Image courtesy of Wikipedia.
An Interesting comment from reader Michael Krogh worth considering – in response to the recent short essay, “Mission Command is Not Enough.”
“But isn’t Mission Command exactly about the tactical fight? Isn’t the point of Mission Command to entrust the tactical (and operational) leader with the least amount of direction in order for him or her to utilize their own judgment, training, initiative, etc to accomplish any given mission? It would seem to me that Mission Command is the means by which tactical goals are achieved, not strategic goals.
Please, anyone, correct me if I am wrong here. If I am not, then it seems that this is the perfect conference for cadets. Even though we want to imbue them with a bit of strategic thought, the fact of the matter is that they will be tactical leaders for a very long.”
Mission Command may primarily be a means for organizing and accomplishing tactical and operational goals, but those goals are most effectively realized when leaders understand and act within the mission and intent of leadership at the operational and strategic levels. I posit that our traditional levels triad (tactical, operational, strategic) often collapses, elevating actions at the tactical level to assume strategic importance, e.g., the “strategic corporal.” Therefore, it is critically important for junior leaders to understand and act within the mission and intent of leaders at the strategic level, and the best way to understand and act within that mission is to explore it through independent strategic thought.
Garrett,
I don’t disagree with you. Allow me the following analogy. Let’s say that Mathematics can be put into a triad. Let’s say arithmetic is analogous to tactics, algebra, geometry, and calculus are analogous to the operations, and engineering of all of its forms are strategic. Let’s say that a child’s education from pre-k (when he learns to count) through PME certification (usually five years after completing a BS) is analogous to a military career, one in which an officer goes through all three levels. So, roughly, 27 years.
One would spend at least the first 12 years (through 6th grade) on arithmetic, the following 6 years on operations, and would begin to touch on engineering (although not practicing engineering) on year 19. He would then have a few years of learning at that level until he is considered accomplished.
The student would have heard of engineering. The student may have had numerous examples given him in his studies about how this principle or this equation would apply to engineering, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of his time spent with engineering was by means of allusion and not application. He knows why mathematics "matters" but he isn’t prepared for "the show" quite yet.
I feel that this is how strategic concepts should be taught. We should always understand them at a basic level. We should always understand how our tactics work in operations which help reach strategic goals. However, I think that cadets just aren’t prepared yet for actual strategic learning anymore than a student learning pre-algebra is prepared for engineering.
How does this fall into Mission Command? Well, I think that Mission Command is the arithmetic of command. That doesn’t mean that it’s easy. Far from it; however, it provides the basis for the orders process and command structure from which these cadets can learn and apply their craft so that they can achieve the tactical goals required of them. We can and should sprinkle in strategic thought (note cards, as MAJ Cavanaugh alludes to), but we shouldn’t expect strategic thinkers quite yet. They are far too busy learning the basics of the profession. We wouldn’t expect first grade engineers. Why would we expect 2LT strategic thinkers?
Garrett,
I don’t disagree with you. Allow me the following analogy. Let’s say that Mathematics can be put into a triad. Let’s say arithmetic is analogous to tactics, algebra, geometry, and calculus are analogous to the operations, and engineering of all of its forms are strategic. Let’s say that a child’s education from pre-k (when he learns to count) through PME certification (usually five years after completing a BS) is analogous to a military career, one in which an officer goes through all three levels. So, roughly, 27 years.
One would spend at least the first 12 years (through 6th grade) on arithmetic, the following 6 years on operations, and would begin to touch on engineering (although not practicing engineering) on year 19. He would then have a few years of learning at that level until he is considered accomplished.
The student would have heard of engineering. The student may have had numerous examples given him in his studies about how this principle or this equation would apply to engineering, but the fact of the matter is that the bulk of his time spent with engineering was by means of allusion and not application. He knows why mathematics "matters" but he isn’t prepared for "the show" quite yet.
I feel that this is how strategic concepts should be taught. We should always understand them at a basic level. We should always understand how our tactics work in operations which help reach strategic goals. However, I think that cadets just aren’t prepared yet for actual strategic learning anymore than a student learning pre-algebra is prepared for engineering.
How does this fall into Mission Command? Well, I think that Mission Command is the arithmetic of command. That doesn’t mean that it’s easy. Far from it; however, it provides the basis for the orders process and command structure from which these cadets can learn and apply their craft so that they can achieve the tactical goals required of them. We can and should sprinkle in strategic thought (note cards, as MAJ Cavanaugh alludes to), but we shouldn’t expect strategic thinkers quite yet. They are far too busy learning the basics of the profession. We wouldn’t expect first grade engineers. Why would we expect 2LT strategic thinkers?