Not long ago, a soldier from a certain army unit received corresponding punishment for using mobile phones in violation of regulations. His squad leader was criticized by the authorities. However, what puzzled this squad leader was that the platoon had just organized everyone to sign the "Self inspection Commitment Letter for the Safety of Officer and Soldier's Use of the Internet", in which everyone promised to consciously abide by the regulations on the use of smartphones, scientifically understand the Internet, use the Internet correctly, and use the Internet in accordance with regulations, and firmly adhere to the safety bottom line. In case of any violation, the responsibility will be borne by the individual. "Since the soldiers have signed a commitment letter, why should I be blamed for any problems?" The confusion of the squad leader sparked heated discussions among the officers and soldiers in the department. At present, the safety management responsibility of grassroots troops is heavy and under great pressure, requiring officers and soldiers to sign commitment letters in areas such as safety confidentiality, integrity and self-discipline, and work style and discipline. These commitment letters to a certain extent define work responsibilities, clarify red lines and bottom lines, and constrain behavior. Through the way subordinates issue military orders to superiors and superiors clarify rules to subordinates, they achieve responsibility decomposition and pressure transmission, and play a positive role in educating and warning officers and soldiers. However, it cannot be denied that the practice of individual units signing commitment letters layer by layer does have the suspicion of shirking responsibility. Because, in the eyes of some cadres and cadres, once a soldier signs a commitment letter, it is equivalent to assuming the consequences and responsibilities themselves, and no matter what problems arise afterwards, they have nothing to do with themselves. This is actually a manifestation of irresponsibility, dereliction of duty, and inaction. The logic behind it is: I have assigned tasks, clarified goals, and raised requirements. As for whether it can be implemented, what methods to adopt, and to what extent, it is your responsibility. If nothing happens, hello, hello, everyone; Once something happens, I will ask you. Education management in any field is an organic combination of "self-discipline" and "heteronomy", both of which are indispensable. We cannot unilaterally expect soldiers to sign a commitment letter and everything will be fine. People have laziness, and when self-discipline fails, heteronomy should keep up in a timely manner. Some cadres and key personnel use commitment letters as a shield, voluntarily giving up their own supervision and supervision responsibilities, ignoring problems discovered, and turning a blind eye to emerging signs. Over time, the education and management of the military will lose its leniency, looseness, and softness, creating hidden problems and even touching the red line of party discipline, national laws, and military regulations. In fact, in some grassroots units, in addition to commitment letters flying everywhere, there are also various responsibility letters and guarantee letters, with similar content and form, and almost identical original intentions and purposes. Without exploring whether these have legal effect, from the perspective of educational management alone, it is at most a method and means, and it does not mean that the signatory's "black and white words" can exempt the management from their due diligence. Having a promise does not mean not supervising or taking responsibility. This practice of replacing education supervision with a commitment letter must be resolutely corrected and overcome. Returning to the example mentioned at the beginning of this article, the reason why the squad leader was criticized in the notification was because the unit had delegated the authority to manage the use of smartphones, and it was clear that the custody and retrieval of soldier phones were the responsibility of the squad leader. That is to say, the management responsibility borne by the squad leader should not be transferred based on whether the soldier signs a commitment letter, and he should be strict