Hacksaw,Originally Posted by Hacksaw
If tactical units get orders/tasks that are so froggy that a young officer (see MikeF response) must use design to figure it out... shame on the issuing staff's CDR, CoS, G3 and staff... that is problem of professionalism and not a gap in doctrine
Well, like I said before, I’m no experts on FM 5.0 or design but here is a view as I see it.
Our doctrine is changing to meet the complexity and competitive nature of the environment in which we now must operate. For example, battle command, the art of maneuvering forces and managing violence shifts toward mission command, to reflect the reality that the instrument of military power is also largely a national tool for doing many things traditionally outside the military’s purview.
FM 3.0, describes full spectrum operations (FSO) as Offense, Defense, and Stability Operations, which means leaders must be grounded not only in the tactics, techniques and procedures of force on force, but also in integrating capabilities with others in a battlespace that’s increasingly crowded and transparent.
Therefore, if we decentralize capability and authority to lower tactical levels, to empower the edge, then leaders at these levels need mission command type orders that are broad and not so prescriptive that they can’t develop the situation on their own.
I see design as the means that empowers these junior leaders to do just that—develop the situation.
Bill Jakola
Bookmarks