2
2
0
Very good article on a subject many know from too many first hand experiences. If a unit has an OPORD that is longer to read than the actual mission it is for.... such is part of the problem! "to practice mission command we must accept three things: audacity risks stupidity, less control involves the appearance of chaos, and leaders who empower others will always incur risk. " This is implying real Risk Management - which is not exactly the same as the quantified version that is forced to be done.
The Problem of Mission Command
Posted from thestrategybridge.com
Leadership
Command
Warfare
Mission
Posted >1 y ago
Responses: 5
2
2
0
The OPORD is broken down in a way that is understood by responsible disciplines. As Master Chief in charge of communication, I fully understood and implemented the Comm Plan, the COMMO did usually ask if all was complete. Although I glossed over the full plan, it was for general interest.
(2)
(0)
1
1
0
LTC Eric Udouj Thanks for the excellent article. As a Theater C2 (AOC) guy for the AF, I've wrestled with Mission Command for over a decade, and have come to believe it's best used under certain conditions where the subordinate commanders are trusted, have access to all the resources needed for the mission, and the environment is so foggy and fluid that the risk is greater if Mission Command is NOT employed. For airpower, where individual strike packages almost always come from multiple bases hundred or thousands of miles away from each other, no single commander below the theater COMAFFOR (who is often also the JFACC) has access to all the resources needed for the mission. That's why the AF has maintained Centralized Control/Decentralized Execution as defining doctrine for C2.
(1)
(0)
LTC Eric Udouj
Thanks Sir for some great points! Very good points on Centralized Control/Decentralized Execution - and not the least of it all is the airspace itself has to be centralized in control for all those reasons. My experience was often that such was used in Joint planning and execution... and part of it was that commanders did not understand the forces or the unit capabilities (particularly that of SOF). Your mention of Trust is on target in that aspect.
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
LTC Eric Udouj, Sir, First off I want to commend you on your analysis of Mission Command. I will give you 3 thoughts
on this subject. 1) Command & Control...without it no sense having a mission to begin with. 2) Communications without control. Try to get your message across to someone who doesn't understand what you are trying to accomplish. 3) Well this is the best part.....In 3 word's Communicate, Coordinate, and Cooperate. If your Mission Directive can not express your intent to do the 3Cs concept. Then you won't have any reason to question or doubt if it will succeed or not. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope you will find some justification on my personal perspective.
Semper Fidelis,
J.K.Kaupe, Jr.
on this subject. 1) Command & Control...without it no sense having a mission to begin with. 2) Communications without control. Try to get your message across to someone who doesn't understand what you are trying to accomplish. 3) Well this is the best part.....In 3 word's Communicate, Coordinate, and Cooperate. If your Mission Directive can not express your intent to do the 3Cs concept. Then you won't have any reason to question or doubt if it will succeed or not. Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I hope you will find some justification on my personal perspective.
Semper Fidelis,
J.K.Kaupe, Jr.
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google