User:RollerBoss/sandbox

Expansion of The Lost Battalion (2001 film)

In October 1918, just weeks before the end of WWI, nine companies of the 77th Division, US Army, found themselves behind German lines in the Argonne Forest. Led by Major Charles W. Whittlesey, 194 of the approximated 554 men came back out. Accurately capturing the overall story of the battle, A&E released a made-for-TV movie in 2001, dramatizing the events experienced by the men of the 77th. The story begins when Maj Whittlesey’s commander, General Alexander, briefed the Major on the plan to push passed the German front line with support from the French and another US Division in what would be called the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Whittlesey’s team went over the top on schedule, advancing on and breaking through the German lines into the forest, not knowing that they pushed through alone and had no support. Over the course of six grueling days without support, supplies, or reinforcements, the isolated force became the Lost Battalion as the Allies tried desperately to fight through and save the 77th.

During their ordeal, the Lost Battalion faced constant challenges. They had no communication, relying on runners that would disappear or a small supply of carrier pigeons. In one instance, Allied artillery fire rained down on the battalion due to a miscommunication in coordinates. They could only obtain water by crawling to a nearby stream as sniper fire prevented free access. The Germans constantly attacked, fiercely trying to re-establish their forward line to prevent the Allies from breaking through. The Germans even tried to convince the Lost Battalion to surrender by means of messengers and captured members of their own force. Unsuccessful in destroying the Americans, the Germans launched an attack with their Stosstruppen (Stormtroopers) as a last resort. In the end, an Allied pilot flew overhead, marking the location of the Lost Battalion so reinforcements could push through, allowing Major Whittlesey and those remaining of the initial assault force to walk out of the Argonne Forest. A&E’s take on the events illustrates several key components worth discussing in detail, especially related to leadership. First, the critical thinking and decision making skills of the members behind enemy lines facilitated their survival. Many of the characters in the story faced challenges ranging from extreme, life-threatening situations to simply questioning the decisions involved in the Meuse-Argonne Offensive. Critical thinking and decision making had to be done at all levels within the Allied force. Through the soldiers’ questioning and critical thinking, the film depicts the ethical dilemmas faced by the characters, again effecting the troops at all levels of leadership. From the decision at the highest level to send many to certain death to the men volunteering to risk life and limb for water, there are many ethical dimensions in the film that create moral depth to the story and the leaders in it. Finally, over the course of the movie, the characters exhibit good and bad qualities of leadership as a result of their dynamic environment. They are tested repeatedly and do not always make the best choices, and examples of good and bad leadership can be found through a close look at the roles and actions of the characters.

Leadership qualities and characteristics abound through analysis of the critical thinking and decision making, ethical dimensions, and roles and actions of characters within the film. The Lost Battalion is an excellent source to apply leadership principles and learn from the events of the story.

Characters
Colonel Evan M. Johnson was the 154th Infantry Brigade Commander and loyally served General Robert Alexander. At the first mention of General Alexander’s orders for Major Wittlesey, Colonel Johnson did not question the General’s motives. However, once Colonel Johnson became aware of the growing amount of casualties suffered by Major Whittlesey’s men, he grew more sympathetic about the safety of the 308th. As a result, he audaciously approached General Alexander and proposed that Major Wittlesey should withdraw and regroup. Colonel Johnson’s loyalty for General Alexander shifted once he realized Major Wittlesey wasn’t supported on is flank as promised. Captain George McMurtry was the 308th Infantry Commander. He was an experienced military man and demonstrated a transformational leadership style. Captain McMurtry respected his men in much of the same way that he respected Major Wittlesey. Aligning with the transformational leadership style, he recognized the potential leadership qualities in Lt Leak and Private Lipasti, and provided guidance for how they could each excel in their assigned responsibilities. During each battle, he encouraged his men and did his best to keep them safe. When he became injured, he continued to maintain a positive attitude. If he doubted the 308th efforts, he was not afraid to confide in Major Wittlesey because he knew they could effectively communicate.

Captain Nelson Holderman was the 307th Infantry Company K Commander. He bravely led the 307th and made his first presence as he was cautiously trying to carry his men out of the German’s reach as he anticipated an attack from behind. As he ironically “runs into” Private Lipasti from the 308th battalion, he is persuaded and influenced by Private Lipasti’s insight on the German’s location as to where the 307th should not go. Therefore, he allows Private Lipasti to lead the 307th back to the Mill and join up with the 308th. Once he arrives, he is graciously welcomed by Major Whittlesey after assisting with repelling another German attack.

Lt. James V. Leak was the 308th Platoon Commander. He showed two different sides to his character as he was introduced to Captain McMurtry and to Major Whittlesey. When he first met Captain McMurtry he seemed overconfident stating he was meant to be with men from Texas, since that is where he was from. Lt. Leak was later introduced to Major Wittlesey and seemed to have a break in his confidence and appeared more insecure as Major Whittlesey squared him away with what to expect at the 308th and gave him his first orders. After being taken under the wing of Captain McMurtry, his character developed, and with determination, he courageously led his men through battle. On behalf of the 308th, he displayed strength and resiliency, during his time in German captivity, and refused the offer from the German officer to surrender.

Critical Thinking and Decision Making Skills
Dr. Richard Paul’s approach to critical thinking is what we will use to assess decisions made in the Lost Battalion as they aligned with the “Elements of Reasoning.”  The following is a combination of the Elements of Reasoning used throughout the film centered on the Commander’s intent.

4:36 - Purpose – To answer if the purpose or mission was in line with goals, values, desires, and needs, we will address General Alexander’s goals and objectives. General Alexander wanted Major Wittlesey to clear out the forest in an attempt to break through the German defenses. However, his intent may have stemmed from his EGO as he may not have truly understood how his decision would affect his subordinates. Therefore, he may have deceived himself “about the true purpose of thought or action.”  Thus, this decision did not fit the definition of the purpose element of reasoning as it relates to critical thinking.

5:03 – Implications – Addressing the implications element, we will consider what was expected to happen before the 308th started the intense battles. When considering implications, Major Whittlesey knew that it was possible that the 308th would have to fight without the proper support and supplies, it was probable that they were going to be overrun by the Germans, and it was inevitable that men’s lives were going to be lost.

5:19 - Question – To address the question or problem raised we will address Major Whittlesey’s response to General Alexander’s purpose. Major Whittlesey immediately questioned the purpose by standing up to the General with concern over losing more men as a result of insufficient supplies such as food, ammunition, and medicine. However, in his initial discussions, Major Whittlesey did not question if his orders were going to solve the right problem. Therefore, assuming he was going to have a sufficient amount of supplies and support, and using his best judgement, he complied with General Alexander’s orders.

7:15 – Points of View – To address the points of view we can reevaluate the relationship and mentorship between Lt. Leak and Captain McMurtry. After Lt. Leak expressed his concern for not being able to understand what his men were saying, Captain McMurtry tried to change is perspective stating that his men have to actually be able to understand him.

13:48 - During a later scene Lt Leak and Captain McMurtry had another exchange. During this conversation, Captain McMurtry grew sensitive to Lt. Leak’s position of leading his inexperienced men into battle. Captain McMurtry provided his opinions and gave Lt. Leak a specific plan to follow. He continues to tell him to be 10 yards ahead of his men so he can be the most experienced and, ultimately, his men will follow him.

25:51 - Concepts – To address the concept element, we will focus on General Alexander’s theory of how to defeat the Germans. Knowing he had the presence of three divisions, two American and one French division, he attempted to express his concept to the officers in his presence. General Alexander knew that Major Wittlesey did not have support on their flanks, but falsely claimed that the French were ahead of the 308th. In an attempt to think outside the box, he justified this false claim by telling his other officers that he needed the 308th to move towards the middle of the offensive until the flanks were able to adjust.

30:27 - His conceptual thinking only changed when he grew concerned about the safety of the 308th and other contributing factors. Specifically, he grew concerned with the position of the 308th being in the middle of the Germans, the cut lines, and the French withdrawal.

35:50 - Information – Addressing the element of information, we will focus on a conversation held with Major Whittlesey and Lt. Leak. Major Whittlesey warned Lt Leak that the Germans were going to attack fiercely, with discipline, and they prefer to fight when the fog burns off. He continued to share information based on his prior experience at Chateau du Deab. During that combat, the enemies ate early in the morning and before the sun came out. As a result, his men were attacked by surprise while eating breakfast. Sarcastically, Lt. Leak said that would not be a problem because they were out of food. As a result of Major Whittlesey’s experience, knowledge of the facts, data, and observations he has made about the Germans, he critically assessed the situation and made the following suggestion. He told Lt. Leak to burn the coffee to misdirect the Germans to think the 308th was not ready for a counterattack.

50:58 - Assumptions – To assess the element of assumptions, we will use the example of the shellings ordered by the 77th HQs to protect the 308th. Officers at the HQs assumed that when they fired the shellings, they were hitting the German’s line. However, the German line, aimed at by the HQ officers, had already been passed by the Major Wittlesey and his men. This is why, originally, Major Wittlesey and his men were okay with the shellings landing behind them. However, due to miscommunication of coordinates, the shellings resulted in friendly fire because the shellings landed on their actual line.

1:26:30 - Interpretation and Inference – Addressing the interpretation and inference element might be linked to the end of the movie after the last battle. Once the General approached Major Whittlesey and is men, he had attempted to lighten up the situation and make conversation. He stated that he was going to turn their achievements into awards and possible promotions. By making these claims, he was inferring that praises were the motivation for their courageous actions.

MILITARY ETHICS
"Our profession is defined by our values, ethics, standards, code of conduct, skills, and attributes...All service men and women belong to the profession from the junior enlisted to our most senior leaders. We are all accountable for meeting ethical and performance standards in our actions and similarly, accountable for our failure to take action, when appropriate. The distinction between ranks lies in our level of responsibility and degree of accountability. We share the common attributes of character, courage, competence, and commitment...If we provide the leadership that our Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen, Marines, and Coast Guardsmen deserve, they will execute beyond imagination. Hence, the foundation and driving force of the Profession of Arms are its leaders. They provide an incalculable competitive advantage against our adversaries...they inspire others to achieve what they thought was beyond reach...and they uphold and enforce our ethical and moral standards regardless of the situation. They understand the cost of leadership places mission and welfare of others above self."

- Gen. Martin E. Dempsey, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

ETHICAL DILEMMA THAT SETS THE STGE FOR THE FILM:
4:25-5:50 77th Division HQ Receipt of General Alexander's orders

Competing Values

It worried me that sometimes the system could put us in a position where we don’t cre- ate and develop officers who are willing to speak the truth and feel the sense of obligation to do it, regardless of the cost, or who won’t be respected or admired or rewarded for doing that. I would hope that we would never find ourselves in a position where we would create an atmosphere where our subordinate leaders didn’t feel free to speak.

- General Athony C. Zinni, USMC (Ret.), 2003

Overarching ethical framework demonstrated by Major Whittlesey:

Braden Crisis Life Cycle:


 * 1) Lead from the Front (went to bat for unit to General and staff)
 * 2) Focus on the Core Purpose (despite rejection, still focusing on moving forward, protecting men to the utmost of ability, and winning the war)
 * 3) Build the Team (Maj, Lt, good order and discipline)
 * 4) Conduct Continuous Planning (directing Capt before the assault, continually adjusting during the fight)
 * 5) Mitigate the Threat (orders to dig in, forbid water runs, etc.)
 * 6) Tell The Story (stood up to General and told the truth about the men)
 * 7) Profit from the Crisis (led men out and the war ended 5 weeks later) See Crisis Life-Cycle Model and Leadership Strategies Figure below:

OPERATING UNDER AN ETHICAL FRAMEWORK
10:27-10:36 Major's consultation/challenge to Capt to plan on how to mitigate losses in executing the General's plan

ETHICS IN MISSION COMMAND
"Principles of Mission Command linkage to Army leadership requirements:" Ethic. Leads others-balances subordinates needs with mission requirements.

'''Field Manual 6-22, Leader Development, 30 June 2015. 29.'''

'''BAD EXAMPLE: 25:51-26:40-Col Johnson voicing concern to General for need to withdraw Maj Whittlesey. General says must advance despite losses.'''

'''GOOD EXAMPLE: 43:00 – Soldiers getting shot by sniper while trying to get water. Major ordered to post a guard and shoot anyone trying to get water as a result.'''

GOOD EXAMPLE: 49:20 Capt questions if the fight is worth it, Maj reinforces the main goal, winning the war

BUILDING A CLIMATE OF TRUST (MISSION COMMAND): 1:02:20-1:02:44 Maj doesn't think they should be there, honest with troops but still honors obligations.

ETHICS AND THE CODE OF CONDUCT
Article I

I am an American, fighting in the forces which guard my country and our way of life. I am prepared to give my life in their defense.

Article II

I will never surrender of my own free will. If in command, I will never surrender the members of my command while they still have the means to resist.

Article III

'''If I am captured I will continue to resist by all means available. I will make every effort to escape and aid others to escape. I will accept neither parole nor special favors from the enemy.'''

Article IV

If I become a prisoner of war, I will keep faith with my fellow prisoners. I will give no information or take part in any action which might be harmful to my comrades. If I am senior, I will take command. If not, I will obey the lawful orders of those appointed over me and will back them up in every way.

Article V

When questioned, should I become a prisoner of war, I am required to give name, rank, service number, and date of birth. '''I will evade answering further questions to the utmost of my ability. I will make no oral or written statements disloyal to my country and its allies or harmful to their cause.'''

Article VI

I will never forget that I am an American, fighting for freedom, responsible for my actions, and dedicated to the principles which made my country free. I will trust in my God and in the United States of America. (Exec. Order No. 10631, 20 FR 6057, 1955)

'

1:02:49 German HQ Interrogation of LT

ETHICS AND MORAL INJURY
Non-combat Stress Trauma

In Achilles in Vietnam, former Veteran’s Administration (VA) psychiatrist Dr. Jonathan Shay noted similarities in the behavior of Vietnam veterans injured by stress trauma and Achilles, the central figure of Homer’s Iliad.25 According to Dr. Shay it was the breach of trust between a senior leader and Achilles that made Achilles vulnerable to psychologi- cal injury.26 Shay labels this unethical behavior “betrayal of what’s right.”27 This phrase can now be found in the Marine Corps Reference Publication Combat and Operational Stress Control.28 Shay asserts that when military leaders willfully take advantage of their position “the [human] body codes it in much the same way it codes physical attack.”29 Perhaps echoing Dr. Shay, MCRP 6-11C instructs leaders that “the distress and changes in functioning that can result from an inner conflict stress injury can be just as profound and long-lasting as those resulting from a life-threat or loss.”30 If “breach of trust” is inserted in place of “inner conflict” it is possible to extrapolate that an unethical leader has the same psychological wounding capacity as a roadside bomb or a sniper attack.31

1:26:30 General arrives in staff car "acceptable losses"

Despite heavy losses, how did the survivors of the Lost Battalion feel after witnessing General Alexander make these statements? If reconstituted would they be combat effective? To what degree? Arguably no, and not very. Their trust was betrayed.

Bonus area: Possible?
RUUUUUUUUUUUUUsh Blitz