The result of actions in combat, in general, in most cases, the "wrong" - even when performing this task to completely avoid losses is not always possible. In everyday life, the responsibility rests with the following rule: "if there are negative consequences of activity, then the activity was" wrong ", which in turn means that the person who ordered the commission of these acts made a mistake and should be punished.
In combat situations often use the same approach to the laying of responsibility leads to the fact that all performers are afraid to do anything. The logic is similar to the following: if I do not do anything, it means that there are no consequences, including negative, which means no responsibility. The result is that a soldier or commander wills to give their lives for the motherland, but the panic fear of reprimand for the mistakes in the actions taken. Fear of responsibility for the defeat harmful, instead of stimulus for the initiative he makes nothing.
Complete rejection of the task is possible only if the tactical situation has changed so much that a goal that must be achieved during the execution of the order clearly disappeared. Of course, there are situations when due to objective reasons it is impossible to comply with the order. To distinguish between cases of evasion of the decision-making of the actual impossibility of the task should be considered a set of measures taken to prepare for its implementation. Contractor is obliged to take all possible actions that can be taken only for the preparation of the task. And only after that it gets right to refer to the complete impossibility of its execution.

Works Cited

Rod Powers. "Military Orders To Obey or Not to Obey?". About.com: US Military. Retrieved 16 June 2010.