Mission Command

tion (mission command, with reconnaissance as the Armor focus). All three themes link closely together. ARMOR writers’ perspectives in the preceding issues and this edition contribute to Army-wide discussion of these topics.) To combat a decentralized enemy, we’ve learned—relearned— that we have to decentralize capabilities and distribute operations. We’ve been reminded that wars are a fundamentally human endeavor and always require interaction with a broad range of actors and potential partners. We’ve discovered—rediscovered— that technology provides important enablers but can never entirely lift the fog and friction inherent in war. We’ve seen hybrid threats emerge as the new norm in the operational environment and necessitate preparation across the full spectrum of conflict. [The] demand for preparation across the full spectrum of conflict is … a demand to achieve proficiency in both combined-arms maneuver and wide-area security. That is, we must be able to maneuver to gain the initiative and provide security to consolidate gains. Often we will be required to execute both broad responsibilities simultaneously.

Confronting hybrid threats—combinations of regular, irregular, terrorist and criminal groups—in such an environment requires leaders who not only accept but seek and embrace adaptability as an imperative. In this environment, we believe mission command is a better reflection of how we must approach the art and science of command on the 21st-Century battlefield. As defined in the latest update of Field Manual 3-0, Operations, mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to ensure disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to accomplish full-spectrum operations. Mission command employs the art of command and the science of control to enable commanders, supported by staffs, to integrate all the warfighting functions and enable agile and adaptive commanders, leaders and organizations. Importantly, mission command supports our drive toward operational adaptability by requiring a thorough understanding of the operational environment, by seeking adaptive teams capable of anticipating and managing transitions and by acknowledging that we must share risk across echelons to create opportunities. We’ve learned that mission command is essential for our success. Thus the … revision to 3-0 establishes mission command as a warfighting function replacing command and control. This change to mission command is not merely a matter of rhetoric. It represents a philosophical shift to emphasize the central-ity of the commander, not the systems that he or she employs. It seeks a balance of command and control in the conduct of full-spectrum operations; it asserts that command is likely to include not only U.S. military forces but also, increasingly, a diverse group of international, nongovernmental and host-nation partners.

Mission command emphasizes the importance of context and of managing the transitions between combined-arms maneuver and wide-area security among offense, defense and stability operations, and between centralized and decentralized operations through disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent. Mission command illuminates the leader’s responsibility to understand, visualize, decide, direct, lead and assess. Previously, the term battle command recognized the need to apply leadership to “translate decisions into actions—by synchronizing forces and warfighting functions in time, space and purpose—to accomplish missions.” What the terms battle command and command and control did not adequately address was the increasing need for the commander to frequently frame and reframe an environment of ill-structured problems to gain the context of operations by continuously challenging assumptions both Mission Command by GEN Martin E. Dempsey before and during execution. In addition, these terms inadequately addressed the role of the commander in building teams with joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multi-national partners. Mission command emphasizes the critical role of leaders at every echelon in contributing to a common operating assessment of context—we “co-create context”—and it asserts that as we pass resources and responsibility “to the edge,” we must also recognize the requirement to aggregate information and intelligence “from the edge.” Mission command establishes a mindset among leaders that the best understanding comes from the bottom up, not from the top down. We know how to fight today, and we are living the principles of mission command in Iraq and Afghanistan. Yet these principles have not yet been made institutional in our doctrine and in our training. They do not pervade the force. Until they do—until they drive our leader development, our organizational design and our materiel acquisitions—we cannot consider ourselves ready, and we should not consider ourselves sufficiently adaptable. Former Army Chief of Staff GEN Martin Dempsey is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff and was commanding U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command when he wrote this article. Previously he served as acting commander, U.S. Central Command, and commander, Multi-National Security Transition Command-Iraq. A graduate of the U.S. Military Academy, he holds master’s degrees in English, military art and science, and national security and strategic studies. From ARMY magazine, January 2011. Copyright 2011 by the Association of the U.S. Army. Limited reprint permission granted by AUSA.

Further reading “Culture to Support Mission Command,” blog post by Don Vandergriff, http://donvandergriff.wordpress.com/2010/08/06/culture-to-support-mission-command/#more-954. “Mission Command and the Army’s Capstone Concept,” blog post by Frank Chadwick, http://greathistory.com/mission-command-and-the-armys-capstone-concept.htm. “Mission command is the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based on mission orders. Successful mission command demands that subordinate leaders at all echelons exercise disciplined initiative, acting aggressively and independently to accomplish the mission within the commander’s intent.” –Training and Doctrine Command Pamphlet 525-3-0, The Capstone Concept