Content provided in partnership with
Government Industry
Surrendering the initiative? C2 on the digitized battlefield
Military Review, Sept-Oct, 2003 by Jim Dunivan
Despite Patton's reputation as being eccentric and arrogant, he deeply respected his subordinates' creative, intuitive powers. He also recognized that some judgmental error is inherent in decisive combat action, and above all, he disdained inaction and indecisiveness. He acknowledged that the exercise of initiative at all levels offered the best chance for victory. (29)
- Most Popular Articles in News
- The Ten Best Laptop bags
- Tata plans cheapest-ever car for Indian market
- GLOBALIZATION AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF UNDERDEVELOPMENT OF THE THIRD WORLD
- Corn is good for you; Corn is not only a tasty treat, but also a cereal that ...
- THE 50 BEST STYLISH HANDBAGS TO CARRY
- More »
Mission tactics have existed to a degree within the U.S. military since 1775. By the American Civil War, several trends in warfighting were emerging. Battles had become longer and did not conclude in one day. Commanders could not fully see the entire battlefield. These conditions led commanders to employ C2 techniques similar to mission command. (30) Through the years, mission command has been the American method. The exception was Vietnam, with its flying command posts. But, even then the man on the scene usually took action and made the call. In the article "Maneuver Warfare Reconsidered," Bolger bluntly states, "Put a lieutenant in the jungle with a radio and he'll ask forgiveness, not permission. Try to micromanage him and he'll find the off-switch." (31)
Despite frequent use, directive control was not formally established as U.S. Army doctrine until after Vietnam. Despite the Army's own brand of mission tactics, German maneuver warfare doctrine of World War II played a central role in the development and publication of U.S. Army AirLand Battle operational doctrine during the 1970s and 1980s. (32) Many classical German ideas and methods of truppenfuhrung found their way into the 1984, 1986, and 1993 versions of Field Manual (FM) 100-5, Operations, particularly the concepts of commander's intent, initiative, independently thinking leaders, and mission orders. (33)
Currently, the ideas and language of directive control saturate U.S. Army doctrine. Field Manual 6-0, Command and Control, contributes the largest amount to this body of doctrine by explaining mission command and directive control and advancing them as the preferred and most advantageous methods to successfully command and control military operations. (34) Referencing auftragstaktik in a historical sidebar, FM 6-0 defines mission command by the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based on mission orders. The manual states, "Successful mission command results from subordinate leaders at all echelons exercising disciplined initiative within the commander's intent to accomplish missions." (35) The manual emphasizes timely decisionmaking in accordance with the higher commander's intent and subordinates' clear responsibility to fulfill that intent through initiative. (36)
The doctrine of directive control appears in other foundational sources of Army doctrine, such as the following:
"Initiative requires delegating decisionmaking authority to the lowest practical level. Commanders give subordinates the greatest possible freedom to act. They encourage aggressive action within the commander's intent by issuing mission-type orders that assign tasks to subordinates without specifying how to accomplish them." (37)
