Mission Command : The Unity Of Command Principle Favored Colonial Forces And Their Allies

Mission Command is the framework used by the U.S. Army to ensure key leaders receive clear direction from commanders. Clear commander’s guidance allows subordinates to make disciplined and informed decisions to best accomplish assigned tasks. Ideally, application of mission command principles ensures all elements integrate and sync actions, thus creating a shared understanding and purpose. Analysis of Major General (MG) William Garrison’s decision making during the Battle of Mogadishu demonstrates how mission command principles must be applied to gain and maintain a position of advantage during military ground operations. As commander of Task Force Ranger (TFR), MG Garrison demonstrated both successful and failed application of mission command principles. Four principles will be discussed in the

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.

Washington's reevaluation of the situation after the failure in New York was the strategy he should have adopted from the start of the war. His knowledge of war fighting was learned by direct observation and experience. In this, he realized to win he must more that all else, preserve the integrity of the Continental Army. "Washington concluded that if the army could be kept alive, the Revolutionary cause would remain alive." (Weigley, p. 12) In gaining this insight, Washington set about on a new course to victory in that the "Art of War" is demonstrated.

The battle at Yorktown, Virginia in 1781 is most famously known as the “ battle that ended the Revolutionary War.” While this is true, there is still much that can be learned from the principles applied, that still has relevance today. General George Washington, along with his allied French commanders, Lieutenant General Jean-Baptiste Ponton de Rochambeau and Rear Admiral Sir Thomas Graves, they exquisitely displayed how a execute siege operations. This battle also displayed a great example of how multinational operations can be successful.

The Continental Army’s choice of George Washington as their leader of the continental army was critical in ensuring the United States’ victory. While many in the colonies wanted freedom from Britain that was not the case for everyone. Individuals’ motives were largely location dependant. The Battle of Saratoga proved to be pivotal in ensuring the United States’ victory against British forces.

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

The key to the rebel defenses was West Point. Benedict pleaded for a promotion. His faithful friend was none other than the commander in chief, George Washington. Washington was more than happy to give Arnold the entire left flank of the Army. Benedict had an excuse for not taking the suggested job. Instead Arnold insisted on nothing less than West Point. Washington was eager to trustingly give Arnold the

Mission command philosophy, as defined by United States Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-0, plays a critical role in the effective leadership of Soldiers and the accomplishment of the mission. While not always referred to as “mission command,” the principles of mission command remain unchanged despite the passage of time. For example, these principles held true over two hundred years ago during the Battle of Tippecanoe. This battle, between forces of the United States (US) and Native Americans, illustrates how employment of mission command principles can influence the outcome of a conflict. Specifically, President William Henry Harrison, the governor of Indiana Territory at the time,

General Clinton also failed to address the continual harassment of his rear guard by the Continental Army. General Clinton had a pre-conceived notion of his battlespace, instead of adjusting his tactics and developing sound courses of action, he acted upon outdated intelligence and his initial impressions of the battlespace. Clinton failed to consult with his staff and use sound analytical reasoning. Clinton assumed Washington would only attack once General Gates’ forces arrived in full (Frey, 1981). If Clinton would have used a sound analytical process he would have seen General Gates’ movements for the Military Deception Operation that it was. This deception worked and Clinton committed much of his force, led by General Cornwallis, to

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

Maj. Gen. “Fighting Joe” Hooker demonstrated an excellent example of failed mission command during the Battle of Chancellorsville in April 1863. He had thought he would defeat General Robert E. Lee’s Army of Northern Virginia by maneuver beginning in Chancellorsville as he pushed Lee toward Richmond. His commitment toward his own plan for Lee’s response would overshadow his operational planning and ultimately lead to a mission command failure at Chancellorsville despite outnumbering Lee’s troops 128,000 to 60,000. Through decentralized execution, Hooker could have empowered agile and adaptive leadership to operate under uncertainty, exploit opportunities, and achieve unity of effort. Instead, he failed in exercising at least four principles of mission command. He did not provide a clear commander’s intent, create shared understanding, exercise disciplined initiative, or accept prudent risk.

Knowledge is key to everything; whatever you’re doing, whether it is planning your daily life or understanding your adversaries you need information. Therefore, the mind is filled with uncertainty without information, with uncertainty come gaps within the information. Although educated guesses are used to fill in gaps, it's still just a guess not intelligence. Most of the times the information are available but usually overlooked by the individual. This type of incidences happens everyday right under our nose but in the military, the result can be catastrophic costing American lives and its resources. On October of 1993 United States Military went though a mission called “Battle of Mogadishu” witch cost many American Soldiers lives. This mission

Leaders inadvertently practiced mission command principles since the Civil War. Over time, the naming convention of the fundamentals has changed; however, the concept of the principles was still close in relations as time evolved. The effective application of the six mission command principles is critical to the success of commanders. Most prominent military leaders who exercised the fundamentals of mission achieved victorious results. Most leaders who lack effect in apply mission command principles in their plan habitually ended with little to no success. General Williams Tecumseh Williams and Major General Wade Hampton III are two examples of historical military leaders from the burning of Columbia who implemented and or fail to implement the principles of mission command during the Civil War.

Operational level command and control requires both the effective execution of mission command and integration of the joint functions. During Operation Husky, the Allies did not have a shared understanding of the mission, did not have a clear understanding of commander’s intent, and did not exhibit mutual trust during the campaign. Disjointed Mission Command repeatedly prevented the Allies from capitalizing on the Allies’ collective combat power.