How Come The Military Gives Orders Without Explaining The Reasons? - Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970) Discussion

[–] Florida2 11 years ago

I was never called to duty but the many veterans I know would say that in the military a person of lower rank does as he is told and does not expect to know why. That is the way of any army since the Egyptians and that is one great flaw to a democratic way of life - we expect an explanation every time and complain when we don't get one...

reply

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

In the business world, you frequently get good suggestions from underlings when they understand the big picture.

In the case I mentioned, the big picture would have been how best to park the fighter planes so they wouldn't all be vulnerable at the same time to enemy attack. The commander made a smart move, sending two pilots to take two planes to an isolated field. However, if your biggest danger is not an attack from the air but saboteurs, it's a dumb move. If you're worried about sabotage, it's much easier to guard all the planes if they're together.

By explaining the total picture to the pilots, they might have come up with a solution that solved both issues.

General Short thought the biggest threat was sabotage. That's why he bunched all the planes together. He was wrong, but no one knew that for sure at the time.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

The Military is not a democracy. We defend democracy, not practice it.
An Order is an order so long as the order is legal and not against our code of conduct and the rules of warfare or rules of engagement.

We have a duty to question and refuse an illegal order. but outside of that, orders are followed without question.

It is not necessary for a commander to give explanations to his orders, to seek approval from his subordinates. They don't have a vote in it they just do it.

In the business world, you frequently get good suggestions from underlings when they understand the big picture.

The same is true of the military, however you are misapplying the situation.

Officers make the decisions.
They do so based upon input from the enlisted by way of information from the Enlisted. It is Enlisted that are the lookouts, the radar and Sonar operators, the phonetalkers passing on message, etc... Enlisted gather the data and present it to the Officers. Officers then decide what to do about it.

Senior Enlisted (like Chiefs and up) often do have the bigger picture and quite often can and does make suggestions to his Officer.
It is a wise Jr Officer that listens to the advice of his Senior Enlisted.

But it is not required that the Officer, once he makes his orders known, to have to explain them. Quite often that could be seen as a sign if seeking approval and debate as to the proper course of action and that breaks down the chain of command and the integrity of the military unit.

There are times when an Officer will explain the larger picture to the crew as a whole, when time allows for it. Addressing the crew prior to going into battle, or at the start of a particular mission. But that is not the same as explaining the reasoning behind individual orders. Simply not done.

I don't know how better to explain it to you than that.
You grasp some ideas, but are misapplying them on the whole.
Being Military, I grasp and understand it by way of my very nature. I don't know how to make it more clear to someone who (no offense) has not been in the military and just doesn't "get it".

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

This is a flaw.

No... It's not. YOU just don't grasp it.

See my response for further details.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

There was another example of military non-explanation.

The scene where the mobile radar operator calls a superior to report blips on his radar screen and ask for further instructions.

He's told "Well, don't worry about it". The the superior officer mentions to someone else that the radar operator probably picked up the squadron of B-17s on his radar screen.

Why couldn't he have told the radar operator that there was a squadron of B-17s expected, and that's what he's seeing? Then the radar operator might have said, "this looks much bigger than a squadron of B-17s" or when the B17s did show up, they could have informed the superior officer that there were two separate big blips.

I understand that there is a long standing military policy of giving underlings orders without explanation or justification. It's supposed to instill faith that superiors know what they're doing and have a reason, and "yours is not to reason why". In situations where time is of the essence, that's probably a good idea.

In the two cases I've mentioned, time wasn't of the essence.

In the business world, there's a long standing policy of giving everyone the big picture, the goals of the company and "if you have a question, come in and ask it, don't gossip about it with your fellow worker".

In the business world, speculation and gossip are poisonous. It can lead to mistrust and second guessing of the boss. As we saw in the incident with sending two pilots to a subsidiary field, they started speculating about the reasons (incorrectly) the moment they left their commander's office. The idea that a superior officer would be so petty as to send two pilots to an obscure field because of their skill at poker is not healthy.

By the way, I honor your service in the military. Vietnam was my war; I waited to be drafted and was not called. I admit that I felt relief at the time and didn't volunteer.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] nickm2 11 years ago

Why couldn't he have told the radar operator that there was a squadron of B-17s expected, and that's what he's seeing? Then the radar operator might have said, "this looks much bigger than a squadron of B-17s" or when the B17s did show up, they could have informed the superior officer that there were two separate big blips.

The 'interwar armed forces' was very starved for funds, equipment, training & personnel. Also, contrast the Japanese (who were at war in China ) attitudes & mindsets (aggressive, creative, daring) with the lethargic, complacent, hidebound US Armed forces-tensions not withstanding. As for the radar, I'm pretty sure that was the guy's first day on the set-I don't think he'd know that the blip was 'too big' for a squadron of B-17s & the officer 'on watch' probably just assumed that is what the blip was.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Why couldn't he have told the radar operator that there was a squadron of B-17s expected, and that's what he's seeing? Then the radar operator might have said, "this looks much bigger than a squadron of B-17s" or when the B17s did show up, they could have informed the superior officer that there were two separate big blips.

How would those guys know the blip was bigger than the B-17s would be? Radar was in it's infancy. The Operators pretty much unskilled. and no one had anything like the experience to make such a call.

Sure, the Officer in the call center could have told them, But it didn't matter.
And the operators never would have seen two sets of blips as the actual B-17s showed up later. They shut down immediately after having already been well past their shift.

I understand that there is a long standing military policy of giving underlings orders without explanation or justification. It's supposed to instill faith that superiors know what they're doing and have a reason, and "yours is not to reason why". In situations where time is of the essence, that's probably a good idea.

In the two cases I've mentioned, time wasn't of the essence.

The Time does not matter. Sure it is of vital importance when there is no time. but even when there is... it is for OTHER reasons than time as I have Already outlined above and to which you have ignored.

To have to explain each and every order you give to your men, is to be seen as requiring the men's approval of each and every order. It degrades the authority of the Officer and breaks down the chain of command.

If my Chief tells me that he wants me to perform some maintenance test on a certain piece of equipment, I don't need to be told WHY he wants me to. It could be that the system is faulty, or it could be just that time of the month for it's regular test. All that matters is that's what my Chief wants me to do so I go do it.
I don't need to know why.

If I am on watch on the SLQ-32 and I'm told to pay particular attention to a certain sector... I am smart enough to understand the reason is likely because they are expecting a threat from that sector, why else would they be telling me to pay more attention to that sector? I don't need to be filled in on the details. Sure... it might help if I knew what particular threat they suspect, but I already know my job, and what the potential threats are and would be looking for any of the potential threats that may pop up.

IN POINT OF FACT I could tell you a true story where an Officer was given TOO MUCH information and because of that he jumped to the wrong conclusion even when being presented with correct but conflicting information from me. The result was that he got the ship killed (in training) because he had too much info and that limited his expectations and caused him to ignore reality.

In the business world, there's a long standing policy of...

In the business world, speculation and gossip are...

We're not the business world.
You've used that line before in your previous post. And I have explained to you the reasoning from a Military perspective.
You have chosen to ignore it in favor of your own opinion.

Vietnam was my war; I waited to be drafted and was not called.

So in other words, Vietnam could have been you war but WAS NOT.

I'm trying to be as polite as possible but it really pisses me off when someone without the experience in such matters gainsays those who do have experience in such matters.
Armchair military experts gainsaying those who have served and know what they are talking about.

There is a reason we don't explain every order. I may not have been able to make the reason clear enough for you to understand.
That does not invalidate it. Nor does it invalidate that I do know from experience whereas you have no experience in the matter at all.

Your response has pretty much ignored everything I put forth by way of explanation to you in favor of your own uninformed opinion.

When you board a commercial flight do you also try to tell the pilot why his plane flies as well?
When you go to the Doctor, do you also tell him what the diagnosis should be?
Do you lecture the police officer on what the law is?

No offense but you are acting as an Armchair expert with admittedly no experience in the matter. Ignorance is not in itself a bad thing. It's simply not knowing something. And it is fine to ask and inquire after what you don't know.
Your Original Post by it's Title, was Asking why we don't explain our orders.. It was asking for information about which you don't know. Perfectly fine.

But when someone who is knowledgeable explains things to you, it is very insulting to do as you have. To ignore their input for your own uninformed opinion on which you have no basis for the opinion.

The Military is NOT the Business world.
Apples and Oranges.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

But when someone who is knowledgeable explains things to you, it is very insulting to do as you have. To ignore their input for your own uninformed opinion on which you have no basis for the opinion.
_______________________________

Well, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] CGSailor 11 years ago

Well, thanks for taking the time to reply.

Unfortunately it seems to be a wasted effort.

I joined the Navy to see the world, only to discover the world is 2/3 water!

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

I don't think this is a very good example because it fails to take into consideration the lack of training and experience of all the participants. As for whether Privates Elliot and Lockard should have been told to expect a flight of B-17's that morning, I can see both pros and cons.

Pro: Their job was to monitor the radar for potential threats. It would help them do this if they were advised on what was expected and normal and what was not. However if they should have been told about the B-17's then they needed to have that information when they went on duty. It shouldn't have been left to Lt. Tyler to do it.

Con: Since everyone was inexperienced with radar and were still learning how to use it, it would be better to not tell them about the B-17's. Let the operators report everything until they become more familiar and more comfortable with the equipment and with their responsibilities. And then ease up a little and tell them in advance about friendly traffic.

I think I find the Con argument more convincing.

But in any case Lt. Tyler was not operating on a philosophy of "don't explain the reasons." He was just a junior officer who had no training in radar, no experience working at the Aircraft Warning Information Center, and no instructions on what he was supposed to do.

Pvt. Elliot didn't do such a great job either of reporting the sighting. But again he was inexperienced. He told Pvt. Lockard that he had two main pulses with at least 50 planes per pulse. But he didn't tell Lt. Tyler that. He just said he had a lot of planes.

Tyler knew the B-17's were coming in that morning. From what Elliot had said it was reasonable to think that this was what Elliot had seen.

So each man knew something that he didn't tell the other. But let's not come down hard on them. They were just inexperienced.

Now, I too am of the Vietnam generation. I think I can remember and relate to what it was to be young at that time. I had friends who served in the military. Some were sent to Vietnam and some were not. Most of the ones who were sent completed their tours and came home. Some did not. I had other friends who did not serve in the military. Most of them were good people. At the time of the first ping pong ball lottery, I myself had a student deferment which was about to revert in a few months to 1-A status upon my graduation from school. However I came out of the lottery with a number that guaranteed I would not be drafted. I voluntarily enlisted in the Navy anyway and served for six years.

So I think I can understand where you're coming from and I'm okay with it. I just disagree a little bit with some of your points.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] Cairo-5 11 years ago

I would question whether there is any "world"--business, military or anything else--where the boss always tells his subordinates the reason for the orders he gives. Some good points have been offered as to how this would tend to undermine his authority. But in addition there is also the matter of individual temperment. Some bosses are notoriously difficult and unpleasant to work for. Such people are not in their nature inclined to explain themselves to their underlings or to entertain feedback. They simply give orders. Period.

I think the scene you mention demonstrates that sometimes there are very good reasons for not explaining your orders. Sometimes it is not wise to let anyone and everyone know why you are doing what you are doing.

In this example the officer is trying to disperse some of his airplanes so they will not all be parked together as a perfect target for an aerial attack. But in so doing he is acting counter to the direct orders of his commanding general. This is not something he can tell to just anyone. The pilots don't need to know why they are being sent to subsidiary airfields. And if they don't know they can't with loose lips cause the word to spread. If they come up with some other explanation like believing they're being punished, so much the better. It diverts attention from the real reason.

***
It's easier to be an individual than a god.

reply

[–] joeparkson 11 years ago

But in so doing he is acting counter to the direct orders of his commanding general. This is not something he can tell to just anyone. The pilots don't need to know why they are being sent to subsidiary airfields. And if they don't know they can't with loose lips cause the word to spread. If they come up with some other explanation like believing they're being punished, so much the better. It diverts attention from the real reason.
______________________________________

Yes, that sounds reasonable.

Absurdity: A Statement or belief inconsistent with my opinion.

reply

[–] SpiltPersonality 11 years ago

Well, for one - sometimes you don't want a person to know something that you do so that they keep an open mind. Sometimes you don't want intelligence to be leaked (or possibly leaked). There are many reasons.

To use the example you gave:

Two pilots are sent to a remote airfield. The commanders say "I'm suspicious of a possible Japanese attack... keep your eyes open".

That has possibly limited your pilots. They are now looking for a fight.

-or-

A American agent may have given the intelligence that there was an imminent attack, and to have the entire Pearl Harbor garrison at battle reason would potentially give away that source (this actually happened in WWII with the German double agents vs the V1 & V2 attacks).

I'm not saying that this was the reason, but often it is something like this that goes through a military commanders mind.

To be honest, thought, in this particular instance I felt it was just for a bit of drama mixed with comic relief. It gave the audience the chance to realise that the military knew something was up, but didn't know what and gave the audience a chance to connect with the humanity of the pilots with their 'it's coz of the card games' punishment.

SpiltPersonality

reply

[–] The LA Baker (971) 3 years ago

Ours is not to reason why, ours is but to do or die.

reply

[–] huwdj (4571) 3 years ago

Clearly the correct approach would be to prepare a presentation outlining the general objective, hold an inclusive and informed discussion and agree a consensus on the best way forward. Not forgetting that this would be only the first of many reviews to assess progress and adjust the plan accordingly.

reply

[–] aavfreak (3386) 2 years ago

I just wrote about a similar thing on twitter:

Where I work, we have people who do things and people who talk about doing things. Those who like to talk about doing things outnumber those that do things by 4 to 1. If those who like to talk about doing things would just shut the fuck up, then those of us that actually do things could get so much more done.

There are a lot of people who don't understand the concept of urgency. They can't just do a thing because it needs to be done. They have to ask questions and talk about it. In the case of the OP, who cares why they need to fly to the other location? Knowing why doesn't change the fact that they have to do it. Having that information does not change the activity or the outcome.

Side note: Oddly enough, these are people who typically can't cook. They think important things happen by themselves, not realizing they have to actually do the right thing at the right time for it to work.

reply

[–] JosephQCat (706) 2 years ago

As said above there is a great sense of urgency in such an attack. Nothing would get done that needed to be done if endless discussion were to occur. Also, the military could not function if there was not a sense of subordination. Somebody clearly gives orders to be followed and those below that person are under obligation to obey. The US would greatly benefit in terms of developing responsibility if it followed the Israeli method of having all citizens serve a term of military service after any education as a youth is complete. Probably would be less effective in 2023 with our leadership infested with wokism.

reply