Mission Command: General George S. Patton Jr.

Six principles comprise the philosophy of mission command: (a) build cohesive teams through mutual trust; (b) create share understanding; (c) provide clear commander’s intent; (d) exercise disciplined initiative; (e) use mission orders; and (f) accept prudent risk. When combined together, these six principles assist the commander in balancing the aforementioned art of command and science of control. To understand how General Robert E. Lee’s performance at Gettysburg lacked the marks of a great mission commander necessitates a deeper understanding of the individual principles of mission command.

General Patton did an outstanding job demonstrating the four of the six steps of Mission Command during the Battle of the Bulge. The forces that General Patton led were subjected to a stern leadership and instilled tighter discipline than any other American field forces in World War II. General Patton lived by a few principles daily and one of those include a quote he made of his own “say what you mean, and mean what you say.” An example of his quote he enforced in his soldiers that he made sure that regulations concerning uniforms were rigidly enforced, and on many occasions he imposed fines or other punishments when he found his men on front lines violating the rules he

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 feasible to “exercise disciplined initiative” in the accomplishment of a larger mission. The operational process consists of six tenants: understand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess. During the battle of Fallujah, LtGen Natonski understood the intent two levels up, visualizing courses of action for both allies and the enemy, and leading his organization into combat while directing his officers and soldiers to meet his intent. He visualized that Marines alone could not accomplish the mission. He understood that without the support of Iraqi police and a task force from the Army with

Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0 defines mission command as “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” (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 1). The six principles of mission command direct leaders to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. These principles enable subordinates that

Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0 defines mission command as “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” (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 1). The six principles of mission command direct leaders to build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk. These principles enable subordinates that understand their commander’s intent to accomplish missions by adapting to the situation and taking advantage of opportunities as they arise (U.S Army, Training and Doctrine Command, Combined Arms Center, Center for the Army Profession and Ethic, 2015, p. 2). Various battles throughout history provide examples of the application of the principles of mission command as well as the failure to adhere to them. The Battle of the Little Bighorn is an example of the latter and marks the “most decisive Native American victory and the worse U.S. defeat during the long Plains Indian War” (History.com Staff, 2009).

Operations Desert Shield/Storm took place during the Gulf War, which was a conflict between Iraq and a coalition force of more than 30 nations mandated by the United Nations, led by the United States commanded by General Norman Schwarzkopf, who conducted one of the greatest military campaigns of all times that resulted with the coalition victory. The name Operation Desert Shield was for the operation leading to the built up of troops and defense of Saudi Arabia and Operation Desert Storm for the combat phase to liberate Kuwait. This war included more than 500.000 United States troops, dominated by technological superiority that definitely favored the coalition forces. The use of missiles, guided bombs and invisible plane made easy to destroy Iraqi ground targets, being so the first war in history to use the air power to defeat ground forces. The commander of this operation General Schwarzkopf was a consolidated leader with great experience in war and diplomacy, who had extend knowledge of the Middle East since the childhood. General Schwarzkopf ability to use the principles of mission command led the coalition into the desired end state, which was the defense of Saudi Arabia and liberation of Kuwait. General Norman Schwarzkopf successfully utilized mission command principles within Operation Desert Storm/Shield by creating a shared understanding, building cohesive teams through mutual trust, provide a clear commander’s intent, and accept a prudent risk, which played a

Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as 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” (ADP, 1).

According to Army ADP 6-0, 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 (CAPE, 2012). Effective mission command can generally be analyzed according to the six principles outlined in ADRP 6-0. The six principles of mission command are to: build cohesive teams through mutual trust, create shared understanding, provide a clear commander’s intent, exercise disciplined initiative, use mission orders, and accept prudent risk (CAPE, 2012). This paper provides a brief overview of the

Transitioning to command from any other leadership challenge in the military requires that an officer experiences a mental shift in his/her approach to exercising the newly granted authority, responsibility and accountability for the unit. Army doctrine suggests that authority, responsibility, and accountability are inherent attributes of command. These attributes of command coupled with the expectations of the commander, demand a new and holistic approach to commandership, which is defined as exercising the art of command through leadership, management, and command.

What might have been the setback we previously faced in making decisive, clear or sound effective decisions? Was it a defect in how Commanders and Leaders led units or troops, or perhaps the philosophy in which we chose to command and control every aspect of the battlefield? What does it mean to recognize or comprehend the art of Command and the science of Control? The six principles of mission command are key in developing a cohesive team that will support all aspects of the mission. Asking “why” is now encouraged when it pertains to certain situations or missions. Understanding the purpose of why a course of action or desired outcome is necessary, leads to mission success and a cohesive unit with thinking leaders. Thinking clearly usually isn’t an issue for most leaders, but position an individual in a situation of extreme stress or complexity, then there might be a reason to be concerned. Through

Mission Command: The unity of command principle favored Colonial forces and their allies. General Washington refined his command climate through years of troubled multinational operations. He painfully understood the importance of synergy towards an end state. General Washington’s clear communication of intent and subordinate leader empowerment contrasted his adversaries. General Clinton’s combative command climate with Lord Cornwallis exacerbated their demise. Clear intent allowed the Colonial coalition to seize a fleeting opportunity at Yorktown.

Commanders at all levels face increasingly challenging scenarios as the operational environment changes. Some instinctively motivate and empower their subordinates to think and act independently, thereby influencing actions during combat. However, those who understand the commanders' activities of mission command will influence not only subordinates, but the outcome of the battle as well. 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.1 Commanders who understood the importance of mission command was Major General Horatio Gates. General Gates at the Battle of Saratoga successfully

The United States military is becoming more diverse. This includes its own ranks. Not only is there joint operations within the U.S. military’s own units and branches, but now it is a globalized world. The military must learn to work with other foreign forces and other government agencies. With this leaders must be able to work with all these entities. One way to do this is the use of Mission Command.

continue to achieve their missions. Patton had a history and background, one of a life of luxury from his childhood to seeing himself ascend a praetorian step to become a grandiose commander. The vision of command and leadership seen from Patton is one where the commander is a role model for the subordinates to see and follow. This resulted from the military history and the background General Patton had.

Commander’s intent, the second key component of Mission Command, provides subordinate commanders and units with a “clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired military end state.” Leaders who understand the commander’s intent can use that information to fill in any gaps in information as those commanders move their units on the battlefield. In doing so, commanders can achieve battlefield synergy when faced with poor communications from higher.