Sound Military Decision - Naval War College

Скачать книгу

is first necessary.

      The armed forces, during peace, are usually subdivided into permanent major organizations for the purpose of attaining and maintaining readiness for action. From the several grades of the officer corps, a permanent chain of command is instituted by the process of organization, the supreme command being reposed in a commander-in-chief. The basis of the permanent organization is that chosen as best suited to attain and maintain readiness. Its choice requires consideration of many factors, such as the types of weapons and vessels, their intended uses, and their capabilities, severally and in combination. Further specific demands are met by temporary arrangements effected through "task organization". Whether the organization be permanent or temporary, its establishment places in effect a chain of command applicable to that organization throughout its continuance.

      Habitual and studied adherence to the chain of command in administrative matters, in consultation, in the exchange of information, and in the issue of directives is essential to mutual understanding, and therefore to unity of effort. The right of a commander, however, because of the responsibility he shoulders, to deal directly with subordinates more than one echelon removed is not relinquished because of the existence of the chain of command. Circumstances may arise which require him to issue orders directly to any person under his command. Fully aware, however, of the value of unity of effort, and recognizing that failure to deal through his immediate subordinate, no matter what the exigency, cannot but tend to weaken the chain of command, he will, as soon as the state of the emergency permits, inform intervening commanders of the action he has been compelled to take.

      Mutual Understanding. The chain of command, though providing the necessary linkage, does not of itself ensure that the command organization will be adequate, nor can it ensure that unity of effort will result. To meet the requirement of adequacy, there is needed in the person of each commander not only the ability to arrive at sound military decision, to plan, and to direct the operations of his command, but also an appreciation of the position which he occupies in his relationship to his immediate superior, on the one hand, and to his own immediate subordinates on the other. To meet the requirement of unity of effort, it is also essential that there exist a state of mutual understanding throughout the chain of command.

      The final aim of mutual understanding is attained when, in the absence of specific instructions, each subordinate commander in the chain acts instinctively as his immediate superior, if present, would have him act, and also cooperates intelligently with commanders occupying coordinate positions on the same echelon. For this reason there is need, on all echelons, of a complete grasp of the significance of the relationship between immediate superior and immediate subordinate, and of the obligations of each to the other.

      The proper relationship is such that a subordinate, even though separated from his commander, can confidently take action as if the latter were present. To this end, the competent commander will earlier have cultivated the personal relationship between his immediate superior and himself, and between himself and his subordinates. It is through such close relationship that mutual understanding is best developed and harmony promoted, so that intelligent and cordial unity of effort may exist among the personnel of a command.

      The commander, however competent, necessarily relies on his subordinates. Recognizing the psychological factors involved, he will therefore manifest confidence in their abilities, display sympathetic interest in their efforts, and evince pride in their achievements. He will also exercise patience with the mistakes which will inevitably occur, without condonement, however, of disaffection, neglect, or carelessness. The commander may reasonably expect, by the same token, that this attitude will characterize his immediate superior.

      In the absence of his superior, and faced with a changing situation, a commander may be forced to the conclusion that his assigned task requires modification or alteration. Conditions permitting, he will of course communicate with proper authority, and will make constructive representations. If he is without adequate communications facilities, or if circumstances have imposed restrictions on communications facilities otherwise available, he takes action according to the dictates of his own judgment, guided by the known views of his superior. On occasions when he believes that the immediate situation so requires, he may even depart from his instructions. He realizes that in so doing he accepts the gravest of military responsibilities. At the same time, however, he recognizes that to fail to take the indicated action may disclose a lack of the higher qualities of courage, judgment, initiative, and loyalty (page 9). He will, of course inform his superior of his action at the first available opportunity. In the meantime, he has been enabled to act intelligently and fearlessly because of the existence of a state of mutual understanding.

      Indoctrination. Both the necessary process and the final result of establishing a state of mutual understanding are sometimes known as indoctrination.

      The word carries the dual meaning of "the act of indoctrinating" and "the state of being indoctrinated". In common with the word doctrine, it has its root in the Latin verb which means "to teach". A doctrine, in its pure meaning, is that which is taught, or set forth for acceptance or belief.

      It does not follow that every doctrine is necessarily sound, nor that it is founded on conviction reached as the result of intelligent thought. Nor is the encouragement of a belief, by means of the spread of a doctrine, necessarily inspired by good motives. The preaching of doctrine known to be false is frequently encountered in many human activities. The deliberate spread of false propaganda is an example. But, whatever the motive and whether the doctrine be sound or false, the act of indoctrination is intended to shape opinion and thus influence action.

      Manifestly, to be along permanently useful lines, indoctrination flows from sound philosophy, i.e., is rooted in truth. All teachings, all opinions that may be advanced, all expressions of viewpoint, i.e., all doctrine, is therefore to be scrutinized, first from the standpoint of validity, and then from that of usefulness of application. It is the responsibility of command to ensure that these conditions are met before doctrine is pronounced.

      Military doctrine, in its broad sense, is a digest of the accepted beliefs of the military profession. In a narrower sense a military doctrine may be confined to the views of a single commander on a specific subject. The object of military doctrine, however, is always to furnish a basis for mutual understanding to the end that prompt and harmonious action by subordinate commanders may ensue without the necessity for referring every problem to superior authority before taking action (page 15). Doctrine thus provides a basis for action in possible situations when, for whatever reason, precise instructions have not been issued.

      The term "doctrine" is inappropriate as a description of the content of orders or instructions prescribing specific methods of action for a particular tactical operation in a situation existent or assumed under circumstances of the moment. The precise instructions thus issued, though they may be the result of doctrine, and may themselves constitute a basis for development of doctrine, are manifestly of the nature of something ordered rather than presented as authoritative opinion.

      In the broad field of the conduct of war, with its diversified demands, a common viewpoint as to the application of fundamentals is an essential to unity of effort. If the members of the military profession have this common viewpoint, their reasoned beliefs as to the best general methods of waging a particular war may be expected more nearly to approach unanimity. The attainment of unity of effort therefore calls for an understanding of fundamentals (page i), a basic indoctrination which is not only sound but also common to all commanders of the chain of command.

Скачать книгу