,
7 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
I've noticed more and more people hating on the concept of mission command around the Army. Which either means 1) we're not executing it to its fullest potential 2) some people just want to be directed to perform every single task and not have to think or take risks
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that option 1 is the norm, as I see it everywhere. You can't hand wave mission command, just like you can't hand wave sustainment -- even though we see it done constantly. All units need a shared understanding for the concept to even work.
Higher and lower need to have a common operating picture and clear commander's guidance. Too often, one of those is missing. Then when the unit executes disciplined initiative to exploit an enemy weakness, higher gets caught off balance as well & then gets pissed at the unit
But units take "disciplined initiative" to mean "disappear into the woods, go radio silent, and do whatever the hell we want." So it cuts both ways. Both higher and the unit need to understand their roles and responsibilities when it comes to executing mission command.
Or, you know, we can just go with option 2, and return to the pre-WWI US Army of literally waiting for an order to actually do something. Hell, there was plenty of that in the WWI and WWII armies - especially because they weren't professional armies, they were volunteers/draftees
When one looks at missed opportunities to win battles in the past, many of those were caused by lack of a common operating picture, no shared understanding (or mistaken understanding), or breakdown of synchronization. Mission command isn't perfect, but it's trying to address that
Yeah, I didn't think I was going to start my day with a discussion of mission command either, but that's Twitter for you
Also:
Also:
