Although Alan is a fantastic writer and outstanding leader, I could not disagree more with his analysis of detailed command and mission command.

First and foremost, “detailed command” is not even a term you will find in ADP 6-0. My belief for the omission of “detailed command” within the ADP is that it harkens to a time of Command and Control (C2) which is a part of Mission Command but by no means holds the same significance as once before.

 
Alan explains, through a maneuver operation, when a commander faces an opponent of superior strength he/she uses direct command and control to regain the initiative and defeat the enemy. Alan writes, ” However, the synchronization of two or more assets requires detailed command, necessitating the use of common graphic control measures, well-defined triggers, and synchronized execution. My argument to this statement is that the commander is not utilizing “detailed command and control,” the commander is actually utilizing the Mission Command process to meet the higher commander’s intent. The maneuver company commander is not going to give his platoon leaders detailed instructions on exactly how to engage with the enemy. Instead, as provided in the example, the maneuver company commander gives broad combat tasks such as, “1st and 2nd PLT support by fire, 3rd PLT conduct a flank attack from the south.” Additionally, the company commander may use common graphic control measures, well-defined triggers, etc. but that is only in an effort to gain a common operating picture. Although helpful, these tools are not always necessary to achieve mission success. By giving a broad combat task the maneuver company commander allows his subordinate leaders the authority to complete the task in the best way they see fit. This is the essence of Mission Command, it allows for the lowest levels to maneuver their troops with little to no guidance.

Additionally, Alan later writes, “Similarly, if he finds that the enemy is beyond his combined capability to defeat, he may request support or provide recommendations to the next higher commander.” This sentence is in absolute contradiction to the intent of Mission Command. If a maneuver commander finds he needs external support from a sister unit, he can use his disciplined initiative to coordinate with parallel commands to complete the mission without the need for higher command’s approval. If everyone understands the higher command’s intent then they would not need the approval from higher to shift forces accordingly. The only time a company commander should involve a higher command is when they cannot sufficiently conduct or find the appropriate support to complete the mission, thus requiring help from higher to coordinate support to complete the mission.

On a personal note, when I was a SPO Trans on deployment in RC-South, I was given the task of ensuring the flow of supplies from KAF to the BDE AOR. When a Stryker BN was attached to my light infantry airborne BCT, I had to find a way to transport Strykers into the AO. We did not have the internal capabilities to finish the mission, therefore I coordinated with other parallel sustainment units to find the correct resources to complete the mission. At no time did I ask my higher headquarters for recommendations on my course of action. I just executed within the intent of my commander.

The only time as a commander I have used “detailed command and control” is when a subordinate senior NCO has failed to complete the task that was given to them. In this case, I had to utilize direct command to accomplish the overall mission. That is one time I have used detailed command in my 15 months as a company commander.

In conclusion, does detailed command have a place within mission command, yes, but very little. We need to get away from this idea that commander’s/leaders need approval for every decision they make. We have to give our subordinate leaders the most latitude to allow them to accomplish the mission.
</p>