The 7th Cavalry Regiment's destruction at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in June 1876 is the subject of over a century of debate. LTC George A. Custer failed to exercise four key responsibilities that were expected of him as the regiment’s commander. He failed to understand the problem and environment, visualize a feasible solution, clearly describe it to his subordinates, and effectively direct his forces. These four aspects of mission command are integral to the operations process and help Soldiers understand and execute their commander's intent. Custer's failure to properly fulfill his role in the operations process resulted in his death and a strategic defeat for the nation. Mission command is the commander's use of authority and direction to empower adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations. It helps subordinates exercise disciplined initiative when operating within their commander’s intent. To facilitate effective mission command, commanders must accomplish four consecutive stages of the operations process. They must thoroughly understand the problem, visualize a solution that achieves a desired end state, and then accurately describe this visualization in order to direct the organization. Commanders continually lead and assess their organizations and provide input and influence to their subordinates and staff. Effective planning is impossible without first understanding the problem. Commanders rely on personal observations, experiences, and input from others to develop understanding. They also prioritize information requests and incorporate additional information as those requests are answered. A complete understanding of the problem and environment builds the foundation for the operational process and ... ... middle of paper ... ... combat power against a numerically superior, well armed, and highly motivated enemy. His unwillingness to adapt to changing conditions was unrealistic and proved fatal. Custer’s failure to exercise the operations process had strategic consequences. His initial understanding was incomplete and precipitated the chain of decisions that led to his defeat. He did not visualize a realistic approach, and failed to thoroughly describe his plan of attack to his subordinates. Finally, he was unable to effectively direct his forces during the battle due to poor communication and a complicated chain of command. Had he taken the time to develop a full understanding of the situation, Custer would have lost the opportunity for a decisive engagement but may have survived to fight in more favorable conditions. Instead of accepting prudent risk, he gambled his entire force and lost.
COL Prescott’s role in the Battle of Bunker Hill, or more correctly know as the Battle of Breed’s Hill, is a great example of how to properly execute mission command. An overview from The Cowpens Staff Ride and Battlefield Tour (Moncure) reveals a number of operation and strategic objectives that the American militia had to consider. In this instance, COL Prescott takes charge of 1200 men with instructions to defend against incoming British forces that were seeking to occupy the surrounding hills during the Siege of Boston campaign. COL Prescott utilized a variety of steps in the operations process that contributed to his expert utilization of mission command over his forces. Through various sources from published works by experts on the subject, COL Prescott’s mission command demonstrates its effectiveness in his understanding of the situation against the British, his visualization to create an end state for t...
On July 25, Lieutenant Colonel George Armstrong Custer led his soldiers into the village along the Little Big Horn River. By the end, Custer and his army of more than 200 soldiers were dead. Sitting Bull thought by winning this battle that the government would leave him alone. The fight had just begun. Sitting Bull would not give up. Soldiers chasing him found a note that read,
Sharpe, Col. (Ret.) James Jr. and LTC (Ret.) Thomas Creviston, “Understanding Mission Command.” www.Army.mil. (2013) http://www.army.mil/article/106872 (accessed 20 February, 2014).
As the incoming brigade commander, LTC (P) Owens, I see the critical leadership problem facing the 4th Armored Brigade Combat Team (ABCT) is the inability or unwillingness of Colonel Cutler to lead and manage change effectively. In initial talks with Col Cutler and in reviewing the brigade’s historical unit status reports, the 4th ABCT performed as well as can be expected in Afghanistan, but as the onion was peeled back there are numerous organizational issues that were brought to the surface while I walked around and listened to the soldiers of the 4th ABCT, in addition to reviewing the Center for Army Lessons Learned (CALL) report. One of the most formidable tasks of a leader is to improve the organization while simultaneously accomplishing
Political. As an esteemed war hero during the Civil War, Custer was an icon who carried the support of the American people. With the people’s support our government could shift the nation’s progress westward for expansion. Custer had confined the Indians to the Black Hills reservation, and they had made it their home, then he discovered gold in the region. The government immediately wanted the land back in exchange...
Operational leaders see how the individual components of an organization fit together and use those individuals work to make a larger outcome. When they focus on a problem, they think of what works best within the process and systems to make an impact on the situation. These types of leaders play a big part in making sure that things get done in an effective and functioning manner. According to the Army Doctrine ADP 6-0, the Army over time has strayed away from operational leaders and adapted Mission Command, which gives leaders the ability at the lowest level the capability to exercise disciplined initiative in an act of carrying out the larger mission . Mission Command is made up of the following six steps: Understanding, Visualize, Describe, Direct, Lead and Assess, in which a commander is responsible for. General Patton understood the intent of the Battle of the Bulge on different levels, he was able to form a mental image for the course of actions for the allies, enemies and lead his Army into combat while guiding his officers and soldiers to succeed in meeting his intent. The Battle of the Bulge is where General Patton gained one of his greatest military achievements by using his tactical leadership and logistical genius, which in return helped him turn around the main forces and forced the Germans to drive back in their final counter-offensive. General Patton strongly exercised Mission Command by understanding, visualizing, leading, and commanding what was known as the largest and bloodiest battle during World War II.
Commanders must be able to describe their operation visualization to staffs and subordinates. It fosters a working relationship and a shared understanding of the situation, mission and intent. Without description of mission command from the commander, a unit may not be able to accomplish their task or mission.
The Battle of Little Bighorn is one of the most, maybe even the most, controversial battle in American history. General George Armstrong Custer led his 210 troops into battle and never came out. Miscalculations, blunders, and personal glory led Custer not only to his death, but also being the most talked about soldier in this battle. But all the blame doesn’t just go on Custer’s shoulders; it also goes on Captain Frederick Benteen and Major Marcus Reno, who both fought in the battle. Both the Captain and the Major both made serious mistakes during the fight, most notable Major Marcus Reno being flat out drunk during the course of the battle. All of these factors have led The Battle of Little Bighorn to being the worst lost to any Plains Indian group in American history.
The journey of exploration to the western territories brought the white man many great things, but they did face some opposition. The US government made plans to explore the Black Hills, after hearing of the gold it contained. This was not an easy task. The Sioux, with strong force, were not giving up their sacred land easily. The only way to gain the territory of the Black Hills was to wage war against the Sioux. The Battle of the Little Big Horn was one battle that the US will never forget. General George Custer led an army of men to take out the Sioux, one of the battalions was completely wiped out including Custer. The Sioux were very strong, but US had a lot more power and technology. Why did we get massacred? This question has been a mystery to many people throughout the years. Sergeant Windolph, of Benteen’s cavalry, and John F. Finerty, from General Crooks cavalry, bring us some personal accounts and memories of this tragedy.
It is far easier for us in the present than it was for those at Gettysburg, to look back and determine the path that the leaders should have taken. As students, studying battles such as this, we have the advantage of hindsight, knowing the outcome. Nonetheless, we can still learn valuable lessons from it. To do so, this analysis will explore some of the decisions of the leaders at Gettysburg, and how they were affected by the operational variables. This essay will scrutinize some of the leaders at Gettysburg, and the impact of their actions. The outcome of this analysis will show that what was true in 1863 is still true today. While many variables are vital to a successful army on the battlefield, none should be neglected. Each variable discussed in this examination will prove to be important, but the information battle will be paramount in the battle of Gettysburg.
Military’s disregard for active peace treaties, would have resulted in a more adequate plan of action for the execution of the continued Westward Expansion. This directly correlates with Custer’s actions on the objective that resulted in his downfall and massacre of his men. Through the analysis of the Battle of Little Bighorn, we can learn many lessons on the application of tactics. Such as, how a simple reconnaissance of the objective could have prevented unnecessary casualties on the battlefield. Regardless of whether the link up with reinforcements would’ve been completed, a proper reconnaissance would have meant the difference between charging into battle with or without the adequate amount of combat
Panzeri, Peter. 1995. Little Big Horn 1876: Custer's Last Stand. 8th Ed. New York, NY: Osprey Publishing.
Regardless of the career you choose in your life, whether it be an accountant or a Soldier in the United States Army, someone, somewhere most likely had an influence to bring you to that decision. The Army defines leadership as the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (JP, p. 1). Now imagine you are a young Private, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq and you have constant leadership changes, and not much support from your direct leadership. I am sure at this point you can imagine, it is not the best scenario to be in. Throughout the duration of this essay you will read about Sergeant First Class Rob Gallagher and Sergeant First Class Jeff Fenlason, their leadership abilities, and the techniques they attempted to use to resolve the issues in this Platoon that was in a downward spiral after losing many leaders to the hell of war.
The most effective commanders through their leadership build cohesive teams. Mutual trust, shared understanding, and accepting prudent risk serve as just a few principles for mission command. Mutual trust is the foundation of any successful professional relationship that a commander shares with his staff and subordinates. The shared understanding of an operational environment functions, as the basis for the commander to effectively accomplish the mission. While my advice for the commander on what prudent risks to take may create more opportunities rather than accepting defeat. Incorporating the principles of mission command by building cohesive teams through mutual trust, fostering an environment of shared understanding, and accepting prudent risk will make me an effective adviser to the commander, aid the staff during the operations process, and provide an example for Soldiers to emulate.
Imagine being in a battle where you were outnumbered 4 to 1, a platoon cut off and surrounded, all the leadership in that platoon killed and your landing zone was just overrun. For many battlefield commanders it is the worst scenario possible. Most would deem the situation unwinnable. However, Hal Moore believe in a no win situation. Furthermore, through applying visionary leadership traits his unit won the engagement (Moore, 2015).