My Legacy Leader is LTC Brian A. Coppersmith, USA, Ret. LTC Coppersmith exemplified Army leadership from his character, presence, and intellect to his ability to lead, develop and achieve. LTC Coppersmith’s leadership ability directly affected me as a Human Intelligence Collection Sergeant operating under his command in garrison pre-deployment, and while deployed forward to Iraq. The example that LTC Coppersmith set for me is the foundation that I have used to guide each of my actions on as a leader. It is my hope that I will be able to positively influence and inspire at least one Soldier in the same manner that LTC Coppersmith inspired and influenced me.
In 2007 I was assigned as a Human Intelligence (HUMINT) Collection Sergeant with
…show more content…
I was lucky in the sense that I was raised with values that mirror the Army Values. These personal values coupled with the Army Values are what define my character and serve as a lighthouse for my actions. One of the traits that I appreciated and respected about LTC Coppersmith was his character. As a commander, I can imagine that it is sometimes difficult to know that the decisions that you are making are the best option. To know that you must make ethical and true, and that they fall in line with the Warrior Ethos. I had the privilege of being with LTC Coppersmith when he would make decisions about missions, or actions that affected the squadron. Being that we are an organization that has people as its greatest asset, mistakes were made and issues would arise, yet I cannot think of a single instance where LTC Coppersmith failed to stick to the Army Values when making a decision. This steadfast compass that he displayed trickled down through his formation to the troops. Subordinate leaders knew that every action that they took must mirror that of their commander, and that he expected all of his leaders to be of irreproachable character. The effects of LTC Coppersmith’s stance ensured that as Soldier developed into leaders, they would carry and implement the same adherence to the Army Values not only while in the squadron, but throughout …show more content…
F. Scott Fitzgerald once said “The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.” This quote speaks to how LTC Coppersmith operated and interacted with his subordinates, peers, and superiors each and every day. LTC Coppersmith believed in using the collective knowledge and experience of the troops and his staff to make decisions. For example, LTC Coppersmith insisted that I be present at all of his staff meeting, because he asserted that I brought a fresh perspective to each problem-set. While he may have an idea of how he wanted something to happen or what was the best course of action, LTC Coppersmith was adamant that those around him challenge him if they had good reason to do so. This did not mean that he would outright change his mind about a situation, simply that he would consider what someone brought to him and make the best decision based on all of the information he possessed. I observed several instances where LTC Coppersmith was in a meeting with the brigade commander or commanding general, and when LTC Coppersmith was asked a question, he would defer to the Soldier in the room who knew the question best. There was once or twice where I found myself suddenly having a conversation with the general or colonel. The way that LTC Coppersmith elevated the
General Lee said, to be a good soldier you must love the army, to be a good general you must be prepared to order the death of the thing you love, and therein lies the great trap of soldiering. When you attack you must hold nothing back." Thomas J. Jackson was both a good soldier and a good general. In the Mexican War he fought with all his heart for his country. When the Civil War came, he was a general. He never hesitated to send his men forward. He held nothing back. George McClellan also fought with all his heart for his country in the Mexican War. When the time came to send his men forward in the Civil War, he couldn’t do it. He loved the army to much to order its death.
...od plan from the get go. The soldiers were not conducting counterinsurgency at the beginning of their deployment, which is why they got hit pretty badly. It does not fall into any of the LDRSHIP values but just fulfilling the KNOW part of leadership is good. His best leadership trait shown in the book doesn’t come from the seven Army values it comes from the warrior ethos. I will never quit. No matter how much pressure that platoon put on him he still did not quit on them. He kept pushing them back and got them in line. One of his worst traits of leadership was his selfless service. He was not a present leader. He did not go out on patrols with the guys. I think that really hindered him from getting the platoon back on track sooner. If he showed them he was willing to go through the same stuff they were then maybe they would have respected him more from the get go.
...e leadership characteristic that popped out at me was how Cap. John Goodwin was his resilience to overcome all the horrific parts of this deployment and still stayed with it and worked his hardest with no breaks until he was forced to go on that leave to rest and then as soon as he heard something bad had happened, he stopped everything he was doing and got back to his men as quickly as he could it showed how much he cared, he also listened to his men and what they needed and tried helping them all the time. One thing he did not do a good job of was letting Kunk get to him and knock his confidence down and taking care of his own health so he could be awake and alert as company commander each and every day. His soldiers mentioned how weak, and tired and malnourished he looked from being next to the radio 24/7 which should never happen when you are calling the shots.
During the push by the 3rd Army to Bastogne and after its liberation Patton said many derogatory things to the press that undermined his leadership and also demonstrated things like urinating in the Rhine River. These actions perhaps inspired and rallied the troops but were also derogatory for his overall success of command that made it difficult for the leaders to utilize his skills in anything but warfare. Often he was described as a bully and insubordinate to his peers and superiors and brutal towards his subordinates. Patton was a necessary warrior out of time. When WWII began he was at the end of his fifties and this fact alone was a huge generation gap between the troops and him. As I instruct young lieutenants, captains, and senior leaders today, I see the generation gap in how today’s Army leads, communicates and disseminates information. My goal is to try and be that legacy leader that can perhaps reach a few to reignite that teambuilding spark of leadership that modern military has lost. Few remain that remember the overwhelming odds that a genuine team can accomplish as to what an average, mediocre group might (Harvey,
... understood and emulated the tenets of mission command throughout the Battle of Bunker Hill, he was able to understand his orders and ensure that the orders he disseminated were concise and easily understood. He visualized where his weaknesses were on the hill and described to his engineers how to overcome their lack of soldiers and build a defensive position that could repel British forces. Throughout the entire battle COL Prescott would run the ramparts making assessments and adjustments to his lines and shouting orders to his soldiers. Facing an enemy he knew he could not defeat in a full fight COL Prescott accepted a high level of risk and moved to destroy as many British soldiers as he could before abandoning his post. While considered a loss by American forces, COL Prescott’s use of mission command attributes to later victories in the American Revolution.
My leadership can expect a top tier performer who strives to be one of the most competent Non-commissioned Officer’s within the unit. I will do this by adhering to the regulations, unit sop’s and any other guidance which governs my section. I will ensure my soldiers do the same, holding them to strict but attainable standards and expecting nothing less. I will teach, coach, counsel, and mentor these soldiers-teaching them what a leader is and grooming them to be leaders also.
Lieutenant Carroll was a smart man when it came to war. He never he could never bring himself to leave any man behind at war (Myers 38). Carroll was the smartest platoon leader Perry could have had. He always made sure his men were safe and accounted for. If someone was left behind Lieutenant Carroll would always risk his life for his men. Being able to risk his own life to save a platoon members life showed how dedicated he was to doing his job.
All soldiers, especially leaders, are highly recommended to keep a certain set of values that radiate throughout the entire U.S. Army. They are challenged to keep them near and dear to their hearts and to define and live them every day. A leader is one who takes these challenges serious and abides by
Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (ADP, 1). William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, executed good mission command in the Battle of Tippecanoe because of his ability to effectively utilize the doctrinal tasks of “understand, visualize, describe, direct, and lead” operations.
Standing in a crowd of hundreds, anxious about what is to come—combat; waiting for a man whose reputation greatly precedes him…the man who will lead you into battle—into a nightmare. As he took the microphone and declared, “you are here because you are real men and all real men like to fight.” These words are those of General George Patton…and he has your attention. Inspirational and blunt are just a couple of the many terms used to describe General Patton. General Patton was also a visionary in employment of combat forces; in fact, he was an expert on the subject. The manner in which he led his troops was in itself visionary. Despite his military prowess and formidable leadership, General Patton was humble in leadership and intellect. These three attributes will demonstrate that he was above all, a visionary and ethical leader.
General H. Norman Schwarzkopf’s experience as a military dependent and as the United States Central Command Commander epitomized visionary and ethical leadership characteristics.
The NCO Creed states, “I realize that I am a member of a time honored corps, which is known as “The Backbone of the Army” (‘The NCO Creed’). That verse alone should be the most inspiring part that all Noncommissioned Officers should love to hear because it’s true in many aspects. The question to ask is, are we driving it in the right direction. There has never been a time in our history when Soldiers needed competent and strong leaders more than today. The social complications that our young Soldiers face are beyond what any generation before them has had to endure and learn and navigate. The military are looking for leaders who can be role models for these Soldiers. Anyone can tell a soldier what to do, but a good leader can show, direct and motiva...
Regardless of the career you choose in your life, whether it be an accountant or a Soldier in the United States Army, someone, somewhere most likely had an influence to bring you to that decision. The Army defines leadership as the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (JP, p. 1). Now imagine you are a young Private, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq and you have constant leadership changes, and not much support from your direct leadership. I am sure at this point you can imagine, it is not the best scenario to be in. Throughout the duration of this essay you will read about Sergeant First Class Rob Gallagher and Sergeant First Class Jeff Fenlason, their leadership abilities, and the techniques they attempted to use to resolve the issues in this Platoon that was in a downward spiral after losing many leaders to the hell of war.
The first pillar we come across is making sure you’re a person of character. This entails maintaining integrity, demonstrating humility, and serves a high purpose. On page 15 it says, “A Servant Leader makes insightful, ethical, and principal centered decisions.
Self-disciplined people are masters of their impulses. This mastery comes from the habit of doing the right thing. Self-discipline allows Army leaders to do the right thing regardless of the consequences for them or their subordinates. Under the extreme stress of combat, you and your team might be cut off and alone, fearing for your lives, and having to act without guidance or knowledge of what’s going on around you. Still, you—the leader—must think clearly and act reasonably. Self-discipline is the key to this kind of behavior.