TACTICS SERIES: POST 6 | Cooperating

Cooperating

An Army is a team. It lives, eats, sleeps, fights as a team.
General George S. Patton Jr.

Everything we have to do in tactics — gaining an advantage and, above all, achieving a decisive result — requires a team effort. If efforts are not in harmony, results may be indecisive. For example, if the aviation combat element's actions are not harmonized with those of the ground combat element, they are unlikely ot have a decisive effect. If your fire support is not well coordinated with an infantry attack, combined arms synergy will not be achieved, and the attack may fail. However, achieving this team effort is easier said than done. It requires rapidly maneuvering forces, often widely dispersed, to work together under the most adverse conditions.

Control in Combat

Because war is characterized by chaos, uncertainty, and rapid change, control quickly breaks down. It is probably a mistake to speak of control in combat. According to MCDP 6, "given the nature of war, it is a delusion to think that we can be in control with any sort of certitude or precision." As anyone who has experienced combat will undoubtedly agree, it is impossible to control everything. Attempts to impose control also can easily undermine the initiative upon which tactics depend. Subordinates can become hesitant; they may feel they must wait for orders before acting. We are not likely to move faster or gain leverage over a competent opponent unless personnel at every level exercise initiative.

The dilemma, then, is this: How do we achieve the goal of working together in harmony while exercising a more decentralized type of control?

Cooperation

The beginning of the answer lies in cooperation. We define cooperation as the union of self-discipline and initiative in pursuit of a common goal. Cooperation can be viewed as a component of control.

Control can generally be divided into two types: centralized and decentralized. Centralized control tends to be one-way and works from the top down: someone at a higher level determines what subordinates will and will not do. Centralized control makes us conform to higher dictates because only one person does the thinking for the organization — the person in control.

In contrast, decentralized control works from the bottom up. Command is the exercise of authority and guidance, and control is felt as feedback about the effects of the action taken because thinking is required at all levels. This feedback allows the commander to adapt to changing circumstances and to command subsequent action. Cooperation is required in decentralized control. Subordinates work together laterally and from the bottom up to accomplish tasks that fulfill the commander's intent. Cooperation means we take the initiative to help those around us accomplish our shared mission.

Cooperation is essential to tactics. The flight leader and wingman work based on cooperation. These pilots cooperate with the infantry they support. Two infantry units, fighting side by side, cooperate. We all work together far more effectively when we communicate laterally than when we communicate only through higher headquarters and respond only to centralized direction. As an ancillary benefit, we relieve our overloaded communications.

The history of tactics is filled with examples where cooperation made the difference — and control could not. One example is when a Huey pilot spent ten hours guiding and designating targets to a flight of Cobras in Operation Desert Storm. The pilots worked together to destroy targets and accomplish the mission.

Discipline

Cooperation can harmonize efforts and get everyone to work together without the centralized control that undermines initiative. However, it raises a more fundamental question: How do we prepare people to cooperate when rounds start flying?

The answer is discipline: There is only one kind of discipline--PERFECT DISCIPLINE. If you do not enforce and maintain discipline, you are potential murderers." In the face of adversity and difficulty, discipline enables individuals to pursue what is best for those around them and their unit. Individuals and units might have the desire, but without the discipline they will be unable to accomplish the most difficult tasks in combat--operating faster than the enemy, gaining advantage, generating decisive force, and achieving decisive results.

In combat, instant obedience to orders is crucial. Orders may not be popular, but there comes a point where they must be carried out without question. Discipline is a result of training. In training for war, discipline should be firm, but fair. The United States Marine Corps is known as a highly disciplined fighting force. Discipline is one of the strengths that make Marines equally effective assaulting a beach, conducting a noncombatant evacuation operation, fighting a fire, or guarding embassies. Nonetheless, discipline is founded not only on obedience but also on a sense of duty.

The discipline needed for cooperation comes from two sources: imposed discipline and self-discipline. The first source, imposed discipline, is more often associated with the term "military discipline. Imposed discipline, typified by the Prussian approach, is characterized by instant obedience to orders. External in nature, it ensures compliance with established procedures, rules, or guidance and direction from above. It is a means to achieve efficiency in the accomplishment of routine duties or drills. In its most extreme form, it can be rigid, paralyzing, and destructive of initiative. Imposed discipline also may make units vulnerable to the effects of chaos and uncertainty and unable to cooperate.

Self-discipline is an internal force that obligates us to do what is right. Athletes as well as warfighters can see this. Team players instinctively back up their teammates. In baseball, the outfielders cover each other on flyballs, the catcher backs up first base on a routine play, and the infield covers the pitcher on every hit. Members of squads and fire teams also work together as teams to accomplish tasks and take care of each other. A coach or leader cannot enforce this cooperation among teammates. It depends on the self-discipline of the individuals.

Conclusion

Modern tactics rely on cooperation. Cooperation, in turn, depends on discipline. Discipline consists of both imposed discipline and self-discipline. As leaders, we must create a climate in which self-discipline and a high level of initiative can flourish within the boundaries of military discipline. This climate depends on us. Words are easy, action is hard.  We judge actions, not words, and respond positively to leadership by example. If an environment of discipline is expected and demonstrated, cooperation will follow.