A native of Indiana, John Shields' career includes work in education, business and industry, management consulting. He is also a published writer / photographer and lecturer.
As a professor and head basketball coach at Purdue University Calumet in the late 1960's, Shields' office was located in the Armory of the Indiana Army National Guard 376th Engineering Company. For six years, in addition to his teaching and coaching duties, Shields worked closely with Army National Guard personnel.
Later, Shields was appointed Dean of Admissions at Culver Military Academy. During his Culver tenure, Shields worked closely with many active and retired military personnel from all branches of service. He became involved with Culver's JROTC program and was associated with military personnel from the U.S. Marines, Army, Navy and Air Force, along with military officers representing various foreign services.
While at Culver, Shields spent time at the United States Naval Academy, the United States Air Force Academy and the Citadel.
Later, his son was in his final Para Rescue training phase at Kirtland AFB when he suffered a career-ending fractured leg. He also has a nephew who graduated from the Canadian Military Academy and is now a Captain in the Canadian Army.
Shields has a unique prospective of the military, having worked as a civilian hand-in-glove with military people most of his working life.
John Shields Article Archive
Discussion
Board
Have an opinion on this article? Sound off.
|
|
|
|
|
Your Two Cents
Submit your stories, news items, or a benefits update -- and help Military.com bring the best, most important stories to your fellow servicemembers, veterans, and family members. Contribute here
|
|
|
June 6, 2005
[Have an opinion on a John Shields column? Sound off in the Discussion
Boards.]
Whatever happened to the gutsy military leaders that we so admired in the past ... leaders who were great strategists; leaders who would protect and support their troops and leaders who knew that their job was to defeat the enemy any way possible.
Unfortunately, some of today's "leaders" think more about their careers and political cleansing issues than supporting the Warriors entrusted to their charge.
I site two recent examples: Army Lt. Col. Allen West and Marine 2nd. Lt. Ilario Pantano. These two great Americans were hung out to dry by their "leaders."
To refresh your memory: Lt. Col. Allen West did what most excellent commanders would do when he suspected that an enemy captive in a combat zone knew of an impending assassination/ambush.
In this case when the interrogator's efforts failed to produce results after hours of interrogation, Lt. Col. West took the initiative and dismissed the interrogator. Through his own improvised efforts he eventually got the information he needed in order to protect his troops and himself. And he did this without inflecting injury on the captive.
Through his efforts, Lt. Col. West surely saved his troops from being trapped in an ambush and maybe saved his own life since he was earmarked for assassination by those thugs.
For his stellar effort, Lt. Col. West was relieved of his command and subjected to an Article 32 hearing. After much legal maneuvering, Lt. Col. West was fined and with no hope of reinstatement, he retired from the Army after many years of exemplary service. What a loss of a great leader and what a terrible example this case set for troops fighting in the field. And the Army now wonders why recruitment rates are down.
Where were the "leaders" in Lt. Col. West's case? Why didn't a commander somewhere stand up, show the courage of leadership and stop the process? In a word, no guts!
Once the American public heard about Lt. Col. West's case, they came to his aid with both moral and financial support. In the view of most Americans, Lt. Col. West is a hero! Even though he used perhaps unorthodox means to extract critical information, he got the job done and he protected his troops and himself.
Now we have the 2nd Lt. Ilario Pantano case. Here again, "leadership" let this hero down. 2nd Lt. Pantano was doing what he was supposed to do in an extremely dangerous combat zone to protect his troops and himself. For his superb leadership, Lt. Pantano was brought up on a murder charge accused of shooting two Iraqi terrorists whom he thought were going to attack him and his troops. He didn't have time to think about anything except protecting himself and his Warriors from harm. He used his training and past combat experience and took exactly the right action to defend himself.
Subsequently, one of 2nd Lt. Pantano's troops, who Pantano had previously demoted because he wasn't effective, reported the incident. The Navy then sent an investigator who did an incomplete and incompetent job and the case went up the line for possible court martial.
Again, we must ask where were the "leaders" in this case who could have nipped this issue in the bud if they had possessed the guts and leadership skills to do so? To let this case go all the way to Article 32 hearings is unconscionable.
Actually, the leadership issue could and perhaps should go all the way to the top, including the Pentagon and even the Commander-In-Chief. Any one of whom could have brought either or both cases to a swift and correct conclusion with the simple stroke of a pen.
2nd Lt. Pantano is a hero and his commanders are the goats.
|
Again, we must ask basic questions; what has happened to commanders who are supposed to demonstrate leadership skills especially in the field of battle? Have we let the judicial branch of the military gain too much influence? Has political correctness gotten that deep into the military that it's affecting the way we conduct war and putting our soldiers at risk?
The enemies we face today don't give a rip about political correctness. They just want to kill us and destroy our way of life in any way possible. So why then do our troops have to be so cautious and think about every possible legal angle before taking action? Why does our military have commanders who let our heroes hang out to dry when they're simply doing a very dangerous job in the best way possible?
Civilians should be asking the following questions: Don't our Warriors get paid for taking the initiative away from the enemy so that we can live safe and secure at home without being threatened by our enemies? Don't we want seasoned leaders in the field taking decisive action against our enemies as long as such actions are consistent with the rules of engagement? Don't we want our senior commanders to support our troops and protect them from the media and political maneuvering? Most people would answer, "Absolutely!"
What kind of examples do our present and future Warriors get from the cases of Lt. Col. West, 2nd Lt. Pantano and others who took decisive action to protect their troops and themselves and then were abandoned by their "leaders?" When this happens, one wonders how many Warriors will want to stand and fight for our Nation. And what type of leaders are we going to put in the field if they see these examples? Will they take decisive action in time of duress or will they wither because of possible media exposure and/or lack of senior commanders' support?
It's difficult to see how people sitting in a safe backseat away from the battlefield can adequately judge our Warriors during the heat of battle when life and death decisions must be made in an instant.
I think it's time to show true leadership like the days of old when we realized that war is a nasty, dirty business and people have to make snap judgments to save themselves and their comrades in arms. We need commanders who will show courage and character to defend their troops when these Warriors are sacrificing so much to protect America's interests and just doing the best job possible under terrible conditions.
© 2005 John Shields. All opinions expressed
in this article are the author's and do not necessarily reflect those
of Military.com.
|
