![]() ![]() Then, the principle of commander’s intent “is a clear and concise expression of the purpose of the operation and the desired military end state that supports mission command” (Department of the army, 2019, p. Then, the fact that there was no confusion in implementing orders by different units means that they understood the situation on a shared basis. The command structure units did not hesitate to delegate authorities and responsibilities to each other, which implies their trust in each other – this contributes to confidence both at the headquarters and battlefield. ![]() In this vein, the principles of mutual trust and shared understanding are visible. There were many intersected units accountable to different military leaders. Such a state of affairs implies that there were several commanders responsible for dealing with serious issues. Despite the fact that there were a number of difficulties and unexpected factors that indicated several problems within the operation’s governance, the command still remained well-organized and followed these seven principles.Īccording to Kugler (2007), “the command structure was multi-headed” (p. These are “competence, mutual trust, shared understanding, commander’s intent, mission orders, disciplined initiative, and risk acceptance” (Department of the Army, 2019, p. It seems reasonable to suggest that during the operation, the US military leaders adhered to the seven principles of mission command. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |