It was a dry, hot day in August 2017 at the U.S. Army’s National Training Center in Fort Irwin, California. I was a Squadron Commander on mission in the middle of my unit’s rotation. Located on the key piece of terrain known as Hill 760, the position provided a good perspective of the battlefield as my Squadron conducted a zone reconnaissance from the Siberian Ridge, reconnoitering several avenues of approach towards Hill 780, Hill 800 and the Iron Triangle. The brigade was attacking to seize its main objective – the city of Razish. At this moment, two battalions were locked in a street to street, corner to corner fight inside the city. A crackle came over the radio with the brigade commander ordering the brigade reserve into the melee and for my Bravo Troop to assume the mission as the new brigade reserve.
At the same time, two of my Cavalry Squadron’s troops were exploiting their success in the destruction of enemy forces located vicinity of the Iron Triangle and continuing their zone reconnaissance towards the infamous pass complex running from the Sawtooth in the north to Debnam Pass in the south. Both commanders saw an opportunity to extend the brigade’s security area further providing reaction time and maneuver space concerning the certain OPFOR counterattack that would come.
As they maneuvered across the open terrain, elements of both units were engaged by effective OPFOR direct and indirect fire, which resulted in an immediate reduction in BLUFOR combat power by at least six M2A3 Bradley fighting vehicles. With a little over a troop’s strength of tracked vehicles spread between two troops left in direct contact, the ability to gain control of the key terrain and position the Squadron to provide early warning with “eyes” focused deep into the enemie’s support zone was in jeopardy. I needed to commit more combat power if I wanted to maintain the momentum and accomplish the Squadron’s reconnaissance objective. My tank company was not an option. In a tough fight with Blackhorse, it emerged with only two M1A2 tanks remaining and holding the Racetrack. What about my Bandit Troop?
Moments before when ordered to reconstitute the brigade reserve with Bravo Troop, I failed to provide a convincing argument to retain the troop under my control and avoid violating the Fundamentals of Reconnaissance principle of not keeping reconnaissance assets in reserve. Both my Bravo Troop commander and my Observer Controller/Trainer counterpart saw the opportunity awaiting. My Bravo Troop commander felt he was still positioned to support his fellow troop commanders with time left to rescind the earlier order to assume the reserve mission. Seeing my earlier error and receiving the feedback from my troop commander, I quickly reengaged the brigade commander. After a brief discussion, I again was unsuccessful persuading him. Bravo would hold its position and remain the reserve.
In the end, the brigade was able to seize Razish without any further combat power. Bravo Troop remained intact vicinity of Hill 780; though the opportunity to gain control of the pass complex was lost. Alpha and Charlie Troop remained on the east side of the passes with their observation to the west blocked by the eight-kilometer-long natural barrier formed by the terrain. The remainder of Delta Company, my armor company, continued to hold the Racetrack.
How did I miss the opportunity to seize the key terrain? Did I not push hard or quickly enough to have Bravo Troop reattached to the squadron to assist? Why did the Brigade Commander so quickly deny my request? Could he not trust me? Was I not communicating well enough? Was my input not valued?
Among all of the tactical and doctrinal lessons that I and others can dissect from my experiences above, one that I feel is worth highlighting and discussing is the role relationships played in the scenario and how they could have impacted the outcome of the fight. Relationships amongst soldiers throughout organizations at echelon can have a major impact on their unit’s successes on the battlefield and can lead to direct mission accomplishment or failure. Relationships developed amongst leaders and their subordinates specifically, are formed on communication, trust, and time which facilitates the mission command principles of mutual trust, disciplined initiative, and shared understanding.
The decentralized execution of operations in combat that leads to successful missions is gained by fostering the key components of relationships and their facilitation of mission command principles. Relationships impact operations on the battlefield through the strengthening of mission command, specifically mutual trust, disciplined initiative, and shared understanding resulting in effective decentralized execution.
Relationship Attributes: Communication, Trust, and Time
Healthy and strong relationships are built upon several aspects, but three foundational elements include communication, trust, and time. Leaders utilize numerous ways to encourage open and candid communication with the intent of learning about and developing their subordinates which enables the growth of relationships. Initial counseling, specifying priorities, publishing command and leadership philosophies, and establishing periodic touchpoints with key personnel and the unit are just some of the avenues that leaders use to open communication lines and build rapport with their subordinates and superiors.
Ensuring team members remain informed assists in building trust, another key aspect of positive relationships. When someone can trust another individual, they are comfortable delegating responsibility and more latitude to accomplish their assigned tasks thus empowering them to act. Communication and establishing trust within a relationship requires the repeated interaction between parties over time.
Strong bonds amongst team members are not forged instantaneously. They require recurring interactions and memorable, shared experiences. Consistent exchange of guidance and priorities from leaders to subordinates and the corresponding routine feedback from subordinates is essential in fostering relationships. These building blocks of relationships intertwine reinforcing each other and support several tenets of mission command and its aspect of decentralized execution of operations.
Mutual Trust
The Army defines the shared confidence established between leaders and their subordinates as mutual trust. Trust is essential to relationships as previously discussed. It is established over time as members of units conduct training events such as live fire exercises and during rotational deployments and combat operations.
These collective experiences and shared hardships instill confidence within each soldier, building bonds amongst all, while fostering the ability for them to overcome fear and the stressors of combat. Engaged leaders will discover the strengths and weaknesses of their soldiers. From these observations, leaders gain faith and identify who they can rely on resulting in the leader’s willingness to bestow larger amounts of responsibility upon subordinates.
Empowering Subordinates and Disciplined Initiative
Subordinates, as a result, feel confident in making decisions and are empowered to seize the initiative on the battlefield. This is the embodiment of commanders empowering their subordinates and subscribing to the mission command principle of disciplined initiative. Once a leader earns their subordinate’s trust, soldiers feel encouraged to act, a critical principle in obtaining mission accomplishment on the battlefield. soldiers who do not feel supported by their higher headquarters and leaders will hesitate to act when the situation presents itself during combat.
Leaders who fail to develop an environment conducive to empowerment and disciplined initiative are destined to mire themselves in minutiae and cloud their ability to make clear decisions. Both result in slow and unreactive units certain to fail. Strong relationships, on the other hand, are key in encouraging subordinates to take calculated risks on a rapidly and ever-changing battlefield, expanding the organization’s ability to set favorable conditions for friendly forces by presenting numerous situations that an enemy must react to and address.
Shared Understanding
In addition to establishing mutual trust and empowering subordinates aimed at disciplined initiative, the creation and cultivation of shared understanding facilitated by relationships through open and consistent communication aids in obtaining effective decentralized execution on the battlefield. A leader who clearly communicates his priorities and intent along the lines of creating understanding, supported by the mutual trust established between his soldiers and himself, empowers individuals to assess ongoing operations on the battlefield, calculate risk and seize opportunities quickly when and where possible.
Subordinates can successfully assess, decide, and act rapidly when they are apprised of the current situation. The flow and understanding of information are accelerated through relationships. In combat, staffs must establish positive relationships to efficiently collaborate. Collaboration requires the candid exchange of ideas and opinions free from reproach and criticism.
Conclusion
Relationships impact battlefield operations through their facilitation of decentralized operations, a key aspect of mission command – the Army’s approach to command and control. Positive relationships are built upon open and consistent communication, solidified trust, and nurturement over time. The above events took place less than one month into my command; I assumed command two weeks prior to deploying to NTC with my unit. At that time, the development of my relationships with my brigade commander, fellow battalion commanders, and amongst my troop commanders and unit were still in the early, infant stages. In an effort to develop shared understanding, mutual trust and empower my subordinate leaders, I had communicated my initial squadron vision, held my commander in-brief with each troop, and was still conducting initial counseling with members of my team. Despite this, my troop commanders were still not fully sure of my expectations and how I would fight. The confidence to professionally discuss dissenting views or alternate courses of action was not present or possessed by my leaders. More time filled with at least one home station training event or my attendance with the unit to the Leader Training Program at NTC would have assisted in strengthening our relationships. Like the relationship between my troop commanders and myself, I was still far from being comfortable in my position and role within the brigade and my relationship with my brigade commander. I felt that I could engage my commander, but I did not fully understand how he thought and would fight in order to enable myself to plan and react accordingly on the battlefield. The relationship between a commander and his subordinates is critical and aids mission accomplishment.
So what are your relationships like within your unit?
–
This is part of a series of posts focused on Leader Development in Contact. Click HERE for the rest of the series. Footnotes are annotated in the PDF version found on the Series homepage.
Complete archive of The Company Leader Posts