Thread by @pptsapper

@SwiftOnSecurity Hahaha, that's a good one. Command and control isn't just someone saying "soldier, go take that ridge." Orders have to have a task and purpose, a commander's intent, and an endstate. Why? Because soldiers are people and need to be able to understand the shit they're about to do

@SwiftOnSecurity Mission command, the current theory for command and control, is all about empowering junior leaders to seize opportunities, creating a common understanding across layers of command, and assuming risk. Very different from "attack this hill, follow me!"

@SwiftOnSecurity The other is that the commander is god. We once used to be. But the army has taken lots of control away from commanders and placed layers of controls between us and our soldiers. Which isn't necessarily bad, as it limits some of toxicity. Some of it.

@SwiftOnSecurity Command and responsibility are tricky. Command being the officer lane, responsibility being the NCOs. As I like to say, I own the company, my 1SG owns the soldiers. We have different duties and responsibilities, with some overlapping elements. That's the whole art of this shit

@SwiftOnSecurity It's delicate - lots of balancing personalities and temperaments. It's 80% knowing people, 20% knowing where to find stuff you need to know.

It's massively unsexy, I know, but I find it pretty cool.