Introduction
There is no assigned definition for mission command. This is to say that there are various definitions that have been floated in the past in an attempt to express this particular warfighting function. As a matter of fact, there are different definitions assigned to mission command under Army doctrine and the Joint Doctrine. In addition to highlighting what I learnt about mission command, this discussion will also assess how I intend to apply the philosophy as well as concepts of mission command in my future duty.

Discussion

What I learnt about Mission Command

As per the Army Doctrine Publication 6-0, “mission command is the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander's intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (U.S. Army, 2012, p. 1-3). On the other hand, mission command as per the Joint Publication 3-31, I said to be “the conduct of military operations through decentralized execution based upon mission-type orders” (Join Chiefs of Staff, 2012). It should be noted that in seeking to promote clarity, the former definition will be utilized in this context.

In as far as the army doctrine terminology is concerned, mission command happens to a relatively new construct. However, I learnt that great military strategists and leaders have for a long time applied key mission command principles. This is more so the case when it comes to the principle of mutual trust – which happens to be a prominent mission command principle. Indeed, according to the U.S. Army (2012), the relevance of trust cannot be overstated in as far as successful mission command is concerned. To a large extent, “subordinates are more willing to exercise initiative when they believe their commander trusts them” (U.S. Army, 2012, p. 1-7). It is important to note that commanders derive the conviction as well as certitude to engage in decisive course of action from their trust in subordinates. This is particularly the case when the said subordinates are capable of not only planning, but also coordinating and executing commitments in diverse, multiplex, and challenging environments. I am convinced that commanders ought to further promote their understanding of how units and soldiers are impacted upon by trust. This would call for the development of proper perspectives of the dimensions of trust. Mission command cannot be executed successfully without what Stewart (2010) refers to as distributed leadership. I am of the opinion that this would be largely impossible without the promotion of trust. However, it should be noted that for mission command to succeed, we must not only focus on a single principle. Instead, there is need to incorporate and apply the other principles as well.

According to the U.S. Army (2012), war is in its very nature and construct uncertain and chaotic. For this reason, there is no course of action that can accurately map all the possibilities relating to war – effectively meaning that situational changes must be incorporated into the planning equation as they unfold so as to further promote better execution. It is also important to note that according to the U.S. Army (2012), in combat scenarios, no single person possesses the ability to make or keep track of all the important decisions. For this reason, there is need to ensure that the ability of subordinate leaders to make decisions is promoted. In my own understanding, this is what mission command is all about. As I have pointed out elsewhere in this text, sustainment commanders must in their execution of mission command ensure that they envisage the operational area in proper format. This calls...…command is concerned, the principle of risk acceptance would come in handy. In its most basic form, “risk is the exposure of someone or something valued to danger, harm, or loss” (U.S. Army, 2012). I am well aware of the fact that in military operations, risk is a fact of life and cannot be avoided. For this reason, in my future duty, I would embrace the need to conduct risk assessment so as to properly perceive risk levels and engage in actions meant to mitigate identified risk. It is important to note that in so doing, I would be keen to bring subordinates onboard so as to better improve my judgment. As the leader, however, I would be responsible for the final evaluation as well as acceptance of prudent risk. This I would do with the full understanding that risk cannot be totally eliminated. This is why prudent risk should be accepted. For this reason, as a leader, I may be called upon to allow deliberate exposure in those instances where in my estimate, costs are minimal in comparison to the rewards associated with the accomplishment of the mission.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, it should be noted that the various mission command tenets have been utilized since the early 19th century. This is despite mission command being a relatively new construct in the army terminology. If there is anything that is clearly apparent from this discussion, it is that the relevance of trust and communication cannot be overstated in as far as the conduction of decisive action is concerned. From the wider perspective, it is the power of mission command that further promotes the ability of military units to be more effective and adaptive regardless of the complexities of the operational environment.





















References

Hill,…