Have you stopped wearing your Nike or Rocky C4 boots?

I do what I can.

SSG Cody Sedlacek , do you truly believe "knowing when and where not to follow the rules is a defining aspect of being a leader"?

I may a agree with you to the point that it defines "what type" of leader you are - why would you think that leaders picking/choosing which policy/regulation they follow contributes to good order and discipline.

We, as NCOs, are charged to enforce policy/regulation - we don't have the liberty to pick and choose which ones we will enforce/follow - we would never allow that from our subordinates, I'm sure you would have a very different reaction if one of your subordinates chose which directives he would follow from you instead of following all directives from you.

It's quite all right to advocate for changes or improvements, but it is not alright to advocate for the willful disobedience of policy/regulations.

That may answer why you are getting down-voted with no comments.

Fascinating essay SSG Cody Sedlacek. Thank you for sharing.

SSG Cody Sedlacek , I appreciate the well thought out and articulate counterpoint/explanation. Honestly, I agree with quite a bit of your comments and my response is longer than I would like and will probably prevent most from reading, but this is a really good discussion and I felt that I owed you an equally thought out response.

- As far as being concerned about "scope of the Constitution" - even at my level, I am focused on helping my Cdr meet his intent and following the intent/guidance of two Cdr's higher. The Constitution usually doesn't play into any decisions I make on a daily basis.

- I ascribe to the unless it's illegal/immoral/unethical, leaders get to make the call. If they dictate policies that could end up injuring a Soldier, it is wrong, and we should advocate for the change all the way up until the person that can make the decision/over-ride it does. So, I'll agree with your "kit setup example" in that it wasn't just there was a better idea of how to set up the kit, but that the way it was being dictated was immoral because it could get someone killed.

- Someone will always have a better idea of how to do something, but that doesn't give us the liberty to not follow policy/regulation because there is a better way, we only have the liberty to not follow if it is illegal/immoral/unethical.

- You mentioned the CSM had a policy on kit set-up - that's bull-shit. CSMs don't have policies - we enforce policies. Just like CSMs don't have philosophies either or visions, we support the Cdr's philosophy/vision. Honestly, some CSMs are a little full of themselves and forget their role and think they are the Cdr.

- Yes, we would like all standards to make sense, but you know what - sometimes at the lowest level, they may not look like they make sense and sometimes we do a poor job of communicating why we are doing something. But, there is nothing requiring a standard to make sense - ie, hands in pockets, eating while walking, reflective belt in the gym, etc. Again, our job as NCOs is to enforce policies/regulations that are not immoral/illegal/unethical.

- We are shifting back to how we used to operate prior to the War on Terrorism - it was the way we did things back then that led to the overwhelming victories during Desert Shield/Storm and the initial force-on-force victory at the beginning of OIF-1. How we did things in garrison - standards/discipline/pride (a lot of the stuff that Soldiers who only know the last 10-yrs discount) created those Soldiers that performed so well. Deployments/Combat train Soldiers for that environment - soon, deployments will be far/few between and the substitute for the skills/knowledge/attributes will be that garrison standards/discipline/pride.

- And senior leaders really don't want blind obedience. Read all the articles on Mission Command - that is what we want. We want to provide our subordinates the authority/guidance and allow them to lead - yes, sometimes, they will fail and that is ok, and yes, most of the times they won't do it as well as we would do it and that is ok also. That is what Mission Command is about.

Ok, everyone, sorry so long - this was intended for SSD Sedlacek's great response/comments, but I hope you have hung on until the end and have been able to at least take something away from this.

You need to tell him that I approve of his message. Thank God common sense prevails. We have to stand up as a leader. There are leaders and followers. You commander leads. He is doing what he thinks is right instead of following what the Army thinks is right. I understand the rule and will later buy new boots when Nike makes their new boot. But the impact on the soldier that makes near to nothing and have to have new boots is dumb.

My commander is definitely making a decision which supports common sense. He would rather us wear boots that are within reason and best for our feet, which we walk on, all day, five days a week. I support his decision wholeheartedly and I am grateful he's not afraid to stand up and command.

The unfortunate backlash from this type of decision is the struggle for NCOs who try to make on-the-spot corrections. We know what the reg authorizes however we don't know what each commander authorizes.
Frustrating.

What is that???? Old Army Issue

I need to get my commander on that bandwagon...

Does the Army not realize that you only get one set of feet? And if you don't take care of your feet then they go downhill. Then your ankles, knees, hips, back. My knees and hips are messed up from the lack of support from boots.

But hey, Nike changed their design a little that the new SFB now meets AR 670-1. ... Take that AR 670-1!