Mission-first culture

sir – I read with interest the letter from Sir Julian Brazier (November 7), in which he contrasted the “mission command” approach of the Armed Forces – which empowers subordinates to make decisions based on circumstances, without reference to the chain of command – with that of the emergency services, and called for a rebalancing of health and safety legislation.

Sir Julian’s letter reminded me of a number of experiences which show that encouraging a mission-first culture would benefit the military as much as the emergency services.

I recall a staff officer telling me that if my soldiers did not run, hide and tell in the event of a terrorist incident at a public event, I would be held legally responsible. The reputational damage of a uniformed soldier fleeing past a mother pushing a buggy made no headway in my objection to the order.

Despite remaining confident that my soldiers would ignore such a directive, it was not the only area of concern. Soldiers on guard duty were not certain that the system would have their back should lethal force be required in accordance with government guidance. Courageous restraint, while noble, will not avoid a catastrophic outcome that lethal force, lawfully applied, could prevent. Young soldiers on guard duty are time-poor when having to weigh up their actions.

During the Covid pandemic, the ratio of staff to toddlers in a garrison’s childcare setting could not be maintained due to ill health. Adjusting that ratio could have freed up soldiers, or their key-worker spouses, to help with the national effort. But I shudder to think what would have happened to the officer had he or she shown such initiative and something had gone wrong. Encouraging a culture where the mission comes first is a hard ask in today’s legal environment.

Lt Col Lyndon Robinson (retd) Mursley, Buckinghamshire