Difference Between Combat And Garrison Leadership

The difference between combat and garrison leadership is a hard question to answer, as one may not be familiar with a combat environment. But it could be told as who knows how to be a soldier and who knows how to conduct him/herself as a soldier. A soldier with combat leadership experience would know how to maneuver and maintain others in a tactical environment a lot better than a soldier more versed in garrison leadership. The two leadership environments are very much different from each other and both offer different levels of stress. A garrison environment back at home can be a working in a nice mid-temperate weather in Kentucky versus working in a hot dry dessert in a combat zone in Iraq.
I asked my father on social media, a retired Staff
Sergeant in the U.S. Army, the difference between the two. He told me there shouldn’t be a difference in a combat MOS and took my question and made a post about it on Facebook. A lot of comments made from retired senior non-commissioned officers supported my father’s statement of there being no difference. One comment from one of my father’s friends, Walter Davis, piqued my interest, “Leadership is leadership, there’s no such thing as garrison or combat. What makes you a great leader versus a good leader is to be able to adjust your leadership style for the situation in which your soldiers are operating in.” I believe this statement to be true as normal day to day duties, military bearing, and interactions between soldiers don’t change a whole lot in a garrison or combat environment. Some soldiers who return from a deployment find a hard time transitioning to the garrison environment. I read an article from the NY Times discussing how soldiers adjust coming back from a deployment The article stated that commanders face more challenges disciplining troops who return from deployment, as leadership is tougher in garrison than the combat environment. Keywords: MOS – Military Occupation Specialty

As training soldiers is very important for combat readiness, so is developing the enlisted to become future non-commissioned officers and commissioned officers.
The Army nowadays is focusing and pushing soldiers to be more professional and possess leadership skills.
This where the garrison side of leadership comes into play. Commanders plan out training schedules to maintain the readiness of the unit’s ability to perform in a combat scenario and maintain morale of the organization. At the battalion level, every month there will be a Soldier of the month, NCO of the month and a promotion board. The purpose of the board is to test knowledge on basic soldier skills, army command polices, how to conduct themselves professionally as a soldier, and determine whether or not a soldier is ready to go from enlisted to a NCO and meet organizational standards. I believe garrison leadership is just as important as combat leadership. There will be a time where the U.S. won’t be fully involved in a war. Garrison leadership in the army before 9/11 was a lot different than it is today; leaders made every day tasks a training opportunity to discipline the soldier. Now some senior leaders would consider garrison leadership a lost art as they look at the new generation of NCOs. Command Sergeant Major Roderick Taylor of the 25th Infantry Division Headquarters and Headquarters Battalion wrote on Hawaii Army weekly in 2013 a article on how garrison leadership is a lost art after 10 years. He wrote, “Upon arrival at each assignment. I have carefully assessed the capabilities of these junior leaders, and time after time, I have observed the same
deficiencies: The junior leaders of today don’t have a complete picture of what right looks like.” CSM Roderick wanted to focus on developing these junior NCOs by bringing back the NCO Professional development program. This program allowed them to select topics to learn from each others experience. There were sessions that included lessons on standards and disciplines, and blotter incidences that occurred in the battalion that could be better handled. Reading further into the article, CSM Roderick also talks about re-establishing the Sgt. Audie Murphy club in his unit. The Sgt. Audie Murphy Club is a private organization within the U.S. Army composed of NCOs in only which, a select few and get in. I think CSM Roderick’s decision to bring the S.A.M.C. into his unit is a great one; it motivates junior NCOs to go above their peers and be recognized for their efforts. Professional development is a big part of garrison leadership in this modern age, where soldiers are now looked for their excellence in both military and civilian education rather than their hard work and natural aptitude of taking leadership positions. The Army has multiple of Professional Development Courses that help prepare the soldier such as: Warriors Leader Course, Advance Leader Course, Senior Leader Course, and Sergeant Major Academy. Looking back at the differences of combat leadership and garrison leadership.

Keywords: NCO – Non Commissioned Officer, CSM – Command Sergeant Major, S.A.M.C. – Sergeant Audie Murphy Club, Sgt – Sergeant, WLC – Warriors Leader Course, ALC – Advanced Leader Course, SLC – Seniors Leader Course,
SMA- Sergeant Major Academy

I believe there’s not much of a difference between the two other than the environments the soldiers are in. The mission of the army is still the same, military bearing and other customs and courtesies do not change regardless if in the combat zone or not. Commanders must still make training schedules, keep morale up, and ensure that sections are doing maintenance on their vehicles. A leader must be able to lead both in combat and in garrison, not be proficient in one and not the other. What would be the point of being able to go on a combat patrol somewhere in Afghanistan if a leader couldn’t help a soldier who was going through internal problems and that makes him non mission capable?