Battle Of Mogadishu Summary

L201 sets the scene for the L200 block of instruction. Throughout L200, you will integrate your organizational-level leadership perspective from a commander’s point of view. The Army confidently declares “commanders are responsible for all their unit does or fails to do.” What does this really mean and what are the implications? You will examine three areas of command in this lesson: 1) develop an understanding of the mental shift required of a leader that is assuming command of an organization; 2) review the commander’s assessment methodology and if that methodology changes when a leader becomes a commander; and 3) examine how the philosophy of mission command supports the central role of the commander and assists them in taking command.

Operational leaders down to the platoon level have and will face complex missions in uncertain operational environments. Accordingly, Army doctrine shifted to recognize mission command, which enables leaders at the lowest level to exercise disciplined initiative in the accomplishment of a larger mission. General George S. Patton Jr. stated, “never tell people how to do things, tell them what to do and they will surprise you with their ingenuity.” In the simplistic sense, mission command has been around for a significant while. It was not until the dawn of larger armies and lethal weapons that the practice of mission command was displayed. As a result of larger armies, commanders could not properly command and control their entire army; therefore,

Operation HUSKY was a dismal display of mission command and integration at the operational level. GEN Eisenhower’s unwillingness to get involved in the planning and execution led to a lack of understanding and mistrust among subordinate leaders ultimately allowing German forces to evacuate to Italy. This essay will evaluate mission command by examining first Eisenhower’s leadership, or lack thereof, and the resultant lack of involvement by his ground commander, GEN Alexander. Resultantly, the two subordinate commanders, Patton and Montgomery, developed their own uncoordinated maneuvers. The essay will apply the joint attributes of commander’s intent, mutual trust and understanding as evaluation criteria to analyze the impacts of poor mission

Officers spend approximately seventy percent of their careers in either school or serving as a staff member exercising the science of control. With that, a mental shift is required when the officer assumes command; for most, this transition only occurs two or three times during the span of a career. The commander must now rely on his experience and judgment for he is solely responsible for the success or failure of the organization. Therefore, of immediate importance is assessing the current state of the unit, as the art of command is inherently a human endeavor with the commander as the central figure that not only guides the organization but also empowers subordinate leaders through employing the principles of mission command.

Throughout history, commanders and leaders at all echelons in armies across the globe have been required to make many decisions that affect operations both at home and abroad. These decisions were based on many different facts and assumptions available to the commander and his staff and then synthesized to produce orders for the various missions that were conducted across a myriad of operational environments. In today’s Army, commanders utilize the philosophy of mission command, which became prominent in the 1980’s. They do this through the integration of the warfighting functions when conducting unified land operations (ADRP 6-0, 2012). The purpose of this paper is to explain what mission command is and

Operational leaders down to the platoon and squad level have recently faced increasingly complex missions in uncertain operational environments. Accordingly, Army doctrine has shifted to officially recognize mission command, which enables leaders at the lowest level feasiblt to “exercise disciplined initiative” in the accomplishment of a larger mission (ADP 6-), 2012, p. 2). Mission command is broken down into six tenants: undertand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess (Mission Command 2011, 3-5). During the battle of Fallujah, LtGen Natonski understood the intent two levels up, visualizing courses of actions for both allies and the enemy and leading his organization into combat while directing his officers and soldiers to meet

Mission Command is established upon the basis of a high degree of trust placed in the subordinate commander. The higher echelon commander must embrace the junior officers within his command, through mentorship, development, and increased mutual understanding of each other’s expectations and requirements. These simple necessities for Mission Command can often be overlooked due to the fast paced optempo, the lack of interpersonal communications,

Mission command is a critical part of leadership. Commanders drive the operations process and are the most important participants. Analyzing a commander’s effectiveness in the six principles of the operations process will help to assess how effective a commander is at using mission command properly and how it affects the outcome of the battle. This paper will analyze Chief of Staff von Moltke’s ineffectiveness in the principles of operations during the First Battle of the Marne.

Mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations[footnoteRef:1]. The commander is the central figure of exercising mission command; he must be able to blend the science of control with the art of command as to integrate the warfighting functions in order to accomplish the mission. During the exercise of mission command, the commander understands the problem, predicts the end-state, visualizes the nature and design of the operation, describes time, space, resources and purpose, directs the warfighting functions and constantly assesses the process. He must clearly understand the Higher Command’s intent and clearly transmit his orders to his subordinates. His subordinates pay essential role as mission command system begins with people. Commanders base their mission command system on human characteristics more than on equipment and procedures. Trained personnel are essential to an effective mission command system[footnoteRef:2]. [1: ADP-5.0, The operation process, Headquarters, Department of the Army , Washington,

A leader may be involuntary made at times to stray from the set plan and make a quick decision, while maintaining commander's intent. This is where your creativity will prove to be vital. Throughout these critical times your Marines will look to you for guidance and you may be forced to make a decision. As a leader, it is vital to learn to think outside the box and to choose the best “plan of attack”. Do not instantly choose the earliest or easiest possibility; sometimes it's best to give these matters some time, thought, or even a chance to turn to your Marines for assistance. When you develop your plan you must to be able to communicate to your Marines because if they do not understand the mission how will it get

During combat operations, success can take on many definitions. Seizing the objective, destroying the enemy or defending the hill are all examples of military operations that are assigned a task and purpose that must be completed. Within each task could lay hidden problems that must be identified and mitigated to facilitate mission accomplishment. Should a problem be misinterpreted or ignored, mission failure coupled with unwarranted friendly casualties will be the inevitable outcome.

2. General. FM 6-0 states, "Mission command doctrine provides flexible principles to enable an operationally adaptive force. In the exercise of mission command, commanders, assisted by staffs, blend the art of command with the science of control to overcome the challenges of complex and uncertain operational environments." In order to define roles and responsibilities while reducing

Throughout history commanders and leaders at all echelons in armies across the globe have been required to make many decisions that affect operations both at home and abroad. These decisions were based on many different facts and assumptions available to the commander and his staff and then synthesized to produce orders for the various missions that were conducted across a myriad of operational environments. In today’s Army, commanders utilize the philosophy of mission command, which became prominent in the 1980’s. They do this through integration of the warfighting functions when conducting unified land operations (ADRP 6-0). The purpose of this paper is to explain mission command and how to integrate and apply this philosophy

Philosophy of mission command is in its five inter-related principles: unity of effort, freedom of action, trust, mutual understanding and timely decision-making. Unity of effort is achieved if every unit has the same understanding of the overall plan and their individual roles in it. To this end, understanding of commander’s intent is of an utmost importance. If the situation changes subordinates will have freedom of action. They will be able to adjust to the new situation while acting within the commander’s intent. Trust between superior and subordinates is essential to encourage the initiative, but it cannot be enforced. It must be built, and that takes time. Mutual understanding is the product of a common doctrine, where everybody has the same understanding of terminology that is used on a regular basis – in orders, reporting etc. Timely decision making simply means getting inside enemy’s OODA

I liked your analysis that mission command is employed when a commander is faced with the necessity of operating beyond the means of his traditional control measures. This unfortunate truth is exemplified by the increasingly stringent requirements that commanders place upon their subordinate commanders to provide real-time reporting and authorities while conducting operations.