Seven years after replacing command and control with mission command, the Army decided to bring it back. There was an oft-stated problem that mission command was a confused concept. It was a group of communications systems, a warfighting function, and a philosophy. The rewrite aimed to clear the ambiguity. In addition, the Army was on its own doctrinal island and the rewrite realigned the Army with sister service, joint, and allied doctrine that had retained the concept of command and control. Finally, the Army had an opportunity. We were planning to consolidate ADPs and ADRPs anyway.

The problem in the Army wasn’t understanding the difference between a CPOF, using mission orders and intent to get things done, and tasks and processes needed to produce orders. The problem was that we misunderstood the philosophy. Most commonly, leaders interpreted mission command as a hands-off approach to let subordinates figure it out. Mission command was decentralized command and control.

“We preach mission command, but we don’t necessarily practice it…We have to live and operate like that on a day-to-day basis, even on daily administrative tasks you have to do in a unit area.”

I read General Milley’s statement as if he’s asking why we don’t decentralize more in garrison. I don’t know if he meant that, but if he did – he’s wrong. Mission command is not decentralized command and control. It is an approach that determines the degree of control, by the command.

The new doctrine does a much better job of laying out the concept with its principles of mission command and elements of command and control, but it’s still confusing. Mission command is the Army’s approach to command and control. Command and control is fundamental to all operations and is executed through the command and control warfighting function. So our approach to command and control is mission command, and we conduct mission command using command and control. Circular? Maybe, but let’s come back to the meaning of mission command.

Mission command makes us think about decentralized decision-making. This improves flexibility because the person with the information has the authority to make the decision, but it does at the expense of synchronization and efficiency.

Mission command “…empowers subordinate decision making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation.” This approach to command and control assesses a situation with a preference for decentralization. The big idea is that decentralization provides the flexibility essential to deal with uncertainty. War is uncertain, but sometimes it isn’t. Experience tells us there are times in combat where the situation is incredibly clear! Calling for artillery? Pretty clear. In fact, that is why we have synchronization as a tenant of Unified Land Operations. Synchronization is the arrangement of military actions in time, space, and purpose to produce maximum relative combat power at a decisive place and time – impossible without specific knowledge. Sometimes decentralized decision-making is not useful. A wet gap crossing, a combined arms breach, or medical readiness (PHAs and dental exams) come to mind; in these cases, adaptation is as problematic as the enemy. During one operation I took part in, my commander told his subordinates and staff, “This is a wet gap crossing. This is not the time for disciplined initiative.” The more efficient the operation, the faster through the chokepoint. In that situation, a well-intentioned but unchoreographed move could cause a traffic jam putting the entire river crossing at risk.

Now don’t take this to the extreme. In the previously mentioned examples, bottom-up refinement is always useful. The point is, mission command is an approach or process to think about control. The principles of mission command supply some things to ponder when deciding how much control is needed for a given situation.

Some might argue that decentralizing is always good but I beg to differ. There will be times in the future battlefield when our radios do work, when the artillery and tanks are in the right place, and we see the enemy clearly. This is when a synchronized approach is critical; the efficient massing of effects requires control.

So how do we help make mission command work? A couple of things come to mind.

First, understand the principles of mission command and figure out how to operationalize them in your unit, both to higher and lower. Figure out how to build trust and craft the intent so everyone understands, for example.

Second, ensure you seek context. The only reason the 27th Armored Infantry Battalion seized the first bridge over the Rhine in 1945 was because they knew the context. The Rhine is a big river and crossing it was problematic. Those leaders saw an opportunity only because they understood the bigger picture.

Third, empower others where you can. In WWI, the German rifle company in the first trench had responsibility for calling the battalion reserve. Makes me wince but it worked (mostly). The responsibility was on that leader to know the context. Think of the mission command principles…the Germans understood all seven to make this approach work.

Fourth, coach more as a leader. Coaching is better than being directive because if you’re doing it right, the student comes to the answer on their own. You helped them get there. This allows decentralized decision-making without throwing away the seniors’ hard-won experience. Don’t leave your experience on the table.

Fifth, make certain your orders tell your subordinates what to do, but not how to do it. Ensure the staff does the same. Synchronize only what you must. Your intent must be relative to the other units on the battlefield and must also encompass larger goals. 

Sixth, fight for situational awareness from higher and lower. There is a huge volume of information available today. Figure out how to use your CCIR to sift through the mass of information and find what you need.

Lastly and most importantly, have an affinity for action. For mission command to succeed, subordinates must act in the absence of orders or new information; they have a responsibility to act. To do this better, look at how you’ve operationalized the mission command principles before the fight.

Mission command is an approach for determining control, but a trap exists in the decentralization and synchronization spectrum. Some actions require synchronization, while others require the flexibility inherent in decentralized operations. Efficiency matters in combat because resources are scarce. In every case, we should empower our subordinates, decentralize execution, and synchronize only what we must. The question is whether we can educate ourselves well enough to make the right call.

Subscribe to The Field Grade Leader!

Lieutenant Colonel Christopher L’Heureux is an Armor Officer currently assigned as an instructor at the School of Command Preparation. He commanded 2d Squadron, 2d US Cavalry in Vilseck, Germany.