
You have to lead men in war by requiring more from the individual
than he thinks he can do. You have to [bring] them along to endure and to
display qualities of fortitude that are beyond the average man’s thought
of what he should be expected to do. You have to inspire them when they
are hungry and exhausted and desperately uncomfortable and in great danger;
and only a man of positive characteristics of leadership, with the physical
stamina [fitness] that goes with it, can function under those conditions.
Army
Leadership Doctrine Homepage - FM 22-5
General of the Army George C. Marshall
Army Chief of Staff, World War II


Personal courage—whether physical, moral,
or a combination of the two—may be manifested in a variety of ways, both
on and off the battlefield. On March 16, 1968 Warrant Officer (WO1) Hugh
C. Thompson, Jr. and his two-man crew were on a reconnaissance mission
over the village of My Lai, Republic of Vietnam. WO1 Thompson watched
in horror as he saw an American soldier shoot an injured Vietnamese child.
Minutes later, when he observed American soldiers advancing on a number
of civilians in a ditch, WO1 Thompson landed his helicopter and questioned
a young officer about what was happening on the ground. Told that the
ground action was none of his business, WO1 Thompson took off and continued
to circle the area.
When it became apparent that the American
soldiers were now firing on civilians, WO1 Thompson landed his helicopter
between the soldiers and a group of 10 villagers who were headed for a
homemade bomb shelter. He ordered his gunner to train his weapon on the
approaching American soldiers and to fire if necessary. Then he personally
coaxed the civilians out of the shelter and airlifted them to safety.
WO1 Thompson’s radio reports of what was happening were instrumental in
bringing about the cease-fire order that saved the lives of more civilians.
His willingness to place himself in physical danger in order to do the
morally right thing is a sterling example of personal courage.


A battalion in a newly activated division
had just spent a great deal of time and effort on weapons qualification.
When the companies reported results, the battalion commander could not
understand why B and C Companies had reported all machine gunners fully
qualified while A Company had not. The A Company Commander said that he
could not report his gunners qualified because they had only fired on
the 10-meter range and the manual for qualification clearly stated that
the gunners had to fire on the transition range as well. The battalion
commander responded that since the transition range was not built yet,
the gunners should be reported as qualified: "They fired
on the only range we have. And besides, that’s how we did it at Fort Braxton."
Some of the A Company NCOs, who had also
been at Fort Braxton, tried to tell their company commander the same thing.
But the captain insisted the A Company gunners were not fully qualified,
and that’s how the report went to the brigade commander.
The brigade commander asked for an explanation
of the qualification scores. After hearing the A Company Commander’s story,
he agreed that the brigade would be doing itself no favors by reporting
partially qualified gunners as fully qualified. The incident also sent
a message to division: get that transition range built.
The A Company Commander’s choice was not
between loyalty to his battalion commander and honesty; doing the right
thing here meant being loyal and honest. And the company commander had
the moral courage to be both honest and loyal—loyal to the Army, loyal
to his unit, and loyal to his soldiers.