Military Staff

[RTK]

If a unit's mission is received from higher, why is it necessary that the unit's intent (to achieve that mission) be developed exclusively by the commander? As I previously said -- I have no experience with staff, so I'm probing for underlying purposes, assumptions, etc in how the system functions.

Let me answer your question with two counter-questions: What's the point of a commander? Why aren't units lead by committee?

Do you think technology (for example, electronic OERs) could mitigate the problem of seperation?

The problem isn't seperation. What loyalties would the Chief/DCO/XO have to the commander? Again, what's the point of the commander?

Why is an adversarial approach in a military setting seldom helpful and overrated?

For the sake of the team, which is what a good unit functions as, it isn't helpful, productive, or effective to have an adversarial staff. Constant disagreement for the sake of a possibly better product leads to hate and discontent. It also violates the characteristics of a good staff officer, as outlined in appendix C of FM 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces.

• Competence.
• Initiative.
• Creativity.
• Flexibility.
• Confidence.
• Loyalty.
• Team player.
• Effective manager.
• Effective communicator.

This isn't a board room, its a TOC. There is a chain of command and our oaths of office indicate we "follow the orders of the President and the officers appointed over us." I'm also reminded of a couple little winners from GEN Patton on staffs:

1. "A Commander will Command."
2. "Too much if'n, perhaps'n, and maybe'n will never win a battle."
3. "No good decison was ever made in a swivel chair."

I understand the concern with 'unity of command'. Does separating a commander from the planning process undermine his ability to execute missions?

It doesn't undermine it. It prevents him from conducting his duties as a commander. It detaches him from reality. Do the New York Giants set up the game plan this week for their game with Philadelphia without Tom Coughlin? Does Eli Manning get with the rest of the offensive starters and figure out how their going to get the ball around Brian Dawkins and then let Coughlin put on the headset Sunday and let him call plays? Hell no!

It also defeats three of the 16 activities, responsibilities and duties of the staff as outlined in Appendix D of FM 6-0, Mission Command: Command and Control of Army Forces.

1. Advising and informing the commander
2. Preparing, updating, and maintaining staff estimates
3. Making recommendations

I haven't seen MDMP at 'combat speed'. Can you give me an idea of what drawbacks you think it has to warrant abandoning it? What do you think is a better alternative?

The Regimental and Squadron MDMP processes I've been a part of as both an engineer and assistant S3 have been abbreviated with a limited amount of COAs or directed COAs that the staff has worked to make better within the confines of the commander's intent, key tasks, and endstate. It's the same way OPORDs are developed at the platoon level on a macro scale with backbriefs to the commander to ensure they synch with his overall scheme of maneuver.

Do you think that's a consequence of Army culture?

That's the way it is. You seem to readily discount the power, necessity, and reality of the fact there's a commander in charge. That's a bit disturbing to be quite honest.