Introduction
It is important to note that military actions, pursuits, and plans require a structured and organized approach in order to be effective. The latter is only possible if the measures undertaken by the Army are based on a set of principles and rules, which, in turn, must be solidified in ethical reasoning. These central and cornerstone principles are called the Principles of Mission Command, which guide and direct military actions and activities. General George S. Patton provides a comprehensive, exemplary, and demonstrative case of how the mission command manifests on the battlefield and in real life.
Leader Analysis and Five Instances
In order to properly understand and analyze how General George S. Patton applied and adhered to the principles of mission command and ethical reasoning, it is useful to revisit what mission command means. It is stated that “mission command is the Army’s approach to command and control that empowers subordinate decision-making and decentralized execution appropriate to the situation” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 1-3). In other words, it is a unique method of organizing the Army and its actions in a manner that does not engage the commanders’ attention to the fullest extent.
A commander’s intent of mission command is a form of exercising one’s authority to utilize a commander’s intent to command through his or her leadership. General George S. Patton stated: “Never tell people how to do things. Tell them what to do, and they will surprise you with their ingenuity” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 1-3). In other words, it takes place when a commander uses mission orders to initiate a disciplined action with the use of his or her intent to enable adaptive and agile conduct of operations, which are based on authority and leadership (Perna, 2019). It requires a proper understanding of a commander’s intent, which enables a more independent execution in alignment with the predetermined objectives.
General George S. Patton demonstrated his mastery of mission command during the invasion of Sicily. He led the Seventh United States Army in Operation Husky to aid the landing of the British Army in Italy (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2017). Firstly, the principle of competence refers to having technically and tactically competent people conducting an operation who have appropriate experience and training. General Patton sent 3400 paratroopers to assault Sicily during the night of July 9-10, 1943, and all of them were highly competent and skilled combatants, which is why the case became an airborne legend (Department of the Army, 2019). Secondly, the principle of trust is about mutual confidence among people and teams in conducting an operation by performing the tasks they were assigned as flawlessly as possible. General Patton entrusted paratroopers in Sicily with a mission objective, but the weather conditions were the most undesirable (Department of the Army, 2019). This led to the paratroopers taking the initiative to attack sporadically in a dispersed manner.
Thirdly, the principle of shared understanding refers to having collective knowledge and connected actions when operating in the same environment. General Patton took Palermo, Italy, despite being ordered to defend the left flank of British forces in order to help Montgomery’s forces since there was a collective understanding that Italy must fall (Department of the Army, 2019). Fourthly, the principle of mission orders is about communication, which is comprised of clear instructions to military personnel and groups. General Patton was a poor communicator, which led to major controversies and disagreements with Theodore Roosevelt Jr. and Major General Terry de la Mesa Allen Sr. (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2017). Fifthly, the principle of commander’s intent refers to concise and clear task, condition, purpose, and limitation expressions. General Patton understood the commander’s intent, although he was not communicating with the leaders more concisely.
Sixthly, the principle of the disciplined initiative is about bringing more flexibility and adaptability to the mission. Seventhly, the principle of risk acceptance refers to being tolerant and aware of all risk factors which are unavoidably present in any military operation. General Patton showcased a great deal of flexibility as well as risk tolerance when he personally led troops at the Battle of Gela (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2017). He secured breaches despite the harsh weather conditions and strong winds. Throughout the assault, General Patton exhibited pragmatic ethical reasoning, but he did not express ethical conduct in regard to activities unrelated to the objectives. He slapped and abused some of his subordinates to discipline them against cowardice and killed mules blocking the way (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2017). It is evident that he understood the goals and pursued them directly without concerns about the ethical implications of actions outside the objectives making him a controversial figure in a general sense.
Specific Lesson Learned and Offered Solution
The case of General George S. Patton reveals that one can be flexible and rigidly disciplined at the same time. Although he was not a great communicator with his superiors, he clearly communicated the intent to his subordinates. The adherence to the principles of mission command is best evidenced during Operation Husky, where many disruptive forces, such as weather, made it difficult to stick to the plan. However, both the troops and General Patton himself demonstrated initiative in realizing the commander’s intent and objectives in ways that caused controversies. His ethical reasoning cannot be considered ethical in a general sense, but it is clear that he saw the success of the operation as a moral good, which meant that no other interests or objectives could be prioritized.
The instance of the Santo Stefano landing delay during the operation was a case of inappropriate use of mission command, which allowed the enemy forces to evacuate. General Patton failed to properly understand that the assault was meant to make the enemy forces unable to leave without suffering heavy losses (Naval History and Heritage Command, 2017). The solution is to achieve the commander’s intent at least partially instead of waiting for reinforcements as per plan.
Justification and Analysis of One Doctrinal Source
When it comes to one doctrinal source, the commander’s intent is likely to be the most complex and intricate principle of mission command to comprehend masterfully. It is “a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation … to achieve the commander’s desired results without further orders, even when the operation does not unfold as planned” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. 1-10). Unlike command or control, mission command is a type of art of leadership, where confidence and trust are key ingredients to achieving a common goal. There is a strong element of empowerment and motivation involved in mission command. The given exercise of authority avoids micromanagement by undertaking the risk of mistakes and execution errors on the basis of reliance on guidance and parameters of action.
Conclusion
In conclusion, mission command must be accomplished with the commander’s intent when it is inappropriate to use. Mission command enables growth and development within a group, but it should also be utilized in combination with directive leadership as well. Being able to balance these two styles of leadership is the essence of mastery of becoming a military leader. The overall trust provided room for creative action and the eventual completion of the mission.
References
Department of the Army. (2019). ADP 6-0 Mission Command. the Army Publishing Directorate.
Naval History and Heritage Command. (2017). Celebrate national dog biscuit day with your favorite furry friends! Web.
Perna, G. G. (2019). Mission command requires sharp commander’s intent. U.S. Army. Web.