Military History | How To Make War | Wars Around the World Rules of Use How to Behave on an Internet Forum
Dirty Little Secrets Discussion Board
Sign In   Return to Topic Page
Subject: Micromanagement for Global War
James Dunnigan    1/10/2004 7:48:45 PM

Micromanagement, first seen during the Vietnam war when advances in communications allowed someone in the Washington to communicate directly with commanders in combat, is about to reach new heights. The U.S. Department of Defense is considering providing the Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS) with a real time combat command capability. This would mean that the JCS, led by its chairman, would have a combat command center in the Pentagon where they would use current satellite communications to directly control combat forces anywhere on the planet.

It was only in the past century that a government could exercise any control at all over armed forces far from the capital. This was first done with the introduction of overland and undersea telegraph lines in the 19th century, and world wide radio broadcasting equipment early in the 20th century. Before that, an admiral or general was sent off with orders to accomplish a mission, and pretty much allowed to do it as they saw fit. The generals and admirals rather liked this approach, as their job was hard enough without a bunch of politicians looking over their shoulder and second guessing their every decision. Even with the radio messages from back home, the combat commanders were still left to sort things out on their own. The radio was used mainly to report progress, or lack of it.

But by the 1960s, it was possible to patch through a telephone call from the White House to an infantry battalion commander deep in the Vietnamese bush. And it wasn't just the dreaded phone call from the president you had to worry about. The beleaguered battalion commander might have brigade, division and corps commanders circling overhead in helicopters, all of them observing and offering advice, or giving orders. This "micromanagement" was much disliked by the guys on the ground, trying to run a battle they were right in the middle of.

After Vietnam, the Department of Defense tried to deal with this problem by establishing regional commands to cover the entire planet, and then appoint four star generals or admirals to command all American forces in that region if there were a war (the rest of the time, they would keep an eye on things and get ready for any possible war.) These commanders in chief (or CINCs, as they are still called, unofficially) were sometimes guilty of micromanagement, although all experienced combat commanders recognized that it was best to leave the commanders of the fighting units alone. This was the lesson of history. Micromanagement was bad, but it persisted. Why?

Blame it on the media. Just as military communications had improved, so had the ability of the media to get the story back to their audience (of voters, pundits and unfriendly politicians.) In the past, the commander on the spot might do things that did not look good in the media, but it took so long to get the story back that the operation was over by the time it did. If the battle was won, many sins would be forgiven. That no longer works. Communications now allow reporters to deliver color commentary while a battle is going on. The president, the ultimate (by law and in fact) commander in chief, is held responsible for whatever the troops do. It is not possible, politically, to wait for the combat commanders to finish their job before the president issues new orders.

Examples of micromanagement were abundant in the recent Afghanistan and Iraq wars. Washington often had to be consulted before sensitive attacks were made (like having a predator UAV launch a Hellfire missile at some guy on the ground who might be Osama bin Laden, or some tall Afghan with a beard, a new SUV and a commanding manner.) The proposed "JCS Command Post" is actually an attempt to deal with this problem. The JCS and the Secretary of Defense are the presidents senior, and most frequent, military advisors. Ultimately, the buck stops with the JCS. So by plugging the JCS into a world wide command system, politically sensitive decisions could be resolved quickly (in minutes, or at least in less than an hour.) The more frequent contact between the president, the Secretary of Defense and the JSC with combat commanders might build up a degree of trust that would enable sensitive decisions to be made more quickly. This would happen, in a best case situation, because the JCS Command Post had developed confidence in the judgment of the commanders out there.

But the JCS Command Post might just become another layer of management that slows down decision making without improving the ability of the troops to get the job done. To solve this problem, it's proposed that the CINC be reduced to the status of a staff officer. The CINC and his people (several hundred staff officers and support troops) would be the repository of knowledge about the local situation and would take care of all those logistical and support details that enable the combat operations to happen.

Speaking of staff work, one thi

 
Quote    Reply

Email Me When A New Comment Is Made
Show Only Poster Name and Title     Newest to Oldest

Final Historian    RE:Micromanagement for Global War   1/11/2004 12:05:07 PM
It seems to me that the movie Aliens is prooving eirily accurate. The time could come where officers stay behind in a command vehicle/APC and direct their troops from there, leaving the NCO to do the on-scence management.
 
Quote    Reply

Sniper Bait    RE:Micromanagement- doesn't work in business, sports or, war   1/12/2004 1:26:42 PM
"TOO many cooks in the kitchen", a phrase that is often said around my house. My family is full of very opinionated people always quick to give a "Monday Morning Quarterbacking", "I told you so". My responce has always been, "This is a 1 moron job only, and I am that moron." Like the public at large, my family thinks of a problem set before anyone as a sort of entertainment. Standing back with their birdseye view, they want to give little tips and suggestions all in the name of helping me find success with a broken toilet, or whatever. Pop culture and the media elite too seem to take a sick joy in standing back from what someone else is arms deep in, and giving little "helpful suggestions." Even if they have never turned a wrench or smelled the wonders of modern plumbing gone awry. The same thing happened to me years ago when I was in the firearm's sales and repairs. The owner would sit up in his comfy office and tab through his computerized inventory. Then he would come downstairs through his other businesses to question his store manager about every little detail that caught his eye, all the while the manager is hard at work trying to run the store. This of course is coming from a man who tried to run his own gun business once before and failed. Since hiring this manager, he was finding success. Since the business was now thriving, his control freak tendencies wanted to see how much more profit he could squeeze out of it. In reality he was choking the life out of it. The problem was that his priorities, and the managers priorities were different: the owner's this immediate quarter's profit, the manager's a successful business. I think the same applies in Washington, career Officers are as in any large organization or government job. They don't remember or never actually had to do what others are doing at the practical real world level. Being of the military type personality wise, they just can't seem to let their control-freak tendencies go enough to trust others to work a problem on their own. Pentagon people are good at PR, congressional appropriation, making their military branch look good, kissing butt, making political alliances, aquiring new wonder toys built in congressionally important states, and furthering their own careers. The reality is that they are very much needed in a town like Washington. However, like my old owner, he was very good at that end of the business, but he too couldn't resist interfering with his gunstore manager's area of expertise too. The owner would just look at all those wonderful numbers and wonder how he could make them better, so he would go and pressure his manager. Then he would try to go and run the store when the manager had his day off. Next, he stuck a mole into the operation to see how his manager and employees must be doing something wrong since his little computer wouldn't give him those just right numbers and results he wanted to see. Next, He started questioning every decision and policy of how the manager ran the store. Then the owner started controlling priceing from his little wonderful networked computer, way on the otherside of his many businesses. Next, he resorted to trying to get the employees to snitch on the manager. In the end he lost employees, and angered so many long loyal customers that the store went into a long slow decline in profitability. The war for money was lost and the business closed because he didn't see how they were interconnected. The moral of long story is the same one here: trust and expectations. As a higher up the owner was responcible to his extended family and all who counted on him to keep his varied businesses afloat. He faced this burden and he tried to pass it on down to the manager who was "fighting in the trenches" of the retail world. The owner's massive responcibilities combined with his little computer was too much of a temptation to not meddle around. Like many in the modern world he thought he could control everything. He thought that what modern technology and communications gave him was a omnipotent God's eye view of that which was happening. The little one's and zero's would never lie, would never misrepresent reality. Like most modern people in our lawsuit filled world, he couldn't take the pressure of trusting a responcibility to another human, since it was his butt on the line. I think the blame for this micormanagment is on the American people, the media, the technology, and the meddling beaurocrat/generals. The Americans are the audience, the politicians and generals are the head coaches and assistant coaches, and the men and woman working on and around the battlezone are the players. All these different groups have different needs from the players. All want victory more than anything. The bored media and American audience feel that all are qualified to give great advice from their rather limited worldview through that little myopic glowing box of
 
Quote    Reply



StrategyWorld.com© 1998 - 2012StrategyWorld.com. All rights Reserved. StrategyWorld.com, StrategyPage.com, FYEO, For Your Eyes Only and Al Nofi's CIC are all trademarks of StrategyWorld.com Privacy Policy