Battle Command: Will We Have It When We Need It?

THE US ARMY has embraced command, a concept which involves expertise in understanding the current state of the battlefield, visualizing a desired future end state, communicating intent and making the desired end state a reality. I In simpler terms, it is the ability to create a vision for success (to know) and see it applied on the battlefield (to do). To encompasses the visualization tasks involved in command. A command master is able to see both friendly and enemy forces in time and space and the results of their contacts. To do is the skill in taking this vision, successfully communicating it to subordinates, constructing a plan that will achieve success and providing leadership which can carry the operation to a successful end state. We envision that skilled commanders will use the Force XXI Army to defeat our future adversaries. However, many characteristics of these future wars and adversaries are uncertain. We anticipate information-age technology will drive the scope, intensity and tempo of future operations to fast, furious and lethal new heights.3 The question we must ask ourselves now is: Has this enthusiasm and drive for information dominance caused us to overlook and downplay the critical human element in warfare and the command skills that will be essential to success on 2lst-century battlefields? Battle command, like operational art, is a difficult concept to define, although most would know it when they see it. We acknowledge that warriors such as Napoleon, generals Douglas MacArthur, William T. Sherman and George S. Patton Jr. it, but what exactly is it? These men each had superior intellect and relevant warfighting experience, but can we identify the specific knowledge, thinking and behavioral skills these leaders possessed that allowed them successful command performance? It is highly probable that there are inherent capabilities possessed by certain individuals which allow them greater success in the art of command than others, and for the purposes of this article I make the assumption that this is true. There is ample evidence to suggest that command skills are a function of not only raw talent. but years of practice, experience and maturation. The Army must train competent, experienced commanders capable of making high-quality decisions in complex, volatile, ill-defined and novel situations. The human element will be critical for success in any major conflict. Leaders must ensure the right people are in the right place at the right time to make critical decisions and lead their forces through the fog of war.4 Some ask why we must act quickly to establish this command talent pool. First and foremost, our survival as a dominant world power may depend on our Army's ability to dominate and win future land battles. No matter what the mission, physical mass on the ground still counts.5 We must consider the idea that 21 st-century warfare will not provide us the luxury of time to prepare as past wars have. Their speed, complexity and lethality may create situations in which the first battle may be the only battle. There will be little time for mistakes or for talented commanders to rise to the top. Given current fiscal restraints and the nature of 21st- century warfare, we must determine now what types of individual traits or characteristics correlate with successful command. Those who show above-average traits should be key candidates for command of units where the art of war will be most decisive. It is essential that these critical skills and talents be developed. The Army cannot afford to sit back and hope that a future Patton or MacArthur is out there developing command skills on his own.6 The Army has already begun identifying the command skills and traits that are involved in thought and action processes. These initial insights support the concept that knowledge is fundamental. …