TRADOC Pam 525-3-7-01 - TRADOC - U.S. Army

TRADOC Pam 525-3-7-01The cauldron of combat both demands and forms leaders. It will likely be the experience forfuture commanders that it has been for commanders in every American war since the Revolution.Given that starting point what are the differences the future hold for combat leaders?TRADOC Pamphlet 525-3-3 outlines several key ideas relative to the function of battlecommand. The first is the centrality of the commander. This focus on the individuals whooccupy positions of command narrows the discussion of leadership to the select group ofpractitioners of the art and science of battle command. Others in military service from Soldier togeneral practice leadership in different capacities than those charged with commandresponsibility. This key idea highlights this difference while establishing the primacy ofcommanders—a concept warranting future emphasis.Next in the list of key battle command ideas is the role of the commander. Here the conceptdescribes what the commander does in terms of understanding, visualizing, describing, directing,and continuously assessing the situation. It is not a mechanistic checklist of how to command,but a process of blending the art and science of operations in the command function. As pointedout earlier in this chapter, not everyone is necessarily capable of performing this blending,particularly as the level of command rises to the operational levels of division and higher. Theconcept describes the operations process of planning, preparing, executing, andframing/reframing in a continuous loop back-dropped by assessment. This particular key idea isabout process, but it is about leadership, taking into account actions and thoughts ingrained in thecommander. It introduces a new idea of framing and reframing in the decisionmaking cycle.The next two key ideas are mission command and self-synchronization. Inextricably linked,these are well established doctrinal terms reflective of the American style of encouraginginitiative in leaders. Essentially, the idea of mission command is one of communicating intentclearly enough so that subordinate commanders know expectations well enough to continue themission in the absence of orders. Similarly, armed with the senior commander’s intent,subordinate commanders synchronize their operations within and between commands towards thecommon objective with or without communications. This particular set of ideas places atremendous premium on the competence of commanders, in their initiative and reliability, theirsense of commitment to the mission, and their sense of duty. It is an enormous challenge todevelop leaders possessed of this level of confidence in both their superiors and subordinates. Itis an intangible aspect of battle command that moves away from technological solutions andturns to trust, faith, and proven reliability.The remaining three battle command key ideas deal largely with the mechanics of C2, thescience counterpoint to operational art. Collaborative planning and the accelerated militarydecisionmaking process articulate a conscious effort to move away from lockstep planning andexecution processes and move toward planning done collaboratively rather than vertically.Instead of plans and orders issued from higher to lower, the concepts calls for horizontal fusionof the planning process with commanders at all levels being capable of participating and shapingthe plan. Rather than the chaotic anarchy this idea might evoke, it relies on a collaborativeinformation environment in which vertical and horizontal planning and execution coexist. Theimplication for leadership is that senior, more experienced commanders must be comfortable194