Thus, a judicious combination of the offensive and the defensive has been found to be sound procedure (see also page 61), provided that the general defensive is always viewed as a basis for the inauguration, at the proper moment, of the offensive. The methods employed during the period of the defensive are best calculated to promote freedom of action if they are designed to facilitate a ready assumption of the offensive as soon as conditions favorable to the offensive have been created.

Familiarity with the physical characteristics of the actual and possible theaters of operations, and accurate intelligence of the strength, distribution, and activities of enemy forces likely to be encountered, are of primary importance in the promotion of freedom of action. Additions to this store of knowledge may be made by a continuous interpretation and dissemination of new information collected, analyzed, and evaluated by persistent effort. Of equal importance is the denial of information to the enemy.

In connection with counter-information measures (see page 127), the scrutiny of information of a military nature intended for popular consumption demands the exercise of sound professional judgment prior to publication. A resourceful enemy is ever alert to evaluate and turn to his own advantage all available information, including that ostensibly innocuous.

As to all of the foregoing considerations, a fund of professional knowledge, previously acquired through study, or experience, or both, and coupled with a sound concept of war, is the best basis for devising suitable, feasible, and acceptable measures for freedom of action.

With a given fighting strength, the ensurance of freedom of action, within the field of responsibility of a commander, requires consideration of such matters as:

(a) Efficient provisions for exercise of command, (b) Effective training, (c) A state of high and stable morale, founded on (d) sound discipline, (e) The offensive spirit, (f) The initiative, (g) Surprise, (h) Security, (i) Adequate logistics support, (j) Adequate intelligence and counter-intelligence.

A more detailed analysis of such factors is provided hereafter (Chapter VI, as to Section I-B of the Estimate Form). With proper provision made in these respects, the commander will be better able to deal with those restrictions on freedom of action imposed by the enemy and by adverse geographical conditions. With respect to restrictions that in a particular situation may be due to the latter cause, it will at once be appreciated how greatly freedom of action may depend on the selection of correct physical objectives, on utilization of advantageous relative positions, and on an effective apportionment of fighting strength.

Each measure, or each operation, for freedom of action, if it is to meet the requirements of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability, will be planned on the basis of the foregoing considerations and will take account, also, of the inherent requirements of that measure, or operation, for freedom of action for itself.

On occasion, higher authority may request the recommendations of the commander (see page 42, as to opinions) with reference to provision for freedom of action. Such recommendations will properly be based on the elements considered in the preceding discussion.

IV. SUMMARY

All these considerations involve the proper evaluation of the factors applicable (page 25) to the particular problem. Each objective, prior to its selection, and each operation, prior to its adoption, will require examination of its suitability with regard to the appropriate effect desired; of its feasibility with respect to the action contemplated as to physical objectives, relative positions, the concurrent apportionment of fighting strength, and freedom of action; and, finally, of its acceptability with reference to consequences as to costs.



CHAPTER V

THE FOUR STEPS IN THE SOLUTION OF A MILITARY PROBLEM

Chapter V discusses the four steps in the application of mental effort to the successful attainment of a military objective. Emphasis is placed on such matters as: the Estimate of the Situation in basic problems, together with certain details as to tasks, the mission, courses of action, and the Decision; the formulation of detailed plans, including subsidiary plans; directives; the Running Estimate of the Situation; and the use of Forms in the solution of problems.

In Chapter II it has been brought to notice that every problem, regardless of its type and scope, has its source in a perplexity created by an apparent difficulty inherent in a situation. Where there is a sufficient incentive to change or maintain the situation, the problem is one which requires solution. (See page 20.)

A situation may be actual or assumed. In broad outline, an actual military situation is always likely to present a picture of opposing organizations of human beings, each possessed of fighting strength and disposed in a locality or localities which constitute relative positions with reference to each other.

This picture may be expected to assume various aspects as action progresses (see page 38). The concern of the commander is to control the unfolding of the original situation, to the end that he may attain the effect he desires (page 72). (See also Chapter IX.)

The incentive to solve a problem is provided by a realization, on the part of the individual concerned, of a need to make provision for the attainment of an objective. In the ease of a military problem, such incentive may result (1) from a directive issued by higher authority, usually in the form of an assigned task, or (2) from the fact that a decision already reached by the commander has introduced further problems, or (3) from a recognition of the demands of the situation. (See page 44.)

An objective is best attained by the successful application of properly directed effort. There is thus an essential and continuing relationship between the incentive to solve a problem, and the task which assigns the objective (or objectives) and thus motivates the procedure necessary for the attainment of the objective(s) so assigned (page 50).

Such a task may, therefore, be referred to as the motivating task.

The natural mental processes which normal human beings employ in solving their problems of business, public affairs, or even personal matters, have been previously described as the natural processes for employment in the solution of military problems (see Chapter II). In adapting these natural processes to military requirements (page 43), the only difference imposed is that of studied insistence that the factors peculiar to the conduct of war, as recognized in the Fundamental Military Principle (page 41), receive thorough analytical treatment from the professional viewpoint.

The same observations apply when the field of military operations is restricted to that which primarily concerns the naval branch of the military profession. No fundamental difference in the solution of problems is introduced thereby. The only variations in the application of the Fundamental Military Principle are those due to the fact that the sea provides the theater of naval operations with distinctive characteristics (see page 62).

The Approach to the Solution

Studies of the subject indicate that the successful attainment of an assigned military objective involves the application of mental effort in four distinct steps (see page 3), in fixed sequence, as follows:

(1) The selection, by the commander, of a correct objective (or objectives) by achieving which he may attain his assigned objective(s). Such selection includes the determination, in proper detail, of the action required.

(2) The resolution of the required action into detailed military operations.

(3) The formulation of a directive, or directives, with the intention of immediately inaugurating planned action.

(4) The supervision of the planned action.

In the chapters which follow, the fundamental procedure distinctive of each of these steps will be treated separately and in the sequence shown. The sequence of the steps is fixed because of the consequential nature of the relationship among the procedures distinctive of the several steps. The complete solution of a problem involves, necessarily, all four steps. Each step deals with a distinctive type of problem, or problems, pertaining to an aspect of the comprehensive problem whose solution requires all four steps. No step after the first can properly be undertaken unless the included problems involved in the preceding steps have been solved.

It does not follow that the completion of one step necessarily requires that the next step be undertaken immediately. It will be seen, for instance, that the first two steps are concerned with planning, the latter two more especially with execution. It is not always necessary that a plan be executed; it may be drawn up as a precautionary measure.

It is possible, therefore, that the first step only may be taken; i.e., that the procedure for the attainment of a particular assigned objective may be determined for the sole purpose of making provision against a contingency, at that particular time merely an obscure probability. Or, as may frequently be the case during peace, the procedure may terminate, for the time being, with the completion of the second step. In such cases, certain of the necessary military operations are worked out in the desired detail as a provision against future possibilities, are listed, and filed for reference as needed.

Parts II and III, which follow, deal primarily with the solution of those problems of the naval commander which require familiarity with the entire process, i.e., all of the four steps given above.

For simplicity of presentation, the procedure is described throughout from the mental standpoint of the same commander. The arrangement of subject matter conforms to this basis. The several types of problems, classified according to the source of the incentive (page 79), are discussed in connection with the appropriate step. When a problem typical of a previous step arises during the process, the sequence of steps is interrupted thereby, but is resumed by a mental return, on the part of the commander, to the proper earlier step.

The First Step

The mental procedure distinctive of the first step (more fully discussed in Chapter VI) deals with the usual case where a commander becomes acquainted with the nature of his assigned objective through receipt of a directive from his immediate superior, ordinarily in the form of an assigned task or assigned tasks. In the discussion of the first step, this most likely type of problem is chosen for description, i.e., the one where the motivating task (see page 80) comes directly from the immediate superior.

For purposes of reference, this problem may conveniently be termed a basic problem. In such a case the original situation which gives character to the problem may be similarly referred to as the basic situation. The full solution of a basic problem always involves a basic estimate of the situation, a basic Decision, a basic plan of operations, and one or more basic directives. It may, as will be shown, also require certain additional directives.

The military Estimate of the Situation, based on the natural mental processes (pages 19-20 and 43), is introduced in the first step. The reason for making such an Estimate is to provide a basis for a plan to accomplish the assigned task. The Estimate constitutes a systematic procedure for selection of a correct objective (or objectives), suitable to the appropriate effect desired, feasible of attainment, and acceptable as to the consequences involved in its achievement. The selection of such an objective or objectives involves, incidentally (see page 44), the determination, in the proper detail, of the action required.

This estimate procedure is founded on the Fundamental Military Principle (page 41). The procedure is the same as previously indicated for the correct selection of objectives (Section II of Chapter IV).

On the basis of a summary of the situation, a recognition of the incentive, and an appreciation of the assigned objective(s) (page 79), the estimate of a basic problem enables the commander to obtain, first, an understanding of (page 43) the appropriate effect desired. As a result of this procedure, he can then correctly formulate his mission (discussed hereinafter).

For the further understanding of all details pertaining to the situation (page 43), the estimate next determines relative fighting strength through a survey of the means available and opposed, as influenced by the characteristics of the theater.

With the basis for solution of the problem thus established, the actual solution (page 44), conforming to the system indicated in the Fundamental Military Principle, starts with consideration of pertinent methods of procedure, as tentative solutions of the problem. These take the form of military operations, each denominated a course of action (discussed in detail hereinafter). Each such course embodies, specifically or inferentially, an objective to be achieved for the attainment of the appropriate effect desired. Each course also indicates, in proper detail, the action to be taken. Every pertinent course of action is tested to determine whether it meets the requirements of suitability as to the appropriate effect desired, of feasibility on the basis of relative fighting strength, and of acceptability with respect to the consequences as to costs.

Enemy courses of action are subjected to the same treatment.

Each course of action which passes the tests is compared with each retained enemy course, after which those courses of action not rejected on this basis are compared with each other. The best is then selected and embodied in the Decision.

The Decision, accordingly, expresses a general plan of action (or provides a basis therefor), including the commander's general objective (page 49) for the attainment of the assigned objective. The Decision also indicates, in proper detail, the action to be taken.

The estimate procedure is applicable not only to the problem of the first step, viewed as a whole, but also to the numerous included problems. These present themselves during the procedure of solution, and call for "estimates within the estimate".

For example, the proper nature of the objective embodied in the assigned task (discussed hereinafter), if not clear in the directive received, may be determined by the use of the natural mental processes. This is done through the application of the Fundamental Military Principle, as previously described (page 52).

Similarly, the solution of the included problems as to the salient features of the operations involved (correct physical objectives, etc.) can be arrived at through the same processes. The procedure is that indicated previously (in Section III of Chapter IV).

The estimate procedure may, however, be somewhat varied, as to details, in accordance with the nature of the problem. Such adaptation is applicable, for example, as to the special features which distinguish certain types of strategical and tactical problems.

Every military situation has both strategical and tactical aspects (see discussion of strategy and tactics, pages 9 and 10). The character of the effort to be exerted at a particular time, and the nature of the objectives to be attained, may be governed chiefly by strategical, or chiefly by tactical, considerations. This fact may affect details in the estimate of the situation, e.g., as to the weight to be given various factors.

The essential difference between strategy and tactics has been shown to lie in the end in view. It follows, then, that estimates of broad strategical situations and of localized tactical situations tend to differ from each other. The former lead to decisions as to such matters, among others, as whether a battle shall be fought. The latter lead to decisions, among others, as to the comprehensive tactical methods to be followed in furtherance of strategical aims. Certain distinctions of method as to such estimates are noted hereinafter with respect to the analysis of fighting strength and with reference to courses of action.

Tasks. The assignment of tasks to subordinates is an essential function of the chain of command, applicable to all of the echelons of command, from the highest to the lowest (page 12). On the lowest echelons, such as that of a gun's crew or a fireroom watch, operations thus prescribed involve numerous small specialized tasks, each requiring the performance of a simplified routine by a few trained men. Although earlier training in the performance of such tasks is calculated to remove the necessity of solving the problems of the lowest echelons in the four studied steps stated above, it is only when the same methods of logical thought have previously been applied to the solution of these problems that this state of affairs can be brought about.

Properly conceived, each assigned task indicates, either specifically or inferentially, an objective (or objectives). The relationships existing among the echelons of command, with reference to objectives, have previously been noted. (See page 48.) These relationships, because a correctly conceived task specifies or infers an objective, are equally applicable as to such tasks.

The manner of expressing tasks calls for special comment (see also page 53, as to expressing objectives).

The commander may find in the expression of his task a statement, only, of the action required. For example, the order "Proceed toward the enemy battle line" involves movement, indicating merely a change in relative position. No provision appears as to a future condition or state of affairs.

Again, the task may be expressed as an order to "Attack the enemy battle line." In this case, the enemy battle line is the physical objective, but no specific future condition to result from the attack is indicated. Here the action and the physical objective are given, but the objective is left to be inferred.

If the commander can ascertain, from the directives he receives, his task expressed in terms of accomplishment, he may be able to visualize the action, the physical objective, and the condition to be created. The order "Destroy the enemy battleship" (indicating, as the objective, "the destruction of the enemy battleship"), results, when successfully completed, in a new condition which is the objective of the action against the physical objective.

Accordingly, a task expressed in such terms of accomplishment conveys precise information as to the objective; yet such an expression of the task does not prevent freedom of action, with opportunity for exercise of initiative. The commander who is assigned such a task can clearly visualize the results demanded of him, and may feel at liberty to employ any one or all of the methods at his disposal.

However, it is not always possible or even desirable to express tasks in terms of accomplishment.

For example, where the future situation cannot be adequately visualized, either because of the doubtful values of certain factors or because of possible changes in circumstances, it may be impracticable to assign a definite task in terms of accomplishment.

Under such conditions, and sometimes for other proper reasons, it may be desirable to afford a trusted and competent subordinate a corresponding measure of freedom of action. In such a case, the indication of the commander's general objective for his entire force, together with a directive for action along a certain general line, without prescription of a definite objective, may be especially appropriate to the situation. Such is the frequent usage in the issue, for example, of directives of the type known as letters of instruction (Chapter VIII).

Again, where immediate response is desired, and where the objective may be understood by implication, the task may be better expressed in terms of action, rather than of accomplishment. This is frequently the case where the task is assigned by word of mouth, by memorandum, or by signal. In the last-named instance, the signal, when it constitutes a command fully understood by previous usage or experience, may convey a practically instantaneous comprehension of the objective. In many such instances, however, an inferred objective will require more analysis.

The expression of the task in terms of action is frequently desirable, more especially during an engagement, when tactical considerations are uppermost. Under such circumstances, two or more objectives may be suitable to the appropriate effect desired, but their degree of suitability, and the influence of the factors pertaining to feasibility and acceptability, may vary rapidly with the course of events. In such conditions, an order such as "Attack" without indicating a specific physical objective, may be best calculated to attain desired results, for the reason, more especially, that it affords the subordinate a proper freedom of action.

In many cases, the instructions received by a commander will set forth more than one task, often of varying importance. The proper bearing of such a double or multiple task upon his future action is set forth, together with other relevant matters, in the discussion of the mission, which follows.

On occasion, a higher commander, in assigning a task, may elect to specify, also, the course of action to be pursued by a subordinate for the attainment of the assigned objective: for example—

"Deny enemy bases in area ABCD by capturing X Island".

Here the task is to deny the enemy the use of available bases in the area described; in addition, the higher commander has specified that this be accomplished by the adoption of a predetermined course of action (page 88), expressed in the words "by capturing X Island." Higher authority has in this case made the subordinate's estimate of the situation for him, and has thus arrived at the decision which the subordinate would ordinarily reach for himself.

Such procedure may be deemed advisable under certain circumstances: for example, when time is pressing; when a close control of the situation is an important factor; when the qualifications of the subordinate are unknown, as yet doubtful, or known to be inadequate for the operation in hand; or, for various other reasons which may suggest themselves according to the nature of the problem.

Occasionally, higher authority, for similar reasons, may also prescribe the action to be taken, in considerable detail. Examples occur during operations of unusual complexity, or when the personnel factors call for special care in coordination of the action.

Sometimes, higher authority, instead of announcing both the task and the predetermined course of action, may indicate only the latter; in the example given above, the higher commander would then direct, "Capture X Island". The directive might also include, in some detail, the action to be taken to this end.

Procedure such as noted in the foregoing examples involves certain special considerations from the viewpoint of the subordinate. These considerations are discussed hereafter (page 96).

The Mission. In our naval service an assigned task, coupled with its purpose, is known as a mission. As explained previously (page 48), the purpose indicates the larger aim which is to be served by the execution of the task. The task indicates the assigned objective, i.e., what is to be accomplished; the purpose, the further objective to be served thereby.

The word mission is a derivative of the Latin verb, "to send". Its use implies the act of sending someone, or of being sent, as an agent for some special duty, a duty imposed by one in authority. Although an individual, free to do so, may select his own mission, and thereby send himself on a special duty, this is not usually the case where an effective military chain of command exists. Normally the sending authority is the immediate superior; the agent, the immediate subordinate.

The mission, once assigned, does not change until it has been accomplished or until it has been modified or revoked by higher authority, usually the immediate superior by whom it was assigned.

As previously explained in this connection, the designation of a purpose, linked with a task, is an essential element of a mission as treated herein. It is essential to unity of effort that the purpose of the mission of a commander be common with that of other commanders of the same echelon who are to participate in the effort enjoined by their superior's directives. Directives expressed in the Order Form (page 112 and Chapter VIII) facilitate clear recognition of this purpose, which appears in the general plan of action prescribed in the second paragraph of that form. The commander may consider the relationship thus:

My assigned task is to be accomplished for the purpose of carrying out my designated part of my immediate superior's general plan.

It is customary to simplify the foregoing to the statement that the mission is:

(Task) (statement of the assigned task),

(Purpose) in order to assist in the successful execution of (statement of the superior's general plan).

The words "assist in", etc., may frequently be understood and therefore omitted.

The foregoing expression of a mission affords, as later explained (Chapter VI), a method for clear visualization of the effect desired by higher authority. (See also page 84.)

All of his assigned tasks which materially influence the commander's Decision (hereinafter discussed) are properly included in his mission; other tasks, naturally, may be omitted in this connection. In the case of a double or multiple task (page 86), all the tasks may be related to a single purpose, or the included tasks may each, or in certain combinations, be linked separately to appropriate purposes.

Survey of Factors of Fighting Strength. The feasibility and acceptability of action for the attainment of an objective are dependent (see the Fundamental Military Principle—page 41) on the factors of fighting strength. Fighting strength (page 35) is derived from the means available and opposed, as influenced by the characteristics of the theater of operations. A survey of these factors, in proper detail according to the nature of the problem, is therefore a necessary phase in the process of its solution. Such a survey completes the basis for the study of courses of action.

Courses of Action. The estimate process naturally takes account (page 80) of methods for attaining the objective indicated in the assigned task. The military profession has, from time to time, applied a variety of terms to designate such methods. Terms so used include, among others, "plans open to us" (or "to the enemy"), "lines of action", and "courses of action". The last-noted, having been standard in our naval service for many years, is the term used in this discussion.

Each course of action is thus a plan of military operations for the attainment of the assigned objective, and each thus indicates (page 37) "an act or a series of acts" which may be undertaken to that end. Until a final selection is made for embodiment in the Decision, each course of action is a tentative solution of the problem. For the reason given below, a course of action, while under consideration as a tentative solution of the problem, is also correctly conceived as indicating an objective and, in proper detail, the action for its attainment.

When embodied in the Decision, the adopted course of action or combination of courses becomes the commander's general plan (or the basis thereof) for the employment of his force; such a general plan will naturally indicate the commander's general objective (page 49) and, in proper detail, the action to be taken for its attainment (page 44).

The objective may be specifically stated or may be inferred (see page 82; also page 84 for the corresponding discussion of the expression of tasks); but, in any event, clear thinking demands that the objective be definitely envisaged. There is a manifest advantage in such definite envisaging of the objectives involved in courses of action. Suitability as to the appropriate effect desired—the first requirement in the selection of a correct objective (page 51)—is much more readily tested on this basis. The practical bearing of this fact becomes apparent during the early stages (Chapter VI) of the process of solving military problems.

Frequent examples of naval courses of action include (see page 92):

(1) "To destroy the enemy force." Here the objective, "destruction of the enemy force", is specifically indicated.

(2) "To divert the enemy force." Here also the objective, in this case "diversion of the enemy force", is specifically indicated.

(3) "To evade the enemy." Here again the objective, "evasion of the enemy", is specifically indicated.

(4) "To cover friendly and neutral trade." Here the objective, "protection of friendly and neutral trade by the utilization of advantageous covering positions", is more or less inferred.

(5) "To escort trade." Here the objective, "protection of trade by escorting it in convoys", is more or less inferred.

(6) "To patrol the trade routes." Here the objective, e.g., "protection of trade by patrolling the trade routes", is inferred.

(7) "To raid." Here the objective, e.g., "infliction of loss and damage by raiding", is inferred.

In the foregoing instances, the action to be taken is indicated in general terms. The extent to which the action may properly be indicated depends on the nature of the problem and is necessarily left to the judgment of the commander. Two possibilities, between which there may be various intermediate cases, are as follows:

(a) To destroy the enemy force by simultaneous attacks on the escort and convoy.

(b) To destroy the enemy force by an attack with the main force on the escort, following this immediately by an attack on the convoy with a flanking force before the convoy can scatter so widely as to make ineffective the pursuit of any of its units.

For a further application, it will be noted that the national policies referred to early in this discussion (page 7) are national courses of action, considered and adopted as methods of attaining national objectives.

The expression "courses of action", in the sense of a plan considered or adopted as a solution of the problem, has the defect that it appears to emphasize the action, rather than the paramount component, i.e., the objective. So long as this fact is borne in mind, the limitations of the term "courses of action" need not operate to influence, adversely, the solution of the problem.

As noted above, the commander brings to mind courses of action by the mental act of "envisaging", i.e., "viewing with the mind's eye or conceptionally", "seeing as a mental image", bringing fully and distinctively to view. How is this done?

Although the time available for the process depends on the particular problem, the process itself is the same for all. During the clarification of the problem, the commander will have entertained certain ideas,—ideas as to such matters as the existing situation, the desired new situation, the possible physical objectives, the relative positions and movements of the forces involved, and related matters. His training and experience cause these ideas to evoke others, which are associated in his mind with problems of the past,—in particular, with the bearing of such ideas on the outcome of those problems.

This process of thinking, if it is to be effective as well as reflective, requires mental access to certain sources of ideas. These sources may lie in the study of history, or in the wealth of doctrine and instructions gathered into official manuals and into other professional writings, or in the commander's own practical experience. Logicians who have investigated this natural process point out that suggested solutions are the resurrection of ideas from past experience. Good thinking demands access to a large storehouse of ideas connected in various and flexible ways. The best available knowledge is the main source from which reflective thinking obtains relevant and promising suggestions for a solution.

By such resort to analogy, the commander utilizes the accumulations of past experience. Sometimes he finds that the courses of action thus suggested are exactly suitable as tentative solutions for his problem. In other instances, of course, only parts of the present situation are found to be analogous to those previously encountered. Even then, however, the similarity of the facts may be helpful in providing suggestions. Guidance based on limited or partial similarity has been demonstrated to be better than purely intuitive thinking.

The commander cannot be content, however, to depend wholly on the guidance of the past. Sometimes, moreover, he may not be able to obtain suggestions by analogy. New suggestions, ideas not drawn from past experience, are very desirable; they are possible, also, in the sense that the result of the analysis of past experience may be reassembled, in imagination, in novel ways. New courses of action, overlooked in the past, may be contrived. Original combinations, not previously entertained, may be devised. Readiness to employ the novel and the new, as well as to utilize the old, is a prime qualification for command.

Reflective thinking of this nature requires adequate knowledge of the capabilities of weapons, so that new possibilities may be perceived as to coordination in their use. While analogy looks backward to find applicable lessons, the search for novelty seeks suggestions from potentialities not heretofore utilized.

The development of the full possibilities of new weapons is an important source of forward thinking. Such thinking constantly integrates the current developments in war. The competent commander does not wait for history to be made; he makes it.

Familiarity with experimentation, research, and new performance is also a fruitful source of suggestions. When used, this method results in advance demands by the armed forces for new weapons not yet supplied.

Closely allied to analogy is the application of ordered and classified knowledge as to the nature of warfare. Aware of the effects which can be brought about by the weapons at his disposal, the commander identifies his objective with one or more of these effects.

The application of ordered and classified knowledge of naval warfare starts, naturally, with a consideration of its objectives, and proceeds thereafter to the study of the various classes of operations which may be utilized to this end. Naval effort has as its objective the keeping open of sea communications (see page 62). Command of the sea exists for one belligerent when he possesses and can exercise the ability to move surface traffic, while also being able to prevent the enemy from doing so.

Naval warfare, therefore, logically includes operations for the purpose of gaining, maintaining, or disputing command of sea areas, especially under conditions where freedom of movement and the keeping open of sea communications are of vital importance.

Such operations may be classified under the headings:

(1) For securing command of sea areas, (2) In sea areas not under command, and (3) In sea areas under command.

On the basis of this classification, specific operations, broadly considered, appear to be limited in number. As to classification (1), applicable operations are: to destroy the enemy naval forces, to contain them, or to divert them. For (2), applicable operations are: to raid, to make war against enemy trade, to attack or defend naval lines of communication, and to conduct amphibious warfare requiring overseas movement. For (3), applicable operations are: to blockade trade, to defend own coastal and critical areas, to safeguard expeditions against enemy territory, and to carry out offensive operations against enemy coastal objectives.

Manifestly, each such operation, broadly viewed, may be considered, in an estimate of the situation, as a course of action. Each such course of action (or operation) will involve, if developed into a more or less complete plan of action, numerous detailed operations which constitute parts of the whole. (See page 37.)

There can be no rigid line of demarcation, always applicable, between courses of action and the more detailed operations pertaining thereto. For example, "to raid" may be, in one instance, an operation of such a character, from the viewpoint of the commander, as to be envisaged, correlatively with "to destroy", as one of his courses of action. Yet, in another problem, a raid may be visualized, properly, as a detailed operation pertaining, in a subordinate capacity, to a more comprehensive operation envisaged as a course of action "to destroy".

Similarly, what is a broad course of action from the viewpoint of one echelon in the chain of command, may be correctly viewed, on a higher echelon, as a detailed operation. Operations assigned in tasks imposed by higher authority become the basis for the determination of courses of action on the next lower echelon, a procedure which continues throughout the chain of command until specialized, on the lowest echelons, in the form of a simplified routine (see page 84).

While the list of courses of action given above is made up from the viewpoint of broad strategical problems, a similar list can be assembled for other problems. For example, the order, "Destroy enemy naval forces", if taken as the motivating task of a tactical estimate, will be the basis for certain courses of action, constituting, when complete (see below), a well-recognized general plan for a naval battle. This plan will in turn call for various detailed operations on the part of the several subdivisions of the force under the commander who makes the estimate (see page 95).

As a tentative solution of the problem a course of action may be complete or partial, i.e., it may, if carried out, provide for the complete attainment of the objective; or, such complete attainment may require a combination of several of the courses of action under study.

The exclusive consideration of courses of action of the complete type possesses the advantage of minimizing the total number of solutions under study. This simplifies the procedure of analysis and of comparing courses of action with each other, because of the relatively small number of courses to be tested and to be compared.

However, it is frequently difficult, and sometimes impossible, to visualize complete courses of action, especially during the early stages of the estimate. Sometimes the initial visualization of partial courses and their eventual combination into a complete solution will be found necessary.

Therefore, either or both of the foregoing systems of formulating courses of action may be found appropriate, according to individual preference and the nature of the particular problem.

Individuals, comparable with respect to knowledge, appear to vary greatly in their ability to produce the appropriate suggestion, as to courses of action, at the right time. The reason for this phenomenon is not altogether clear, but it is known that thinking seems to be limited not merely by the range of knowledge, but by whatever part of it becomes available when needed. This point invites attention to another procedure which is open to the commander with respect to stimulating reflective thinking. This procedure recognizes the fact that, when two or more minds attack a problem, together, the combined effort often increases the applied mental power. This fact is universally recognized, for example, in the utilization of staff assistance (page 13).

Inherent and acquired ability have unquestionably much to do with the possibilities of visualizing single courses of action with respect to their completeness as to attainment of the objective. One method of visualization seems to be the mental picturization of more or less detailed operations, followed by their combination, through rapid synthesis, into complete courses of action.

An example of this method would occur where several rather specific operations were visualized, involving seizure of certain localities as a defensive measure. If it were then observed that the objective in each such case was "denial to the enemy of a particular naval-base site in the area ABCD", an appropriate expression of a comprehensive course of action would be "to deny the enemy naval-base sites in the area ABCD".

Another method of visualizing appropriate courses of action seems to involve initial recognition, in the first instance, of such courses as broad and comprehensive general plans, without first visualizing and combining their details. This method appears to be more usual after considerable experience or training. It is therefore possible that this second method is merely a practiced development of the first, the process of synthesis being so rapidly accomplished that it becomes subconscious.

The nature of the particular problem has also an unquestioned bearing on this subject. In instances where no single course of action can be found which is adequately expressive of complete attainment of the objective, the final selection of a method of attaining the objective will necessarily be through a combination of the courses of action under study (page 93).

For example, if the assigned task were to "protect trade in sea area ABCD", the extent of the area, together with its geographical position relative to locations from which enemy attacks could be launched, might not be such as to permit the attainment of the objective by a single course of action such as "to escort trade in convoys" or "to patrol the trade routes". Both of these courses of action might be necessary, and, in addition, perhaps, the further course "to cover focal points M and N".

Each of these courses of action has, as its objective, the establishment of a protected area or areas, stationary or moving, for the safe passage of merchant vessels. However, for purposes of expressing the course of action involved, the contemplated procedure is in this case better indicated by a combination expressed in terms of action, the objective being inferred as a matter of mutual understanding. The less particularized expression of the course of action in terms of the objective would, in this instance, convey a less definite idea of the procedure under consideration.

Similar considerations pertain frequently to naval problems, more especially to those involving naval engagements of considerable scope. The solution of such a problem takes, typically, the form of an operation consisting, not of a single "act", but of "a series of acts", i.e., of a number of stages or phases of battle, each being a preparation for the one following, until the final stage provides for the attainment of the assigned objective.

For example, a first consideration might be "to reduce enemy carrier aircraft strength by" certain pertinent operations. A second consideration might be "to reduce enemy battle-line speed by" certain operations in order to force the enemy to accept battle. A third might be "to reduce enemy battle-line speed, life, and hitting power by gunfire" within certain range bands, in order to exploit own strength and enemy weakness at those ranges. A fourth might be "to continue reduction of enemy battle-line strength by gunfire, closing to" such a range as is suitable to that end. Finally, a fifth consideration might be "to inflict conclusive damage on enemy battle-line with torpedoes". All of the foregoing partial courses (other possibilities having been studied and discarded) might then be combined into one operation as the selected course of action "in order to destroy the enemy battleship strength",—such destruction being the assigned objective.

The degree of detail in which a course of action may be visualized for purposes of the estimate will vary with the same factors, i.e., personal facility and the nature of the problem. Practice in the solution of problems appears to develop such facility that entire plans can be visualized as courses of action, each plan reasonably complete as to details with reference to physical objectives, relative positions, apportionment of fighting strength, and provision for freedom of action. However, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to visualize courses of action minutely in an estimate of a basic problem; the extent to which they are viewed mentally, as detailed plans, need only be such as to fulfill the requirements of the particular problem (see Section I of Chapter IV).

The statement of a course of action, for purposes of the estimate, will naturally be along broad and comprehensive lines, although some important matters of detail (relatively speaking) may be added if this is found desirable as the estimate proceeds. It is with these considerations in mind that the standard practice has been developed of formulating courses of action, while under study as tentative solutions of the problem, in broad terms, appropriate to general plans of action.

The commander may find, on occasion, what appears, on first examination, to be an exception to the rule, herein treated as valid, that a course of action, correctly conceived, always contains the two elements (1) objective, specific or inferred, and (2) action for its attainment. However, apparent exceptions to this principle are due to special conditions which, on proper analysis, reveal no actual exceptions. Certain examples, now to be discussed, demonstrate this fact.

For instance, when the higher commander deems such procedure advisable (page 86), he may make his subordinate's estimate of the situation, as well as his own, and may accordingly indicate both a task and a predetermined course of action for the subordinate to pursue: for example:

"Deny enemy base sites in area ABCD by capturing X Island."

In such a case the higher commander has indicated the predetermined course of action in the words "by capturing X Island". This expression indicates a specific objective, the capture of X Island. The expression also indicates, though not in any detail, the action to be taken, i.e., it specifies "capture", rather than "occupation", "isolation", or some other form of control (page 8). Any further development of the action is left for the subordinate to determine. The procedure to be followed by the subordinate commander in solving such a problem is described hereafter (page 102) in the discussion of the analysis of courses of action. In any event, it is manifest that there is here no exception to the rule that a course of action, correctly conceived, contains the two elements of objective and action for its attainment.

A further example may occur when the higher commander, instead of indicating both the task and the predetermined course of action, indicates only the latter (page 86), by directing "Capture X Island". Once the subordinate has recognized this directive as containing a predetermined course of action, but not a normal task, he realizes that the objective so indicated would ordinarily be left for him to select. He also realizes that the action to be taken for its attainment is left for him to determine, in further detail.

In this case, then, what is really a predetermined course of action appears in the guise of a task. When the commander, receiving the directive, has recognized this fact, he proceeds in the manner hereafter indicated (page 103) in the discussion of the analysis of courses of action.

In any event, it is manifest that here, also, there is no exception to the rule that a course of action, correctly conceived, contains the two elements of objective and action for its attainment.

In such a case as the foregoing, how does the commander recognize that the apparent task is really a predetermined course of action? He could easily go astray because the directive, until analyzed, appears to contain a normal task. The directive indicates an objective, thereby resembling a task. The directive will usually indicate, at least in some degree, the action which the subordinate is to take. Hence, so far as superficial appearance is concerned, the subordinate commander may easily mistake the predetermined course of action for a normal task. However, he discovers the difference when he endeavors to find courses of action which are appropriate to this apparent task.

The commander will then discover that, while he can visualize actions whose accomplishment will attain the objective indicated in the apparent task, he cannot visualize any objective completely suitable to the case (page 93), intermediate between the assigned objective and the indicated action. He can state the assigned objective in other words and adopt such a statement as an expression of his general objective, but the two objectives, the one he selects and the assigned one, will really be identical.

This inability to visualize an objective of the commander's own selection, suitable to the case, is inevitable, because higher authority has already done this for him. He may find it advisable to develop further the action needed for the attainment of the indicated objective. On occasion this, also, will have been predetermined by the higher commander.

The foregoing considerations have been given special emphasis and deserve careful study, because an appreciation of these facts is necessary to a true understanding of the nature of correctly conceived courses of action.

Analysis and Selection of Courses of Action. After one or more courses of action have been determined as tentative solutions of his problem, the commander will be confronted with the necessity of deciding upon that course of action, or combination of courses of action, which will best attain the assigned objective, i.e., be the best way out of the seeming difficulty. The analysis, in each case, will settle suitability on the basis of the appropriate effect desired, feasibility on the basis of relative fighting strength as established by a survey of means available and opposed, influenced by the characteristics of the theater, and acceptability on the basis of consequences as to costs.

In connection with these considerations, the detailed operations involved in each course will be analyzed so far as may be necessary (page 95) and with respect to correct physical objectives, advantageous relative positions, proper apportionment of fighting strength, and adequate freedom of action (see the Fundamental Military Principle—page 41). A selection shown to be best, from the standpoint of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability of the consequences, will be adopted as the decision.

The tests of courses of action to determine whether they fulfill the requirements of suitability, of feasibility, and of acceptability as to consequences take account of the usual included determinants as listed and explained below. The list is not rigid, and the commander, according to the nature of his problem, may desire to omit certain of the items or to include any other considerations which may be applicable.

With respect to suitability, the commander considers the following:

(1) General. The test for suitability (see also page 31) calls for conformity as to both the nature and the scope of the motivating task. With respect to conformity in nature, the test leads to a conclusion as to whether the course of action, if carried out successfully, will or will not contribute to the accomplishment of the task. As to scope, the test leads to a conclusion as to whether the course of action, if carried out successfully, will or will not accomplish the task in full; and, if not in full, to what extent. The factor of urgency is also considered here.

It is frequently possible for the commander, merely by concentrating his thought on this particular perplexity, to conclude at once that the course of action is suitable. In other cases, a considerable amount of study may be needed. This analytical study consists in breaking down the course of action into its component parts, i.e., the detailed operations which naturally grow out of it. This procedure is similar to that described later (Chapter VII), with respect to formulating a plan, but during the basic estimate the procedure, when utilized, is for a different reason—solely that of assisting in the analysis.

(2) Details, (a) Conformity as to nature. Will the course of action, if successfully carried out, contribute, at least in some degree, to the accomplishment of the task? If not, such a course is rejected. Courses that do contribute, however, are not rejected until the possibilities of combination have been examined, later.

(b) Completeness. If the course of action is successfully carried out, will it accomplish in full the motivating task? If not, how much will it contribute towards such accomplishment? With what other courses of action can it be combined, to accomplish the motivating task in full? With what others can it be combined to accomplish the motivating task in part, and in such case how nearly does the combination contribute to full accomplishment?

This examination may lead to combinations of certain partial solutions.

(c) Desirability as to Urgency. The commander now considers the element of time. Complete accomplishment of the motivating task within his own theater may come too late to meet the requirements of the common effort of the entire force. Synchronization with the action of other task-group commanders may be so important that timing becomes vital. As to this consideration, two courses of action, equally competent, may differ greatly in their qualification relating to urgency; one may be found highly desirable and the other completely unsatisfactory.

As to feasibility, the commander considers the following:

(1) General. The test for feasibility (see page 31) is concerned with whether the course of action is practicable. Has it reasonable chances of success under the particular circumstances? Are the difficulties surmountable? Is it easily practicable, practicable with some difficulty, or very difficult?

The commander, if he concludes that the course of action is not a practicable one, rejects it from further consideration in the estimate of the situation. However, care is taken at this point not to dismiss, abruptly, courses of action which may later be combined advantageously with one or more others.

Here, again, as noted for the suitability test, the commander may sometimes profitably analyze the course of action by breaking it down into more detailed operations.

As a result of the tests discussed above, the commander is able to make a list of courses of action upon which his confirmed judgment has bestowed the qualities of suitability and feasibility.

He is also able to take stock to see how many of the solutions are complete, how many are incomplete, and in the latter case to what extent they constitute partial solutions. It is, of course, desirable to have as many complete solutions as possible, and at this point it may be possible to merge two or more incomplete solutions into a single course of action which better fulfills the test of suitability. The commander can also take stock, similarly, of the degree of feasibility, already referred to, as to the retained courses of action.

(2) Details, (a) Prospects of Success. Here the several courses of action are considered relatively, with respect to the chance of success in each. In the rating of courses on this basis, the commander excludes consideration of losses except as they may influence success or failure. He notes, however, his considered expectations as to losses. Losses may appear to be so great that success is doubtful. Certain courses of action may be particularly vulnerable to enemy opposition because of the types of weapons involved or because of favorable enemy positions. Choice of such a course would permit the enemy an initial advantage.

(b) Facility of Execution. This subject has to do with the relative ease or difficulty of carrying out the several courses of action. On the basis of the existing situation, each course of action may be compared with all the others to determine their relative merits with regard to the facility of execution. Consideration is given to the action involved against the several physical objectives; to the movements needed in making new dispositions; to the relative adequacy of the forces as to numbers and types of weapons; and to the measures required for freedom of action.

A review of the previous discussion of these elements (Chapter IV) may be very helpful in connection with this comparison. As to freedom of action, for example, the commander may ask himself which course is best from the standpoint of using the initiative to advantage; and which course of action lends itself best to the advantageous use of surprise. As the commander reflects on these matters, other similar questions may be suggested.

(c) Utilization of Own Strength and Exploitation of Enemy Weakness. In his original visualization of each course of action, the commander has naturally considered how to utilize his own strength to best advantage, and how best to exploit enemy weakness. In fact, especially in a detailed tactical estimate, these considerations may have been predominant in envisaging the courses of action. A careful evaluation of the merits of each course of action in this respect is accordingly necessary before a choice is made.

With regard to acceptability of consequences as to costs, the commander considers the following:

(1) General. The process of putting a course of action to proof as a tentative solution of the problem remains incomplete until the course has been tested to determine its consequences as to costs, so far as these can be visualized in advance. The process involves an evaluation of the diminution in total advantage which will result in the event of failure, and a comparison of gains with losses in the event of success. The situation to be expected, if the course of action is carried out, is visualized in order to determine the future effect on the creation or maintenance of an ultimately favorable military situation.

In testing each course of action for acceptability as to its consequences (page 31), the commander considers the cost of success, the cost of failure, and the possible gain and loss in perspective with the united effort as a whole. Questions which he may pose include: If the course of action is successful, will the costs be so prohibitive as to adversely affect the successful accomplishment of the further effort? If a tactical situation is under consideration, will the costs prevent the accomplishment of the strategical aim? If the course of action fails, what will be its effect? Will it cause the entire plan to fail? Will its failure affect, for example, the national morale?

If the command—and ultimately the State—can afford the losses and other disadvantages which will be incurred as a result of either the success or the failure of the contemplated effort, a course of action may be considered as acceptable from the standpoint of consequences as to costs.

As previously noted with respect to suitability, it may be desirable to consider, with regard to consequences, the detailed operations which may be involved in each course of action.

Courses of action involving excessive consequences as to costs are rejected. Notation is made of the relative degree of acceptability, with respect to consequences as to costs, of those courses of action which are retained.

(2) Details. (a) The Results of Success and of Failure. Each course of action is examined to visualize the situation which would be brought about for the commander and for the enemy in case of success or of failure. The relative possibilities of recovery toward a more favorable situation are weighed. This consideration involves relative risks, for it may be that a certain course, otherwise satisfactory, might entail intolerable conditions should failure ensue.

The costs are measured in terms of fighting strength. It has to be considered whether the sacrifices involved are worth the gains which will follow; whether the objectives if attained will be sufficiently valuable when the need of fighting strength to accomplish further aims is considered.

(b) Comparison of gains and costs. When costs are found to be in excess of the over-all gains, this fact may be the basis for rejecting any courses of action which are less desirable than others. However, retention of a course found to be costly may be justified for sound reasons.

* * * * *

When, as in the example given previously (page 96), the commander receives a directive such as "Deny enemy base sites in the area ABCD by capturing X Island", he carries through his estimate of the situation in the usual manner. He notes, however, that the capture of X Island has been indicated as a predetermined course of action. He makes a proper survey of the factors of relative fighting strength. He considers all pertinent courses of action. He goes through this procedure in order to reach an understanding of all the elements of his problem. He wishes to understand the necessary background. He realizes the importance of a grasp of the considerations which have led higher authority to arrive at the predetermined course of action.

By carrying through the usual estimate procedure, including the analysis of all pertinent courses of action, he assists himself to arrive at a proper concept of the action to be taken to capture X island. In this way he establishes a sound basis for formulating a detailed plan (in the second step), for inaugurating planned action (in the third step), and for supervising this action (in the fourth step). He also establishes a basis for any constructive representations which he finds it advisable to make to higher authority (page 15).

In another example previously given (page 96), the higher commander indicates only the predetermined course of action (by a directive "Capture X Island") and omits the statement of the true underlying task. The subordinate, on discovering this fact, deduces the underlying task and carries through the estimate procedure, modified, as explained for the previous example. In addition to the merits as previously stated, this method has a further advantage. The deduction of the underlying task enables the commander to judge whether any advisable or necessary deviation or departure from the predetermined course of action (page 15) involves merely a variation from the letter of his instructions or, more important, from their spirit.

For instance, the directive, as in the case previously discussed, may have been "Capture X Island". The higher commander when issuing this order, may have stated his own general plan to be "This force will protect the base at A." The commander, on receipt of this directive, then deduces his true task. This is "Deny enemy bases in area ABCD" ("by capturing X Island"—a predetermined course of action), the purpose of the mission being "in order to protect the base at A".

Now it may be found that the enemy, unconcerned as to X Island, is moving to reinforce Y Island and to use it as a base to attack the base at A. The commander then properly decides to capture Y Island, instead of X Island. By his identification of the predetermined course of action as such, and by his correct deduction of the true underlying task, the commander has established a sound basis for the solution of his problem. He can now, with confidence, defer or abandon the capture of X Island, and can devote his efforts to the capture of Y Island. His confidence is justified because he knows his decision to be in accordance with the spirit of his instructions.

Naturally, if the higher commander directed, "This force will protect the base at A——", and added, later in his directive, "Deny enemy base sites in area ABCD by capturing X Island", the subordinate commander's deductions would have been made more easily.

* * * * *

The full play of the reasoning power is called for in the process of visualizing courses of action and of selecting the best. This process is the crux of the first step. Here the knowledge of the relationship between cause and effect is applied. Here, also, the commander is brought fully to realize that, to reach a sound decision, there is a requirement for a studied development of each stage by which the human mind passes from recognition of a necessity for action to the ultimate conviction as to the best course to pursue.

As essential background for the utilization of his intellectual powers in this process, the commander requires knowledge of the capabilities and limitations of the technique of his profession and of the weapons of his calling. To the necessary knowledge gained through his own experience, either in actual warfare or in peacetime exercises simulating this experience, he adds the equally essential familiarity with the science of war, and with the lessons to be drawn from historical instances of success and failure. In effect, it is here brought home to him that, on a fundamental basis of earnest thought, mental ability, character, knowledge, and experience, finally rests the soundness of decision (see page 219).

The Decision. The word "decision" has the primary meaning of a conclusion. A decision (conclusion) is essential as a starting point for further procedure. Sound decision is the essential preliminary to wise planning and effective action.

The range within which military decisions may fall extends from the instantaneous resolve to meet an emergency, to the conditional intentions of a distant future. Within this range will be found many decisions which the commander is necessarily called upon to reach during the four steps toward the attainment of an assigned objective.

The course of action, or the combination of courses, as finally selected by the commander upon the termination of the first step, represents his conclusion as to his outlined plan for the attainment of his assigned objective. This conclusion will indicate, specifically or inferentially, his general objective, as selected by himself, and—in proper detail—the action required for its attainment. (See pages 88 and 95). The conclusion is thus his Decision, which provides the general plan, or the basis therefor, from which he will, in the second step, develop a detailed plan of operations for his force.

Illustration of the foregoing process may profitably be initiated with respect to the highest echelon involved in the case of a State. The primary national objective of organized government (Chapter I, page 7) is the ensurance of envisaged prosperity and of essential security for the social system which is the fundamental basis of the community. This aim, as embodied in basic policy (see pages 8 and 9), is the objective visualized by the people of the State, or by its policy-forming elements, in the capacity of an organized government.

For the maintenance of the condition represented in this policy, or for the creation of such a condition not already existing, an appropriate task of the State, as the political embodiment of the national will, might be to maintain or establish friendly (at least, not hostile) governments and social systems in those key localities of the world whence, otherwise, effective threats may arise.

The national mission (the mission of the State) then becomes:—

(Task) To maintain or establish friendly (at least, not hostile) governments and social systems In those key localities of the world whence, otherwise, effective threats may arise,

(Purpose) in order to ensure envisaged prosperity and essential security for the social system which is the fundamental basis of the community.

A national estimate of the situation, by the highest authority of the State, to determine the effect to be attained for the accomplishment of the foregoing mission, takes account of the possibilities of accomplishment through psychological, political, economic, or military pressure, or by combinations thereof. As a result of this accounting, the State adopts a national Decision which indicates the best way of accomplishing its mission.

To carry out this Decision, each of the primary subdivisions of the State's organization is assigned a specific task or tasks, whose total effect is designed to achieve the result embodied in the national Decision. The task of each such primary subdivision is linked to a purpose which is the attainment of the objective indicated in the national Decision.

In like manner, each organization of the national armed forces is governed in its action by a task assigned to it as a result of a Decision made by the proper authority on the next higher echelon. Each commander is thus provided with a mission which consists of an assigned task and of a purpose as indicated by the general objective decided upon by his immediate superior.

The Second Step

The second step, that of resolving the required action into detailed military operations, may now be undertaken unless the Decision reached in the first step is intended for future reference only. During the second step the commander, if he carries the procedure through to its logical end, visualizes his proposed operations as tasks, in order to ensure their proper formulation. He may, if it is his intent to issue a directive or directives for the execution of his plan of operation, or a part thereof, arrange his procedure so as to facilitate the third step.

The common characteristic of problems of the second step is that they deal with matters pertaining to the support of the action decided upon in the first step, and that they are properly problems for the commander who made that Decision, and not for his subordinates, to solve. Such problems are appropriately termed subsidiary problems. Their full solution involves subsidiary estimates, subsidiary decisions, and, not infrequently, distinct subsidiary plans and subsidiary directives.

Each detailed operation derived, during the second step, from the outlined plan of operations (as embodied in the basic Decision) is determined upon the basis of an estimate procedure essentially similar to the basic estimate. There is thus a series of subsidiary estimates for this purpose. Such estimates tend to be abbreviated and informal, since the necessary data, and often much of the consideration as to the subsidiary courses of action, may be available from the basic estimate.

Unless the detailed operations are of such a character as to require development into subsidiary plans as a basis for subsidiary directives, such operations are merely embodied, in the form of tasks or otherwise as may be appropriate, in the basic plan. In the excepted cases, where subsidiary plans, in detailed form, are necessary or desirable, such a plan may be the result of a more formal and specialized subsidiary estimate.

Chapter VII is devoted to a discussion of the second step.

* * * * *

The problem involved in the first step has been conveniently termed the basic problem because it is directly concerned with the attainment of the assigned objective (page 81). The solution of the basic problem in the first step, and of its corollary in the second step, completes the planning stage.

The Third Step

The third step consists of the formulation, and—if appropriate—the issue, of the directives which convey to the subordinate the will and intent of the commander. From the mental standpoint, the third step begins when the commander forms the intent of immediately promulgating his directives for the execution of the planned action. Whether or not the third step is partially combined with the second, its problem is a separate one. Its complete solution inaugurates the action planned in the second step.

The third step is discussed and developed in Chapter VIII.

The Fourth Step

The fourth step, which calls for mental effort in the solution of the problem of supervising the action, requires a constant, close observation of the unfolding of the original situation. The procedure employed is customarily termed The Running Estimate of the Situation. Only an alert commander can invariably determine whether the situation is unfolding along the lines desired by him, as promulgated in the directives of the third step. In effect, the commander, after action is begun, considers the changing situation as a variable in the problem presented for his solution by the original (basic) situation. With the march of events, he is, therefore, constantly critical to detect whether variations from the original situation are in accordance with his design or whether these variations have introduced new incentives which demand modification or alteration of his plan, or its complete abandonment.

The fourth step is discussed and developed in Chapter IX.

Sequence of Events in the Four Steps

When all of the elements of the entire procedure of the four steps are present, they take, from the viewpoint of the same commander throughout, the following form:

(1) First step: The commander, confronted with a strategical situation (page 83), makes a strategical estimate and comes to a strategical Decision. The problem, the estimate, and the Decision are basic.

(2) Second step: The commander now is confronted with a particular problem, one proceeding from his basic problem and involving the details of a plan of execution to carry out the Decision reached in the first step; this problem consists, itself, of numerous other problems of detail, which require solution by the commander himself. The basic Decision has embodied an outlined plan, strategical in nature, for an operation to accomplish the motivating task of the first step. This plan requires resolution into the detailed operations necessary for its full accomplishment.

Each such detailed operation, as part of the outlined plan embodied in the strategical Decision, calls for a proper estimate. Though usually not formal in nature, more especially if the necessary data can be found in the basic estimate, such estimates are fundamentally the same as for the basic problem. The assembly of such detailed operations results in the formulation of a basic plan.

At this point, additional problems may present themselves, these being frequently tactical in nature. Such, for example, may be sortie plans, approach plans, and Battle Plans. Other specialized plans (training, intelligence, logistics, etc.) may be needed. The data essential for the solution of such problems are more detailed than for the usual strategical basic problem. In some instances, such subsidiary plans may be developed directly from the basic Decision by procedures distinctive of the second step. In other instances, solution may require an additional subsidiary estimate, along the lines typical of the first step. These subsidiary estimates lead to subsidiary decisions, which in turn require to be resolved into the necessary detailed operations.

(3) Third step: In the third step, the directives, if the basic problem was strategical in nature, will be of a strategical character. However, if subsidiary tactical problems were also involved, tactical directives will frequently be included. Logistics directives and other specialized instructions may also be a feature.

(4) Fourth step: The supervision of the planned action, in the fourth step, may involve a new strategical problem, perhaps several. In such event each new basic problem will initiate a new series of problems, with corresponding directives, as described above. Changes in strategical plans may be called for. If no strategical changes are involved, there may nevertheless be introduced one or more new tactical or logistics problems, with corresponding changes in the subsequent procedure. The fourth step may, however, merely involve changes in supporting plans (tactical, logistics, etc.), with resultant changes in the directives involved. Finally, the fourth step may involve changes, for clarification, in the directives formulated in the third step.

Variations in the foregoing procedure are frequent. The most usual is perhaps the case where the commander, receiving a tactical (instead of a strategical) mission, solves such a tactical problem as a basic problem in the first step; resolves his Decision into detailed tactical operations in the second step; issues a tactical directive or directives in the third step; and supervises his planned tactical action in the fourth step.

Phraseology as to "Course of Action", "Operation", and "Task". It is important to avoid the possibility of becoming confused because each of the terms "a course of action", "an operation", and "a task", is correctly visualized as "an act or a series of acts". In the first step, the selected course of action (see page 104) indicates the "act or series of acts" decided upon as representing, in general terms, an effort for attainment of a specified objective and is therefore stated as a comprehensive method of attaining that objective. The Decision thus adopts this course of action as a general plan of operations, or as a basis therefor.

In the second step, the required action is developed to place it upon a practical, workable basis as a detailed plan to be executed. The "act or series of acts" represented by the selected "course of action" has now become a detailed "act or series of acts". As such, it is now susceptible of being assigned, in whole or in part, to subordinate commanders as "tasks". The cycle within that particular echelon is completed when the tasks are thus assigned. The commander has thereby charged his immediate subordinates with the commission of specific "acts or series of acts".

Each such subordinate commander necessarily decides on the best method of accomplishing his assigned task, i.e., on the course of action (act or series of acts) which will best accomplish the effort required of him. The procedure (for each commander on that echelon) thus begins anew until an echelon is reached where the character of the required action has already been determined as a matter of routine (see page 84).

The Use of a Form in the Solution of Problems

The natural mental processes (see page 19) are employed in all of the four steps. The processes, in each step, require modification to an extent dependent upon the factors to be evaluated.

A form has been adopted for the application of the mental processes in the first step. This form, long known to the military profession as The outline of The Estimate of The Situation (see Appendix), sets forth in a logical manner and order the several considerations likely to influence the selection of correct military objectives in problems of wide, as well as of lesser, scope. The use of this form is conducive to uniformity of reasoning. It centers the attention upon essentials, in order to ensure that no material factor bearing on the solution of the problem is overlooked. It guides thought along a specific path and, through the influence of suggestion, deliberately increases the expenditure of mental effort.

The procedure indicated in the form contributes to the Decision reached as a result of an Estimate of the Situation, only to the extent that it provides an outline for, and encouragement of, systematic analysis and reasoning.

To prove successful in stimulating rather than stifling creative thought, flexibility is a characteristic of any form capable of application in such dissimilar circumstances as may be presented by the varying scope of military problems. The Estimate Form is such a flexible guide. If a commander, in solving a problem, feels the need of greater flexibility, he may, of course, modify or adapt the form to his particular needs. In so doing, however, he bears in mind that departure from orderly processes of reasoning, on which the form is based, tends, through possible neglect of fundamental considerations, to lead to the omission of essential features of the analysis.

On the other hand, a rigid following of the form may frequently cause much repetition. This may be avoided, unless desired for emphasis or other appropriate reasons, by reference back to preceding portions of the estimate. It is also to be noted, however, that the Estimate Form is adapted to a progressive procedure. Very frequently the earlier consideration of some aspect of the problem can later be expanded both in scope and in proper detail by reason of additional information which has become available during the intervening stages of the procedure.

The distinction between certain strategical and tactical problems (page 83) may introduce variations in the handling of the Estimate Form, and may affect the weight to be given the various factors. The use of the Estimate Form, as described in Chapter VI, applies in full to problems which embrace the complete scope of broad strategical concepts. It is suitable also for problems of limited scope, for which certain modifications or abbreviations are required. When applied to problems of a detailed tactical nature, the emphasis on the factors of fighting strength is somewhat different from that for strategical problems. For certain subsidiary problems (page 106), the Form may be closely applicable or may require considerable adaptation. In no case is it difficult to modify the Form to suit the requirements of the problem.

An estimate of a relatively broad strategical situation may normally be reduced to writing, because time is usually available. On the other hand, an estimate of a localized tactical situation frequently requires almost instantaneous decision. Except in the preparation of plans to meet contingencies, such an estimate can rarely be given the elaborate form frequent in estimates of situations which are broadly strategical in nature. When such tactical plans are prepared well in advance of the event, the commander bases the estimate upon various assumptions as to the circumstances of a probable situation.

The written solution of tactical situations under various assumptions is a valuable feature of training to this end.

During the second step, i.e., the resolution of the action, as embodied in the Decision, into the detailed operations required, the method considered most helpful is to arrange the procedure on the basis of the salient features of a military operation (page 39 and Section III of Chapter IV). This procedure facilitates not only the determination of the necessary operations, but also the later formulation of directives.

The second step, like the first, makes use of the estimate procedure. This is inevitable, in view of the fact that the mental processes are identical (page 106) for the solution of the problem of both steps.

The application of the estimate procedure to the second step may be tested, aside from the logic of the theory involved, by careful analysis of examples. For instance, if the basic Decision was to determine the location of enemy forces in the area ABCD, this becomes the basis for a plan embodying the best method of determining the location of such enemy forces (an operation, or a series of operations). One method of procedure (course of action) to achieve this objective may be to search the area by aircraft; another may involve a search by cruisers; another by destroyers; another by submarines; etc. The operation or operations finally determined upon may be any one of these, or a combination of two or more of them, perhaps of all of them. The fundamental procedure leading to this conclusion is identical with that of the basic estimate.

There are a number of possible variations of the fundamental mental processes applicable to the second step, according to the facility and the preference of the commander. Practice seems to develop such facility (see also page 94) that entire plans, each properly integrated with respect to physical objectives, relative positions, apportionment of fighting strength, and freedom of action, may be visualized separately from each other.

At the other extreme, the elementary procedure is to utilize these salient features of such a plan, successively, to suggest detailed operations. The features after the first are then used either to adapt or to complete the operations suggested by preceding features, or to suggest new operations. This elementary procedure, being the simpler and more methodical of the two, is the one explained hereafter (Chapter VII).

However, there are various possibilities as to procedures intermediate between these extremes. One such procedure would visualize operations primarily on the basis of correct physical objectives, adapting and completing such operations by reference to the other features; the procedure would then utilize relative positions, etc., to suggest additional operations, which in turn may be similarly adapted or completed. The commander is of course at liberty to use the procedure best suited to his own working methods and to the particular situation; naturally, he bears full responsibility for any errors due to a faulty choice of procedure.

From the standpoint of the exercise of mental power in the solution of military problems, the second step may be taken to include the assembly of the commander's conclusions in the form of directives. The third step begins, however (page 107), when the commander forms the intent of immediately promulgating such directives.

The third step makes use of the Order Form. In our naval service, this form is applicable, with certain modifications, to all written directives pertaining to operations other than routine. The subject matter is presented in a logical sequence which experience has shown to be effective. The Order Form assists in the solution of the problem by providing a comprehensive vehicle with which all echelons are familiar.

In the fourth step, i.e., the supervision of the planned action, the prime essential is the maintenance by the commander of a Running Estimate (page 107). For this purpose there is a definite technique of which the Estimate Form provides the basis, and by means of which the solution of this important problem is aided.

Conclusion As To the Approach to the Solution of Military Problems

The foregoing considerations indicate that planned attainment of a military objective requires the application of mental effort in four distinct steps.

The sequence of the four steps necessarily is fixed because of the consequential relationship among the problems typical of the several steps. The mission, in the first step, furnishes the nature of the appropriate effect desired. Until modified or revoked by higher authority, it clearly remains the governing influence throughout the entire range of mental effort which, in conjunction with the moral and physical effort, is calculated to result finally in the attainment of the assigned objective.

The procedure involved, being natural and universal, is fundamentally the same even in those tactical situations where the commander performs all of the steps in almost instantaneous succession. The Estimate Form, as presented herein, is adaptable to military problems of any nature. The systematic approach represented in the Form is subject to adaptation by the competent commander—provided that the essentials are preserved—in any manner appropriate to his personal preference and to the nature of his particular problem.

The essentials of the military Estimate of the Situation, as a specialized use of the natural mental processes, are inherent in the proper application of the Fundamental Military Principle (see page 82). The Estimate Form merely provides a more detailed guide for the use of the Principle. Facility in the use of the Principle will enable the competent commander, once he has formed a proper understanding of the basis for solution of a problem, to solve the problem correctly without reference to the Estimate Form. Reference to the Form may be necessary in problems of broad scope, in order to ensure a complete survey of factors of fighting strength. Time, in such cases, is usually available for purposes of a detailed study. Subject to this exception, the Principle, alone, may be used effectively as a basis for sound military decision,—a fact of particular significance where time (page 22) is an element of immediate concern.

That this procedure may be successfully and repeatedly applied in the fast-moving events of the decisive tactical engagement is, more particularly, the goal of mental preparation for the exercise of command.



PART II

THE EXERCISE OF PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT IN PLANNING



CHAPTER VI

THE SELECTION OF A CORRECT OBJECTIVE

(Including the Determination, in Proper Detail, of the Action Required for its Attainment)