(Lack of) Risk/Reward

After I finished Officer Candidate School and was assigned to the Armor Branch of the US Army, I had a good number of schools to attend. The pinnacle, capstone school was Armor Officer Basic Course (hereafter referred to as OBC), a 14-week academic and field-problem specific course designed to take the raw product (newly commissioned officers) and turn them into people ready and eager to take the reigns of a platoon. My OBC class was especially fun, as we spent something like 87 of the 98 days living in the field and taking orders from a Troop Commander who was a few olives short of ... some drink you make olives with.

Like this, but minus three olives and maybe the gin as well

Anyway, for all his craziness (he claimed early and often that he was a shark, for example) he stressed to us that platoon leaders, when in combat, have to make snap decisions which could result in people being killed. Americans, that is. So our training focused on making decisions under pressure. For all the hassle OBC was - and without bourbon it would have been a MUCH larger hassle - I was taught a good number of lessons concerning leadership. We learned how to plan under compressed timelines, how to lead from the front, how to encourage people when it was freezing outside, how to stay motivated when attacked by a shark... the list goes on and on. When I took over my platoon I was ready to attack the world. I had all the training I needed, I had motivated Soldiers and experienced Non-Commissioned Officers.


Then I ran into the single worst Army Form known to man: The Risk Assessment Form.

(cue ominous music)

Apparently, after Vietnam we got all worried that we were exposing our all-volunteer Army to far too much risk. Quick side note: I am not positive this has anything to do with Vietnam, but since if you say "Vietnam" and apply that one country to the root of any problem in the Army, you are essentially given a logic-free pass:


Sergeant: "What in the hell are you doing?? You're snorting cocaine off the toilet in your barracks room!!!"

Soldier: "I would love to stop but, you know, lessons from Vietnam and all..."

Sergeant: "Oh you poor thing. I guess I am guilty here of blaming the victim."


Anyway, we are risk-averse. This is not always a bad thing, though. Sometimes taking a training exercise and stepping back to ask safety-related questions, such as "do we need to wear our Kevlar helmets?" or "should Soldiers wear knee pads?" is a good thing; such measures taken typically are taken out of a concern for the Soldiers' safety and physical health, and you cannot deploy a broken Soldier. But other times, we take the "safety hazards" idea a bit too far. For instance, when you run a range where Soldiers will be firing their M4 Carbine Rifles, you would assume that the risks from that range are associated mostly with, you know, the live freaking ammunition you put into a tool which was designed to kill people. But no. Risk assessments also have to warn Soldiers not to mess with indigenous wildlife, to drink water, and to walk, not run, for fear of tripping. Because Soldiers these days are just itching to pick up a snake while poorly hydrated and run as fast as they can over hard-to-negotiate terrain.


Anyway, that is garrison life for you. The Army teaches you their preferred method of "Cover Your Ass" because they have learned, through years of garrison life, what Soldiers will accomplish if left unsupervised. So my enthusiasm for training Soldiers like I had been trained was dealt a severe reality check. Not to worry!!! We were leaving for a year-long deployment! To a combat zone! Risk had to be accepted there, and we could train a little harder!!!


Obviously you know where this is going.


Yes, even when we drive on highways with known and well-plotted IED hotspots, patrol with our weapons loaded and a switch away from being on "fire," or conduct a dismounted movement through neighborhoods where only a few months ago people were shot, we still have to submit a risk assessment. And we have to evaluate the threat level of our missions and try "risk mitigation" steps to bring the threat from "Extremely High" to "Moderate." Um.... hello?? Warzone? Crazy Muslim nutjobs with AK-47s, IEDs and RPGs? Its not like we can take a mitigation step and call the bad guys, pleading that they only aim for the spots with the most armor. And even if the risk level was "Batshit Crazy" I am sure the mission would have to be accomplished. So why submit a risk assessment?

"Germans?? Son I would be more concerned with wildlife! Now, before I go did everyone remember to use the bathroom?"

I am sure there are many reasons for the risk assessment. If vehicles roll over and the crew members were not briefed on how to handle a roll over, there could be a call for better training. And if roll overs were continuously identified as a risk, the Army would get involved and the training would improve. But when the Army begins becoming too risk averse, we stop making good Soldiers and good leaders, people who can be relied on to make quick decisions right away and not worry about the fact that people might get hurt. It is an accepted part of my job and of every officer's job that the decisions we make might end up getting someone killed. When we stop to think about it, we stop being leaders. Risk mitigation is a good thing when you are training Soldiers. But it can be poisonous when Soldiers are asked to do what they trained for real. Along with a healthy dose of respect for your own mortality must come, at times, a healthy amount of disregard for it. When we over-analyze risk, we undermine that disregard.