Читать книгу Sound Military Decision - Naval War College - Страница 9

The Foreword, preceding, has explained the scientific approach to the solution of military problems. It has been brought to notice that the science of war can be utilized to further sound military decision and, so, to improve the practice of war, i.e., the art of war, whether under assumed or actual conditions. The Foreword has also stressed the importance of education for the development of judgment in the application of mental power to the solution of military problems.

Chapter I, which now follows, deals with the armed forces in their relation to national policy, and discusses, specifically, the role of the commander with respect to the use of mental power as a recognized component of fighting strength. Emphasis is placed on the important subjects of military strategy and tactics, unity of effort, the chain of command, authority and responsibility, organization, mutual understanding, loyalty, and indoctrination.

The Implementation of National Policy. Organized government exists for the purpose of bringing into systematic union the individuals of a State for the attainment of common ends. The primary national objective (page 3) is the ensurance of envisaged prosperity and of essential security for the social system which is the fundamental basis of the community. Whatever the form of government, the power and authority of the State are vested in an individual, or in a grouping of individuals, whose voice is the voice of the State. In the prosecution of the chief aim of organized government, the State crystallizes the many conflicting desires and views of its people into policies, internal and external. Each policy is a method of procedure for attaining one or more national objectives.

Internal policies are rendered effective by enforcement of the laws of the State.

External policies, to become effective, require recognition by other States, tacitly or by agreement. When there is conflict between the policies of one State and those of another, peaceful means of settlement are usually sought.

If peaceful (diplomatic) means fail to settle the point at issue, the State abandons the policy in question, defers action to enforce it, or adopts stronger measures. Such measures may take the form of psychological, political, or economic pressure. They may even include the threat to employ armed force before actually resorting to the imposition of physical violence. During actual hostilities, also, every means of pressure known to man, in addition to physical violence, may be employed.

Whether the use of armed force to impose or to resist the imposition of policy constitutes a legal state of war is a political question which does not affect the tasks the armed forces may be called on to perform. War, therefore, is to be understood herein as any condition in which one State employs physical violence against another, or against an organized part of itself which may be in rebellion.

By agreement among nations, effort has been made to discountenance aggressive warfare. The distinction between aggression and self-defense is, however, not a matter of agreement. War is still employed as an instrument of national policy. No nation has, as yet, manifested willingness to relinquish the right to employ armed force in resisting aggression, nor the right to decide what constitutes self-defense. States still maintain and employ armed forces as a means of promoting and expanding, as well as of defending, their welfare and interests.

The Primary Function of the Armed Forces. Whether war is an ethical institution is not a matter within the purview of the armed forces. Their primary function is, when called upon to do so, to support and, within the sphere of military effort, to enforce the policy of the State. The performance of this function constitutes the chief reason for their existence.

The fundamental objective of the armed forces is, therefore, the reduction of the opposing will to resist. It is attained through the use of actual physical violence or the threat thereof (page 7). This fact constitutes the underlying motive of every military plan, whether for the conduct of a minor or contributory operation, or for the prosecution of a major campaign. The final outcome is dependent on ability to isolate, occupy, or otherwise control the territory of the enemy, for land is the natural habitat of man (page 46). Since opposition is to be expected, the military problem is primarily concerned with the application of power—mental, moral, and physical—in overcoming resistance, or in exerting effort to resist.

The application of power implies effort, i.e., the exertion of strength. The mental, moral, and physical power at the disposal of the armed forces depends on the effort which can be exerted by the human and material components of their fighting strength.

The skillful employment of fighting strength, as a weapon more effective than the enemy's under a given set of circumstances, is the goal toward which the armed forces direct their effort. The elements of the material component—arms, ammunition, and other equipment—are indispensable. They are impotent, however, without the direction and energy supplied by the human component, its moral and mental elements nicely balanced and judiciously compounded with physical fitness. A true concept of the art of war will insist that the necessity for the achievement of a high standard of technical and administrative skill not be permitted to outweigh the need for maximum development of other mental attainments, and of the moral components of fighting strength.

The moral elements include all the essential attributes of personal character, and more especially those qualities of courage, loyalty, decisiveness, modesty, patience, tolerance of the opinions of others, and fearlessness of responsibility which are characteristics of true military leadership. The maintenance of a high ethical standard is essential to the establishment and continuance of mutual confidence.

The qualifications essential to the proper application of the mental elements include a creative imagination and the ability to think and to reason logically, fortified by practical experience and by a knowledge of the science of war. An unmistakable mark of mental maturity is the ability to distinguish between preconceived ideas and fundamental knowledge. Intellectual honesty, unimpaired by the influence of tradition, prejudice, or emotion, is the essential basis for the effective employment of mental power.

The numerical size of the armed forces, in their correct perspective as an instrument of the State, as well as the extent to which they are supplied with material components of fighting strength, are matters to be determined by the State after consultation with the responsible military authorities. The development of the essential military qualities of the instrument is the special charge of the armed forces. It is their task to weld the assemblage of men, armed and maintained by the State, into an harmonious whole, skilled in technique and imbued with a psychological and mental attitude which will not admit that any obstacle is insuperable.

The Advisory Function. Understanding between the civil representatives of the State and the leaders of the armed forces is manifestly essential to the coordination of national policy with the power to enforce it. Therefore, if serious omissions and the adoption of ill-advised measures are to be avoided, it is necessary that wise professional counsel be available to the State. While military strategy may determine whether the aims of policy are possible of attainment, policy may, beforehand, determine largely the success or failure of military strategy. It behooves policy to ensure not only that military strategy pursue appropriate aims, but that the work of strategy be allotted adequate means, and be undertaken under the most favorable conditions.

These considerations require that the military profession be qualified, through the possession of mental power, clear vision, and capacity for expression, to advise the State in military matters. There is thus accentuated the need for mental training, as set forth previously in the Foreword.

Military Strategy and Tactics. Military strategy as distinguished by objectives (page 3) representing a larger, further, or more fundamental goal, is differentiated from tactics in that the latter is concerned with a more immediate or local aim, which should in turn permit strategy to accomplish its further objective.

Consequently, every military situation has both strategical and tactical aspects. The nature of the objectives to be attained at a particular time, and the action to be taken to that end, may be governed chiefly by strategical, or chiefly by tactical, considerations. Whether an operation is distinctively strategical or tactical will depend, from the standpoint of the commander concerned, on the end which he has in view.

To attain its objective, strategy uses force (or threatens such use) (see page 8) as applied by tactics; tactics employed for a purpose other than that of contributing to the aims of strategy is unsound. Proper tactics, therefore, has a strategic background. Definition of tactics as the art of handling troops or ships in battle, or in the immediate presence of the enemy, is not all-inclusive. Such a view infers that the field of battle is the only province of tactics, or that strategy abdicates when tactics comes to the fore.

Actually, while tactical considerations may predominate during battle, their influence is not confined to the immediate presence of the enemy. Tactical dispositions are frequently adopted for convenience, for time saving, or for other reasons, long before entry into the immediate presence of the enemy. Nor do strategical considerations end when battle is joined. Tactics, unguided by strategy, might blindly make sacrifices merely to remain victor on a field of struggle. But strategy looks beyond, in order to make the gains of tactics accord with the strategic aim. Strategy and tactics are inseparable.

It is thus the duty of tactics to ensure that its results are appropriate to the strategic aim, and the duty of strategy to place at the disposal of tactics the power appropriate to the results demanded. The latter consideration imposes upon strategy the requirement that the prescribed aim be possible of attainment with the power that can be made available.

Consequently, while the attainment of the aims of strategy, generally depends upon the results gained by tactics, strategy is initially responsible for the success of tactics. It is therefore in the province of strategy to ensure that the attainment of tactical objectives furthers, exclusively, the aims of strategy, and also that the tactical struggle be initiated under conditions favorable for the attainment of the designated objectives.

Command of the Armed Forces. The initial requisite to the effective use of the armed forces is an agency authorized to direct them.

Command directs the armed forces. It is vitalized and personified in the commander, the human directing head, both of the whole and of organized groupings in descending scale of importance. Its responsibility, during peace, is the perfection of the armed forces to the point of readiness for war and, during the conflict, their effective employment.

Training for command, to be effective, is necessarily dependent upon an understanding of the position occupied by the commander, and of the role which he plays. Accordingly, this understanding is an essential in the study of that aspect of command training which has as its purpose the development of ability to reach sound decision.

The ideal of military command combines the best of human qualities with sound knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the armed forces. It recognizes in war a form of human activity whose conduct, like that of all other human activities, is subject to natural law. It applies to the mastery of the problems of war, therefore, the natural mental processes of human thought (see Chapter II); it adapts these natural processes to a specific purpose, and consciously develops their use to the maximum degree for the attainment of this end. As command ascends the scale, its viewpoint broadens. Experience and added knowledge, with increasing authority and responsibility, lead to a concept of war more and more comprehensive, with the resultant growth in ability to evolve and put into effect a general plan for the effective control of collective effort.

Unity of Effort. An objective is best attained by effective application of properly directed effort, exerted by a single individual or by groups of individuals. Where individuals are collectively concerned, unity of effort is the most important single factor contributory to the common success. The basic condition to be sought by the armed forces is an harmonious whole, capable of putting forth combined effort, intensified in strength because of the collective feature, and rendered effective by its unity.

The Chain of Command. Within the limits of human capacity, an organization can exert its combined effort with greater effect the more closely the exercise of command represents the act of a single competent commander. To divide the supreme command in any locality, or to vest it in a body rather than in an individual, is necessarily to diffuse responsibility. In that degree there is then incurred the danger, through confusion of wills and ideas, of delaying decision and of creating corresponding diffusion of effort.

Realization of this danger has led the military profession to entrust command, subject to justifiable exceptions (see page 71), to a single head, while ensuring, by careful selection and training of personnel, that competent individuals are available for this duty. Although this method is in seeming conflict with the restriction imposed by recognized limitations of human capacity, the difficulty is effectively met through the chain of command, whereby responsibility is assigned and authority is transmitted without lessening of ultimate responsibility. Responsibility and authority, the latter properly apportioned to the former, are inseparably inherent in command, and may not justifiably be severed from one another.

In the abstract, the chain of command consists of a series of links, through which responsibility and authority are transmitted. The supreme commander is thus linked with his successively subordinate commanders, and all are disposed on, so to speak, a vertical series of levels, each constituting an echelon of command.

By means of the chain of command, a commander is enabled to require of his immediate subordinates an expenditure of effort which, in the aggregate, will ensure the attainment of his own objective (page 3). He thus assigns tasks to his immediate subordinates, whom he holds directly responsible for their execution without, however, divesting himself of any part of his initial responsibility. The accomplishment of each of these assigned tasks will involve the attainment of an objective, necessarily less in scope than that of the immediate superior but a contribution to the attainment of the latter.

The character and magnitude of the objective of the highest echelon involved will have considerable bearing upon the number of echelons required for its attainment. Whatever the number, a commander on a particular echelon occupies the position of an immediate subordinate to a commander on the next higher echelon, and that of an immediate superior with relation to a commander on the next lower echelon. Within these confines, authority is exercised and accomplishment exacted, both to the extent calculated to ensure unity of effort.

There may frequently be found two or more commanders occupying coordinate positions on the same echelon, all with the same immediate superior, and all charged with loyalty to him and to each other in the attainment of a common objective. In no case, however, will a commander be directly answerable to more than one immediate superior for the performance of the same duty. Thus is fulfilled the requirement that the command, although relatively narrower in scope as the scale is descended, be reposed in a single head.

The experience gained and the knowledge acquired during early service on the lower echelons provide a basis for later expansion of viewpoint, a better understanding of the position occupied by the subordinate and of the obligations of higher command, including its dependence on subordinates. As the echelons of command are ascended, the details involved become more and more numerous, because of the increased scope of the problems. On the higher echelons, therefore, staff assistance is provided so that the commander may be left free to consider matters in their major aspects. The staff of a commander is not, however, a part of the chain of command; its members, as such, exercise no independent authority.

A chain of command is not created by the subdivision of the officer corps into grades on a basis of relative rank. Such subdivision is for the purpose of classification from the standpoint of potential competency and capacity for responsibility, and carries no authority to command by virtue of rank alone. Organization, systematized connection for a specific purpose, is first necessary.

The armed forces, during peace, are usually subdivided into permanent major organizations for the purpose of attaining and maintaining readiness for action. From the several grades of the officer corps, a permanent chain of command is instituted by the process of organization, the supreme command being reposed in a commander-in-chief. The basis of the permanent organization is that chosen as best suited to attain and maintain readiness. Its choice requires consideration of many factors, such as the types of weapons and vessels, their intended uses, and their capabilities, severally and in combination. Further specific demands are met by temporary arrangements effected through "task organization". Whether the organization be permanent or temporary, its establishment places in effect a chain of command applicable to that organization throughout its continuance.

Habitual and studied adherence to the chain of command in administrative matters, in consultation, in the exchange of information, and in the issue of directives is essential to mutual understanding, and therefore to unity of effort. The right of a commander, however, because of the responsibility he shoulders, to deal directly with subordinates more than one echelon removed is not relinquished because of the existence of the chain of command. Circumstances may arise which require him to issue orders directly to any person under his command. Fully aware, however, of the value of unity of effort, and recognizing that failure to deal through his immediate subordinate, no matter what the exigency, cannot but tend to weaken the chain of command, he will, as soon as the state of the emergency permits, inform intervening commanders of the action he has been compelled to take.

Mutual Understanding. The chain of command, though providing the necessary linkage, does not of itself ensure that the command organization will be adequate, nor can it ensure that unity of effort will result. To meet the requirement of adequacy, there is needed in the person of each commander not only the ability to arrive at sound military decision, to plan, and to direct the operations of his command, but also an appreciation of the position which he occupies in his relationship to his immediate superior, on the one hand, and to his own immediate subordinates on the other. To meet the requirement of unity of effort, it is also essential that there exist a state of mutual understanding throughout the chain of command.

Loyalty is not merely a moral virtue; it is a great military necessity. To establish and to cultivate a state of mutual understanding from which will flow mutual loyalty born of mutual confidence (page 9) are prime obligations of command. Within the limits of responsibility and resultant authority, individual initiative will follow. On a foundation of intelligent cooperation and resolute determination, the acts of the lowest commander will be in accordance with the desires of the highest. This, in effect, will constitute unity of effort, accomplished through the vesting of command in a single head.

The final aim of mutual understanding is attained when, in the absence of specific instructions, each subordinate commander in the chain acts instinctively as his immediate superior, if present, would have him act, and also cooperates intelligently with commanders occupying coordinate positions on the same echelon. For this reason there is need, on all echelons, of a complete grasp of the significance of the relationship between immediate superior and immediate subordinate, and of the obligations of each to the other.

The proper relationship is such that a subordinate, even though separated from his commander, can confidently take action as if the latter were present. To this end, the competent commander will earlier have cultivated the personal relationship between his immediate superior and himself, and between himself and his subordinates. It is through such close relationship that mutual understanding is best developed and harmony promoted, so that intelligent and cordial unity of effort may exist among the personnel of a command.

The commander, however competent, necessarily relies on his subordinates. Recognizing the psychological factors involved, he will therefore manifest confidence in their abilities, display sympathetic interest in their efforts, and evince pride in their achievements. He will also exercise patience with the mistakes which will inevitably occur, without condonement, however, of disaffection, neglect, or carelessness. The commander may reasonably expect, by the same token, that this attitude will characterize his immediate superior.

In the absence of his superior, and faced with a changing situation, a commander may be forced to the conclusion that his assigned task requires modification or alteration. Conditions permitting, he will of course communicate with proper authority, and will make constructive representations. If he is without adequate communications facilities, or if circumstances have imposed restrictions on communications facilities otherwise available, he takes action according to the dictates of his own judgment, guided by the known views of his superior. On occasions when he believes that the immediate situation so requires, he may even depart from his instructions. He realizes that in so doing he accepts the gravest of military responsibilities. At the same time, however, he recognizes that to fail to take the indicated action may disclose a lack of the higher qualities of courage, judgment, initiative, and loyalty (page 9). He will, of course inform his superior of his action at the first available opportunity. In the meantime, he has been enabled to act intelligently and fearlessly because of the existence of a state of mutual understanding.

Indoctrination. Both the necessary process and the final result of establishing a state of mutual understanding are sometimes known as indoctrination.

The word carries the dual meaning of "the act of indoctrinating" and "the state of being indoctrinated". In common with the word doctrine, it has its root in the Latin verb which means "to teach". A doctrine, in its pure meaning, is that which is taught, or set forth for acceptance or belief.

It does not follow that every doctrine is necessarily sound, nor that it is founded on conviction reached as the result of intelligent thought. Nor is the encouragement of a belief, by means of the spread of a doctrine, necessarily inspired by good motives. The preaching of doctrine known to be false is frequently encountered in many human activities. The deliberate spread of false propaganda is an example. But, whatever the motive and whether the doctrine be sound or false, the act of indoctrination is intended to shape opinion and thus influence action.

Manifestly, to be along permanently useful lines, indoctrination flows from sound philosophy, i.e., is rooted in truth. All teachings, all opinions that may be advanced, all expressions of viewpoint, i.e., all doctrine, is therefore to be scrutinized, first from the standpoint of validity, and then from that of usefulness of application. It is the responsibility of command to ensure that these conditions are met before doctrine is pronounced.

Military doctrine, in its broad sense, is a digest of the accepted beliefs of the military profession. In a narrower sense a military doctrine may be confined to the views of a single commander on a specific subject. The object of military doctrine, however, is always to furnish a basis for mutual understanding to the end that prompt and harmonious action by subordinate commanders may ensue without the necessity for referring every problem to superior authority before taking action (page 15). Doctrine thus provides a basis for action in possible situations when, for whatever reason, precise instructions have not been issued.

The term "doctrine" is inappropriate as a description of the content of orders or instructions prescribing specific methods of action for a particular tactical operation in a situation existent or assumed under circumstances of the moment. The precise instructions thus issued, though they may be the result of doctrine, and may themselves constitute a basis for development of doctrine, are manifestly of the nature of something ordered rather than presented as authoritative opinion.

In the broad field of the conduct of war, with its diversified demands, a common viewpoint as to the application of fundamentals is an essential to unity of effort. If the members of the military profession have this common viewpoint, their reasoned beliefs as to the best general methods of waging a particular war may be expected more nearly to approach unanimity. The attainment of unity of effort therefore calls for an understanding of fundamentals (page i), a basic indoctrination which is not only sound but also common to all commanders of the chain of command.

Wars come and go. Their effects are painful, but when their wounds are healed mankind is prone to forget and to hope, even to assume, that peace will henceforth be unbroken. Psychological and economic forces then not infrequently impel the State to subordinate the national defense in favor of other interests. During such periods the burdens of command are enlarged. Its responsibility is not lessened, but the means for effective discharge thereof are withheld.

The effective conduct of war thus requires that understanding exist (see pages 9 and 10) between the civil representatives of the State and the leaders of the armed forces in the coordination of policy with the preparation and the use of power to enforce it. Of the leaders of the armed forces, as a whole or in combinations, such conduct of war demands the expression of the highest of human qualities, coupled with intimate knowledge of fundamentals, an appreciation of the capacities and limitations of the technique, and the ability to fit the practical details into the general plan in their true relation thereto.

The need for these qualities is manifestly not restricted to the hour of supreme test, when the weapon of the State, the armed forces, is wielded with hostile purpose. The forging of the weapon, and its adequate preparation for use, are not matters susceptible of deferment until the crucial hour. The exacting requirements of war are essentially such as to preclude the readiness of the requisite intricate instrument and its skillful use without previous studied effort during peace.

It follows that where the peacetime effort of the armed forces is directed toward the attainment of a war time objective of a specific, rather than of a vaguely general character, and the necessary components of fighting strength are provided accordingly, the readiness of the instrument is more likely to be adequate, and the application of power more likely to be successful. History records, as facts, that certain States have given their armed forces great stimulus by early clear definition of policy while, in other cases, failures and disappointments have resulted from a lack thereof. Military problems are not confined to those presented after war is begun.

Mental power (see pages 8 and 9), which includes the ability to solve military problems in peace and in war and to arrive at sound decisions, is a recognized essential component of fighting strength because it is the source of professional judgment. The development of such ability in those who may be charged with the successful conduct of war (page 4) may not safely be postponed.