@Francemone <span style=”color: #111111; font-family: Georgia, ‘Times New Roman’, Times, serif; font-size: 12px;”>”Prior to the Captain’s involvement, I did not expect that his leadership would be worse than LT. McDonald’s. This is because, I naturally assumed that the higher ranking officer with more time on would have been the superior leader.” </span>

Rank doesn’t determine that. Truly that is determined by doing TIS/TIG and what is required? To tick the boxes. Similar to our conversation in class last week about “good officers”. Just because someone holds higher rank doesn’t mean they’re better than those whom they outrank. It is a logical fallacy. Makes total sense in one regard but in the other…

Certainly there is a lesson to be learned there.

I do agree with LT McDonough’s decision to send his men to the beach. His heart was in the right place; he was trying to fix an issue the men faced – allowing them to clean, tend to wounds, and  avoid infection.

In hindsight he should’ve gone with them so his order would’ve been properly followed and he could’ve seen firsthand the strength of the current thus make alterations if need be.

I absolutely believe him being there would’ve made a difference. Honestly in today’s Army something like that is unthinkable; you’d be held accountable and be severely punished due to your negligence because as the OIC it is your responsibility as well as that SGTs. However it was war lots of people were dying and new replacements were still coming in. It was one of the heaviest years of fighting in Vietnam. I doubt the Army had the time nor resources to really deal with an unfortunate accident/gross negligence – they were stretched thin. They couldn’t easily give up a much need asset like an experienced combat leader. It was a different time, different rules, different everything.