I think there is something extraordinary to be said for the common soldier - the grunt, the man or woman who through calcification develops attributes that, before training, were not fully awakened - or even called for: they must be killers, they must be able to withstand privation, they must be able to communicate and execute orders concisely and accurately, keep a cool head, and operate with some autonomy.

None of this is original; we have long known what makes a good grunt. However, the importance of the grunt is sometimes understated. As Napoleon, perhaps the greatest leader ever, said: “Soldiers generally win battles; generals get credit for them.”

I believe that this is as true a statement as any: a good, flexible grunt in the immediately right place at the right time doing the right thing is worth more than the machinations of any military strategist.

Every damn time.

As it turns out, mission type orders, which are the fundamental base for decentralized command, are generally the most effective. They are basically of the form: “figure out how to do this and then get it done.” For more details on this check out this podcast from Jocko Willink.

This is partially because the grunt often has knowledge that the strategist doesn’t; there is necessarily a discrepancy in time between when the strategist is informed of what is actually going on and when the grunt is faced with a potential dilemma. The grunt, given a degree of flexibility in their orders and mindset, can adapt much more quickly to address a dilemma than the strategist can, and if the grunt is an ideal grunt, they should have a decent chance of making a timely decision.

Of course, if you have a radio or telaesthesia or something and can contact your leader immediately, that would be ideal, and the grunt could be both in the immediately right place at the right time and be fulfilling explicit orders.

I differentiate between being in the immediately right place at the right time doing the right thing and fulfilling explicit orders. I find this is useful because these two things are very much different yet advantageous to winning. What the immediately right thing to do is probably easy for the grunt to discern, whereas the full extent to which one fits into a potentially intricate, changing stratagem is not so easy.

I think the important thing is to maximize the intersection of these two conditions (being in the immediately right place at the right time doing the right thing and fulfilling explicit orders), and this cannot be done without good grunts.

You might say: but Toothy, being in the immediately right place at the right time doing the right thing is fulfilling explicit orders. This is not quite true; relative to a stratagem fulfilling explicit orders might be being in the right place at the right time doing the right thing, but in a more general sense the immediately right conditions may involve emerging variables, or a developing situation not considered by a stratagem - and no stratagem can address every contingency. So, the Super Grunt conditions - being in the immediately right place at the right time doing the right thing - are more adaptive than any plan set forth by anybody ever.

This is of course set forth by someone with no real training, so take it with a large heaping of salt.

edit: changed "good" to "ideal"