CHAPTER XXII
PRINCIPLES OF COMMAND
This work will now conclude with some remarks on the nature of Military Command, the methods by which it is exercised, and the psychological characteristics of soldiers and their leaders. The final chapter is devoted to the last subject, a matter worth deeper consideration in connection with Command than it has yet received. When it is remembered that, as stated in the first chapter, it is the main object of Organization to facilitate Command, the reason for touching on these subjects in this work will be obvious.
Mode of exercising Command
Supreme Command in war is either exercised by the Sovereign or by a Commander-in-Chief who acts as his deputy, or, in a Republic or Constitutional State, as agent of the Government. In either case, on him the authority of the State is devolved as regards the operations of the war.
Governments have not always been wise in their control of the Military Commander or in their direction of operations. Glaring instances may be found in history, notably in the conduct of war by the younger Pitt, by the Aulic Council in Vienna, and by Abraham Lincoln.
On the other hand, the correct principles on which a Government should control its Commanders in war are exemplified in the highest degree in those of the elder Pitt, afterwards Lord Chatham. To his wisdom and judgment in conducting operations by sea and land over all the world must be credited much of the brilliant success of the Seven Years’ War.
He himself defined the object of the operations, but left the method of attaining it to his Commanders, to whom he allowed a large measure of latitude and discretion. He never failed to make use of every incentive which could spur them to action and ensure success. He insisted on the initiative being taken, and risks run, but he was always as generous in case of failure as he was appreciative of good work. He succeeded in inspiring the Admiralty and the War Office with his own spirit and energy, and seconded their efforts with all the resources of the country. The lesson which his practice may teach every Government engaged in war is, that while the Statesmen alone can direct all the Departments of State, and combine Navy, Army, Diplomacy, and Finance to the common end, those responsible for the actual operations must be unfettered in their decisions, and in their method of carrying them out.
Command has in the large armies of the present day become rather a Direction of Operations, differing essentially in character and execution from the actual Command of the Troops. Frederick, Napoleon, and Wellington commanded; Moltke and Oyama directed their armies; while it was mainly the Prussian and Japanese Division Commanders who commanded in the true sense in the wars of 1866, 1870, and 1904. Thus we seldom see Moltke and Oyama on the battlefield, where Napoleon, Wellington, and Lee were always to be found.
The Subordinate Commander, like the Commander-in-Chief of old times, differs from the Supreme Commander of to-day by the fact that his action on his Command is personal and direct. He is in close touch with his subordinate leaders, knows the condition and spirit of his men, is always among them in person to inspire and control their movements. Troops take their tone from their immediate Commander, and reflect his vigour or hesitation, his confidence or caution. An intuition of his mental attitude seems to pass through all ranks of the Command. On the other hand the Army Commanders, and still more the Commander-in-Chief, are but nebulous figures to the soldiers in a very large Army.
Military Command is exercised in three ways, which differ in character and scope. The Supreme and Army Commanders prescribe Instructions to their Subordinate Commanders; the latter issue Orders; Commanding Officers of Units give Words of Command. The latter method needs no comment. The former modes will now be discussed.
Instructions
The system of Command customary before the French Revolution survived well into the nineteenth century. By it there were issued to each tactical unit of the Army, Orders containing minute, and even pedantic, details for carrying out the plan decided on by the Supreme Command. These details were not only wearisome to peruse, and unnecessary for experienced subordinates, but the time spent in merely copying and distributing them was so great, that it had a most prejudicial effect on the rapidity of the movements of the army. This system may be said to have greatly contributed to the ill success of the Austrians in their many wars against Napoleon, owing to the slow and dilatory movements it entailed.
The dissemination of the French Armies of the Revolution led to the plan systematized later by Napoleon, of giving short and general Instructions, prescribing to each Subordinate only his own part in the dispositions, with, perhaps, some information about the position of adjoining bodies of troops. This system had a great effect on the success of the French forces, but it only won its way very gradually in other armies. It is that now universally adopted; but the modern practice differs in one respect from that of Napoleon, who seldom indicated the general object of the movements, no doubt in order to avoid the danger of its becoming known by the enemy. The tendency is now to look on the latter danger as less than the evil of imperfect co-operation. If subordinates do not know the general situation, the object of the operations, and the position of the enemy, they will not always be able to act in accordance with the Commander’s purpose. The size and dispersion of modern armies make the independence of subordinates far greater than in the days of Napoleon, and have led to the practice of giving them general information about the situation, so as to ensure their co-operation to the common end.
Instructions (German Directiven) have been defined by the German General Staff as “Communications to a subordinate Commander intended less to convey definite Orders for his immediate action than to indicate leading features for his general guidance, which should facilitate his judgment as to the subsequent decisions to be taken independently.” Instructions therefore generally describe the situation, the operations decided on, and their object, but leave considerable latitude in the method of carrying out the general plan. The Subordinate Commanders are expected to act on their own judgment in furthering the Commander’s purpose, observing the spirit rather than the letter of their Instructions. For, it should be noticed, military obedience in the higher ranks does not lie in literal conformity to Orders, but rather in a true conception of their spirit. Such obedience is quite compatible with the independence and self-confidence indispensable in the Subordinate Commander, who has to act on his own judgment in carrying out Orders. He must take on himself the responsibility of giving effect to his Instructions by acting in conformity with the situation of the moment, which may be very different from the situation as it was when they were issued.
As regards the drafting of Instructions, it must be noted that the man who can make the best plans is not always the one to express them best. Napoleon’s brilliant combinations were embodied in Instructions which were often involved in their sequence, and ill-balanced from the intrusion of details among the broad outlines of the general plan. They were also generally so terse that they were not always clear to any intelligence inferior to his own. Jomini speaks of their “laconisme outré,” partly due to Napoleon’s temperament, and partly a revolt against the minute verbiage of the Military Orders of his generation. Hence the importance of a good Chief of the Staff, who can act for his General as Berthier did for Napoleon. He need not be a genius nor even a great strategist, but he must be able to translate into lucid Orders plans which he could never have originated, or perhaps even, like Berthier, never fully understand or appreciate.
Orders
Subordinate Commanders, although they act with some independence on the Instructions they themselves receive, do not leave the same latitude to their own subordinates. They exercise Command by the issue of precise Orders for executing the idea in the manner they themselves have decided on. These Orders will contain the substance of the Instructions they have received, as far as it may be desirable to pass on this information to their own subordinates. The method proposed to carry out the general plan will probably need explaining and developing in detail in the Orders. These will therefore prescribe the definite steps to be taken, such as the time and direction of marches and attacks, or the measures to be taken for security. Orders should not, as Instructions often may, provide for contingent possibilities. The issuer of an Order is generally on the spot, and can leave such contingencies to form the subject of further Orders. But unless a Commander can be present, and direct the operations himself, he must leave much latitude to those who have actually to lead the Troops. Without this, the operations will not always be the most suitable to the conditions of the moment, and the vigour which is the mainspring of successful action will suffer.
Division Commanders
During the war with France in 1870 the leading on the part of the Supreme and Army Commanders left much to be desired, but the way in which the German Subordinate Commanders worked together was very striking, and might well be imitated in other armies. Their co-operation was loyal, unhesitating, complete, and characterized by initiative and resolution. Holding similar views on fighting, and animated by the same energy, the German Commanders acted together to one common end—namely, to beat the enemy.
Subordinate Commanders require to possess moral courage and readiness to take responsibility, rather than merely physical bravery, while decision and resolution are essential. There will be a solid foundation of confidence and moral force in an army whose Divisional Commanders are so endowed. All Commanders should be brought up in the same school, and hold similar views on the conduct of war. This is the basis of good Command, and ensures harmonious co-operation.
Limits of Initiative in Staff Officers
There is an essential distinction between the action of Commanders and that of Staff Officers however capable. It is true that Staff Officers are not mere clerks or messengers. There is often imposed on them the duty of explaining to the immediate executive agents the intention of their Chief, so as to solve ambiguities or remedy misunderstandings, and to create identical views on the situation, especially if it be rapidly changing. But it is outside the scope of the Staff to interfere with the exercise of Command—that is, on their own authority, to urge, or approve, or condemn any particular action on the part of Subordinate Commanders. To do so is to usurp the function of their Chief, and to form a lateral interference with the direct chain of responsibility. Such action commonly leads to a struggle of conflicting temperaments, contrary to all discipline, and tends to produce anarchy in the Command.
Only one man can command. It is true that the nominal Commander has not always been this one man, owing to some physical, intellectual, or moral deficiency in his character. In that case his action is necessarily guided by a substitute, who will really inspire the operations, but whose influence should always be concealed. Even in this case, however, it is essential that the Chief must rely on one man only. Should he turn for advice and guidance to more than one, his action will soon follow divided courses, owing to alternate predominance of contradictory counsels. Counter-orders will unfailingly ensue, with the inevitable result, neatly summed up by the French as “ordre, contre-ordre, désordre.” In War, it is not true that “in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.” We know that “Councils of War never fight,” and that the greatest Commanders have always regarded them as a detestable and cowardly subterfuge. Success can never be expected when, instead of the decision of one, the counsels of many prevail.