Platoon Sergeant

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.

SFC Gallagher was the original Platoon Sergeant of 1st Platoon, Bravo Company, 1-502nd Infantry Regiment.

Prior to the deployment he was removed from that position to serve on the MiTT. However, a few months into the deployment, in December 2005, SFC Gallagher was re-assigned as the Platoon Sergeant in order to fix the problems circulating throughout 1st Platoon. Many of his critics described SFC Gallagher as being too critical and dismissive of his own men (Frederick, 2010, p. 175). Upon his arrival back to the Platoon, the overall census seemed to be that the Soldiers were not too happy about his return. Throughout his time serving as the Platoon Sergeant, which was only a little over a month, I believe SFC Gallagher displayed certain attributes that a positive leader should have. SFC Gallagher, unlike his future replacement, SFC Fenlason, was always leading from the front according to the members of 1st Platoon (Frederick, 2010, p.

185).
While SFC Gallagher was known to be hard towards his Soldiers, he led them on patrols whether it be conducting IED sweeps with his Soldiers, or pulling security at the TCPs. From my perspective of SFC Gallagher, I saw someone who was thrown into a bad situation, and tried to fix it quickly, some may have thought he was not succeeding, but I feel given more time he would have been successful on his mission. I believe one of SFC Gallagher’s stronger traits was his ability to say what he believed was the correct way to do something, and not just back down when higher leadership would say no. Two examples that made me think SFC Gallagher was the correct leader for the job was when he stated how unsafe the Alamo was and continuously expressed his concerns to cover that area in a different manner. The second example would be when Sergeant Major Edwards came down to the JSB and chewed into SFC Gallagher for allowing his Soldiers recovery time. SFC Gallagher then proceeded to clean the area himself to allow his Soldiers more time to recover (Frederick, 2010, p. 192).
In my opinion I believe SFC Gallagher should have remained the Platoon Sergeant of 1st Platoon. He led his Soldiers and he was an engaged leader who instilled discipline and showed empathy in a non-traditional way, he kept them on their toes, and alert because they never knew when he would be at their TCPs. If I was to be in his position I believe the only thing I would have done differently is to try to have a more working relationship with the Platoon Leader. I would have explained to him why I was being hard on the Soldiers of the platoon, and explain my reasoning. I believe if he had a better relationship there that it could have led to the platoon having more success. However, that was not the situation, and I believe him not being more of a “yes man”, led to his removal from that position more than any of the other incidents.
Due to a mission where SFC Gallagher was unable to navigate the route properly, CPT Goodwin, Bravo Company’s Commander, had finally lost faith in him as the Platoon Sergeant of 1st Platoon. He stated he had wanted a new Platoon Sergeant, and with Sergeant Major Edwards already disliking SFC Gallagher due to a conflicting argument earlier, it opened the position for SFC Fenlason.
SFC Fenlason was viewed highly from his senior leaders due to the job he did in 2004 to 2005 as First Sergeant of Echo Company, as well as being Ranger qualified and being a former Drill Sergeant (Frederick, 2010, p. 197). They believed with his prior duty positions he would be able to instill the discipline back into 1st Platoon. Upon his arrival he was also not well liked by the Platoon due to his lack of combat experience. Under SFC Fenlason’s time as Platoon Sergeant 1st Platoon would go through some of their most difficult moments of the deployment.
SFC Fenlason, unlike SFC Gallagher, would rarely ever leave TCP 1 and check on the actions of his Soldiers. Due to this it allowed the Soldiers of 1st Platoon to become even more undisciplined. They understood that they would not be checked on and that they could do as they pleased. The first example of how out of control the members of 1st Platoon had become was when SPC Cortez, the Soldier who was a soon to be Sergeant and in charge of TCP2, got intoxicated with his team and went to a local house to beat up some local Iraqis. A failure on this instance was also by SGT Yribe not reporting it higher. (Frederick, 2010, p. 256). The next incident that fell under SFC Fenlason was the Janabis. A horrific murder and rape of a young woman and her family conducted by the same members of TCP2 under the leadership of SPC Cortez and PVT Green (Frederick, 2010, p.265-268).
While it is impossible to say this incident would not have happened at all under the leadership of SFC Gallagher, I believe the chances would have been much less due to his constant leader checks throughout the TCPs. Finally the last major incident that occurred under the leadership of SFC Fenlason was the incident on the Alamo, which resulted in the death of three Soldiers, two which were captured and most likely brutally murdered. As stated previously, the Alamo, was a concern of SFC Gallagher and he fought to have that position manned by more personnel or covered differently. While it ultimately was the decision of higher leadership, after SFC Gallagher was removed from the Platoon Sergeant position, there is no reference of whether SFC Fenlason attempted to resolve the Alamo security concerns.
If I was SFC Fenlason, I think I would have done some things differently. One thing I would have done the same is the attempt of winning hearts and minds of Mullah Fayyad; however, I would have made an attempt to coordinate with the other platoons rather than going behind their backs. I believe he was a knowledge-able leader, he had lots of experience he could have shared with his young Soldiers from his time in Ranger school and as a Drill Sergeant, which it never mentions him doing. Most importantly, if your Soldiers are going through hell, in my opinion I believe you should be there with them fighting back. The fact SFC Fenlason remained at TCP1 made me think of him as a negative leader. We are responsible for the health and welfare of our Soldiers, and at no point did it seem to me that was a high priority for SFC Fenlason.
In conclusion, out of these two senior Non-Commissioned Officers I believe SFC Gallagher would have been a better leader, at least for this deployment. I stated why I believe he was a good leader above, and I have listed events that occurred during SFC Fenlason’s time as the Platoon Sergeant as well. As a leader you cannot stop every action a Soldier is going to make, it is just an impossible task. However, by being involved, not necessarily micro-managing the daily tasks, it keeps your Soldiers more alert and more discipline. From my experience in the Army so far, I have been in Platoons where the leadership has to have a more direct approach, such as SFC Gallagher. Sometimes a Soldier needs a boot in their rear end to keep them walking a straight line. I believe this was the type of platoon 1st Platoon was, and I believe by losing SFC Gallagher it created more challenges for the remainder of their deployment.