{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02103960396039604, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0049504950495049506, 'mean_word_length': 5.274844720496894, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 1, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Path to Mission Command

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED] Leader development is the fundamental basis for a U.S. Army that practices mission command in everything it does. Mission command and leader development are interdependent. Mission command is how we fight, and leader development is part of how we prepare to fight. Leader development that excludes the principles of mission command, or worse, that preaches mission command without putting it into practice, is missing out on the exploitation of human potential, knowledge, and experience that mission command allows. However, a U.S. Army that operates according to the principles of mission command does not just happen naturally, especially in peacetime. How effectively the Army applies the principles of mission command will be the product of leader development in a peacetime environment. Translating a vision of mission command into practice through leader development in the domains of education, training, and experience is a challenge because of the tension between the presence of uncertainty and the need for synchronization. Commanders need to balance the art of command with the science of control. Mission command has great potential to enable operational success under conditions of uncertainty. However, commanders may be likely to try to manage uncertainty by exercising a greater degree of centralized control, counter to the philosophy of mission command. Even when synchronization is needed, commanders still must balance how they exercise control over their capabilities with the art of command. In this way, commanders can exploit opportunities brought about by local successes or enemy weaknesses. The solution to how commanders and leaders can maximize synchronization and thrive despite uncertainty comes from the preparation that makes mission command possible. If leader development in education, training, and experience at all echelons builds a solid foundation of trust built on intent and shared understanding, then units will be able to accomplish their assigned missions at a lower cost than they would if forced to operate in a more directed manner. Development of the Army's Mission Command Philosophy Mission command as described in Army Doctrine Reference Publication (ADRP) 6-0, Mission Command, seems to have two historical sources of inspiration. (1) The first source is the German tradition of Auftragstaktik, or mission-oriented tactics, which broadly describes the German army's commitment to initiative, aggression, and judgment that was the root of their tactical excellence in the 19th and 20th centuries. (2) Auftragstaktik was embodied in XIX Panzer Corps' river crossing in Sedan in May 1940. The German army's practices allowed it to seize the initiative, even when outnumbered, and to succeed despite lapses in communications and other unexpected difficulties. (3) The second source of mission command principles is the pragmatic and democratic traditions of the United States as it fielded armies to win wars as quickly as possible with the lowest loss of life. (4) Initiative in the Army's history is as much a bottom-up process as top-down, and mission command seeks to exploit this proud tradition. Certainly this was the case over the past 12 years where decentralized counterinsurgency and security force assistance were the norm for conventional Army units. Before 2003, operational plans had a traditional focus on relatively short-term operations with traditional military capabilities. Now battalions conduct stability operations, for instance, for a year or longer. Junior leaders had to shape their operational environments not only through fires and obstacles but also through their interaction with the population and their assessment of pieces of infrastructure, social networks, and political alliances. These realities meant leaders at all levels would need to be able to manage uncertainty. Given these realities, codifying mission command as the way the Army would conduct operations was a necessary and logical step. …