Content area
Full text
There is an inherent conundrum in the Army's thinking about Mission Command. This stems primarily from the tension between command and the means to exercise command or clearer control. Command within the rubric of Mission Command, according to Army Doctrine Reference Publication 6-0 Mission Command, May 2012, is a matter of issuing "mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander's intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations." Mission Command's philosophies of command and Battle Command, however, have stimulated the development of groupthink within units that imagine they are operating in accordance with Mission Command. The chief symptom of this tendency may be described as a "cult of command" in which the role of commanders has overshadowed the supporting staff. Staffs operating within the construct of Mission Command are defined as part of the control mechanism. This distinction between command and control is important but in some ways unhelpful: The two functions are inseparable.
Control facilitates - and is vital to enabling - command. Effective control systems may enable commanders to exercise command when the means to control is denied or constrained by the enemy. For example, jamming and other interference with communications may be mitigated by effective staff control measures. Staffs develop the means of control by coordinating instructions and developing concepts to achieve the commander's vision. Conversely, control stems from the direct efforts of the commander. For example, Alexander the Great often designated the main effort by his own appearance in plumage as brilliant as that of a peacock and accompanied by his cavalry. No one on either side could miss him and the effect of his presence. The means to execute command and exercise control in Alexander's day often required the commander literally to lead from the front. The same is less true today, but often commanders need to be seen at the front to communicate their intentions personally. Command and control are no less intertwined now than in Alexander's time.
The U.S. Army operates in ways that reflect both American culture and American experiences in war. Consequently, American soldiers and their commanders are self-reliant: They demand answers and have the courage to act on their own, even in the face of ambiguity. All these...