Military Review English Edition January-February 2015 | Page 40

To demonstrate the importance of heuristic training, consider that before the World War II battle of Leyte Gulf (1944-1945), the Imperial Japanese Navy (IJN) had studied extensively the prior actions of U.S. Navy admirals. Understanding that Adm. William F. Halsey was habitually aggressive in his pursuit of Japanese aircraft carriers, the IJN plan, called Shō-Gō 1, placed a decoy fleet led by Vice-Adm. Jisaburō Ozawa to lure Halsey’s 3rd Fleet away from the eastern flank of the Philippines. After Halsey’s 3rd Fleet reconnaissance planes located Ozawa’s decoy fleet, he pursued them just as the IJN command had predicted, leaving the San Bernardino Straits unguarded. This allowed the Japanese Central Fleet to pass through the San Bernardino Straits unabated and catch Rear Adm. Clifton Sprague and his Task Unit 77.4.3, Taffy 3, with almost disastrous effect.21 This example describes two opposing commanders, but the effects of heuristics are clear. The IJN’s understanding of Halsey’s pathological drive to destroy every IJN carrier allowed Ozawa gain an advantage in support of Shō-Gō 1. If the IJN had not known about Halsey, such an audacious tactic would more than likely have been eliminated from their plans. The importance of gaining this kind of knowledge and applying this type of reasoning can be impressed on our own leaders, but this will not happen spontaneously. Commanders and their leaders must have a directed dialogue to achieve this level of knowledge and wisdom, but how? Cohesive units are forged in the crucible of combat and training. As steel sharpens steel, so must commanders’ training programs sharpen the steel of their subordinate leaders and troops. It is not enough in complex OEs to be content with the mere training of tasks. When units deploy for training to the National Training Center, the Joint Readiness Training Center, or the Joint Multinational Readiness Center, what is the end state for training that leaders are seeking? Are Army forces using these training environments as a crucible to forge agile and adaptive officers and soldiers that are allowed to execute orders within the commander’s intent, while exercising disciplined initiative and accepting prudent risk? This is where the promulgation of doctrine and the inculcation of the mission command philosophy can provide for the development of creative and critical thinking throughout the force. Unfortunately, when units are able to deploy to a major training center, the rotations tend to be nominally for 38 training and in reality only for certification. This is counterproductive to the real intent of training. Certification is templated and uniform and by its very nature restricts creative thinking. Just as engineers need to be able to assemble a bridge in the dark, in the rain, and with MOPP 4 gear, so must commanders and staffs, who are expected to deal with unexpected developments in complex OEs, be able to conduct training that approaches challenges through creative and critical thinking. The philosophy of mission command allows commanders and units to create an environment of trust and dialogue. One part of trust is that subordinates trust their leaders to allow them to fail. Allowing subordinates the freedom to fail in training serves two purposes. First, learning by success is very difficult because there are few lessons learned. In unit training, expectations should be limited to functional competence, with the understanding that the subordinate leadership can choose their own courses of action in support of their commanders. Second, taking risks that could lead to failure in training is, in a manner of speaking, another form a dialogue. It is through the independence of action that subordinate leaders have in mission command that commanders can begin to visualize and develop how and what their subordinates think and will do when confronted with certain stressors and situations. This is a major ideological shift in training Army units. Units should focus on training to get better, not simply training to win an exercise or training just to check the block. Training should be meaningful by facilitating dialogue with the aim of engendering trust between a unit and its commander. Exercise Disciplined Initiative, Use Mission Orders, and Accept Prudent Risk As the principles of the mission command philosophy are inculcated within a unit, commanders and staffs should be comfortable in allowing their subordinates to exercise disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent. When units have a foundation of confidence, trust, and dialogue through a robust professional development program, subordinate leaders should be willing and able to take the reins on their part of an operation because they have developed confidence in their own ability and in that of their subordinates. As described in ADRP 6-0, January-February 2015  MILITARY REVIEW