Wait a second!
More handpicked essays just for you.
More handpicked essays just for you.
The philosphy of mission command
Don’t take our word for it - see why 10 million students trust us with their essay needs.
Recommended: The philosphy of mission command
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.
Mission Command as defined by the United States Army consists six distinct and critical principles. During World War II there were many examples of exemplary mission command that led to stunning victories for the Allies but also many examples of failure. The Battle for Arnhem or Operation Market-Garden was such a failure. Major General Robert Elliot Urquhart, the Commander of the 1st Airborne Division failed in not only in tactics but the ability to lead his division to victory. He did not completely misunderstand the principles of mission command, but four main areas in which he made critical mistakes were; Build a Cohesive Team Through Mutual Trust, Create a Shared Understanding, Accept Prudent Risk, and Exercise Disciplined Initiative.
The purpose of this paper is to perform a mission command analysis of the Battle of Gettysburg, honing in on Pickett’s Charge. The Battle of Gettysburg took place on July 1st through July 3rd in 1863 in the town of Gettysburg, Pennsylvania. The belligerents were the Army of the Potomac, led by MG George G. Meade and the Army of Northern Virginia, led by GEN Robert E. Lee. The goal is to analyze the decisions of GEN Lee using the six mission command principles described in the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0 and then assess the outcome of those decisions.
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.
Panzeri, Peter. 1995. Little Big Horn 1876: Custer's Last Stand. 8th Ed. New York, NY: Osprey Publishing.
The mission command philosophy helps commanders counter the uncertainty of operations by reducing the amount of certainty needed to act. Commanders can build teams and achieve their final goals through adapting the six principles of mission command to warfighting situation. I analyzed and compared the performance of General Sherman and General Hampton in four of six mission command principles.
In order to receive a victory in the Battle of the Bulge, General Patton used Mission Command Analysis in order to understand how he can be successful for this mission. The first thing of understanding t...
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.
The Army incorporated the concept of design into doctrine to emphasize the importance of developing an appreciation of complex problems and ways to solve them before conducting detailed planning. Design’s holistic understanding of unique situations is reached through critical and creative thinking, mediated by discourse and drawings. ADM addresses a different approach to provide the ends, ways, and means to answer the commander’s question. The first part of this paper will explain how understanding the problem provides the initial approach framework. The second part will demonstrate how visualizing the problem allows the commander to conceptualize. The third and final part explores how understand...
In examining the military history, one can easily find out that the main role of military leaders in the field is to decrease confusion and to guide units to achieve the desired end state. In accomplishing these tasks, Situational Understanding and Visualization have become necessary steps especially in today’s complex environment. This importance legitimates the question about their relationship between these two steps and the challenges facing leaders to achieve situational understanding and visualization. Commander’s visualization depends on Situational understanding. Leader’s success in these two phases remains conditioned by overcoming some challenges related to his bias, time and the efficiency of his staff.
Amid the snow-covered hills in the tiny village of Chipyong-Ni, Korea, a battle ridden 23rd Regimental Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division made a decisive stand from February 13-15, 1951 that would lead to the first operational win against a much stronger and larger force. In what some considered being the Gettysburg of the Korean War, the Battle of Chipyong-Ni was a bitterly contested engagement between the X Corp, 23rd Regimental Combat Team, 2nd Infantry Division, under the command of COL. Paul Freeman the North Korean People’s Army and the Chinese Communist Forces’ (CCF). This analysis will demonstrate that COL Paul Freemans’ ability to properly use mission command ultimately led to the first operational defeat of the enemy since the Korean War had started.
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,
Compare and Contrast the Army Problem Solving Model (Process) with the Rapid Decision making and Synchronization Process. (C100)
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.
The story of Custer’s Last Stand, formally known as “The Battle of Little Big Horn”(25 June 1876), is one that many would consider a legendary tale of gallantry amongst heroic Cavalry Soldiers gloriously fighting against all odds in the face of certain death, until the last bullet fired atop the hill that is now known as Custer’s Last Stand. Regardless of the mythical inspirational value that it provides to Soldiers aspiring to one day also become legendary heroes, from a military perspective, it also teaches us from the unforgiving realities of battle that re-emphasize the importance of tactical knowledge and it’s adequate application. Within my analysis, I will first explain the historical situation during the Western Expansion, the higher commander’s plan and intent for the operation, LTC Custer’s actions on the objective, resulted conclusion of the battle based on his actions, and the significance of this battle that stemmed in terms of tactical lessons learned.
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).