“It is unfortunate, but the truth is that almost every set back the NA has had in our operations in recent times can be traced in to insufficient willingness to perform assigned tasks: Or simply insufficient commitment to a common national/military course by those at the frontlines”- Lt Gen Yusuf Buratai, COAS, This Day, June 19, 2019.
Before delving into the main thrust of this article, let me start by acknowledging our soldiers for the courage and devotion displayed so far in combating the war on terror. Anywhere in the world, there are good and bad soldiers. One would expect the good soldiers to be more than the bad ones. The bad apple theory readily comes to mind when one considers many voices raised concerning the commitment and loyalty of our soldiers to the counterinsurgency operations in the north-east of Nigeria.
The bad apple theory emphasise that the corrupt practices in security organisations namely the police force, army, navy, air force and other agencies is due to some “bad apples” that are found in a clean barrel. Simply put, corruption or incompetence is brought about by a few bad elements that are working in a presumably, clean and ethical security system. The fact is that the system comprising the good and bad security personnel is not as clean and ethical, as one would have expected.
As expected, there have been many voices of varying amplitude from Nigerians regarding the security situation in the country. The reason is not far-fetched. It is because there can be no meaningful development in an environment that is insecure.
The quote above reminds me of the book “On the Psychology of Military Incompetence”, in which the author Norman F. Dixon, a retired lieutenant colonel of the British Army, admitted that the costly mishaps and tragic blunders that occurred in a century of wars he examined were due largely to military incompetence.
Dixon’s unique and penetrating book x-rays 100 years of military inefficiency from the Crimean War, through the Boer conflict to the disastrous campaigns of the First World War and calamities of the Second. The book brought out an interesting perspective about military leadership, military organisations and who they potentially attract for leadership responsibility.
But Dixon was by no means the Chief of the General Staff of the British Army. He wrote the book based on his experience as a field officer during the Crimean War. Dixon’s published work applies insights from psychology to military history. From the spate of killings of our soldiers and civilians by insurgents recently, anyone with intellectual interest in the Nigerian-styled insurgency would have tried to figure out what could be responsible for the negative remarks from a service chief to his officers and men.
Every military leader is eminently entitled to his opinion on the performance of his officers and men. The opinion, however, must inspire those who are faithful, loyal and honest in the performance of their responsibilities. One keeps wondering what would have provoked Gen Buratai to say before the press that his troops are insufficiently committed to a common national/military course. The disparaging remarks from the head of an army on his troops during internal security operations have far-reaching implications. I know that there is a huge difference between interest and commitment. When one is interested in doing something, it is done as convenient. The moment one is committed to doing something; there are no excuses, only results. Those with leadership qualities commit and follow through.
That is why I have always drawn inspiration from the Harvard Business Review publication on leadership. Somewhere in the book, it is cleverly stated that: “A peacetime army can usually survive with good administration and management up and down the hierarchy, coupled with good leadership concentrated at the top. A wartime army, however, needs competent leadership at all levels. No one yet has figured out how to manage people effectively into battle; they must be led.”
Every soldier in the battlefield must have leadership qualities. Leaders take responsibility and they are the ones who “deliver the goods.” When one examines our polity, what is common in recent time is that our so-called leaders do not always take responsibility for anything in the wrong. What some of our leaders do on many occasions in defence of their errors is to set blame game machinery in motion. Benjamin Franklin says that “I never knew a man that was good at making excuses who was good at anything else.”
One vital point about team work is that you always have your colleagues on your side. It is pulling together all your resources-men and material, not pulling apart. Yes, there could be many voices. But they must have one heart. This does not happen until there is an environment that has a clean and ethical security system; an environment of encouragement and support.
Some civilians perceive from remote that our soldiers who are involved in fighting insurgents work as a team. If our soldiers were not working as a team, the entire northern part of Nigeria could have been taken over by insurgents. Nigerians know that our soldiers are not equal in experience, talent, or education but in commitment. The commitment of our soldiers must start with their leaders and radiate to the entire team. If you are a leader, the true measure of your success is not getting people to work, neither is it by getting them to work hard. It is by getting people to work hard together, and this to my mind takes commitment.
Read also: United Nation’s stress test for Nigeria – Security dominance of one ethnic group
One vital point about team work is that you always have your colleagues on your side. It is pulling together all your resources-men and material, not pulling apart. Yes, there could be many voices. But they must have one heart. This does not happen until there is an environment that has a clean and ethical security system; an environment of encouragement and support. So leaders need to take responsibility for working to create that ideal environment in order to reduce significantly “bad apples” in the organisations they lead.
Team work of the military in particular, is never tested in peace time. It is tested when adversity hits. When there is danger, the military is faced with reality of the battle space.
Many years of insurgency has revealed where our military is strong and where their weakness lies. Most organisations do not talk about their weakness. But the reality is that losses of soldiers and civilians can be learning experience if the attitudes of our leaders are right. Our Creator allows us to experience the low points of life in order to teach us lessons we could not learn in any other way. Irrespective of our views on insurgency within the country, let us have one heart, full of appreciation and praise. Thank you!
