Sound Military Decision

by Naval War College

The commander now, as a result of his reflective thinking as to courses of action, makes a list of those which he has visualized for himself. There may be one course of action, or many; ordinarily there are several.

Examples of courses of action have been given in the basic discussion of the subject ([pages 89] and [92]). In listing his courses, the commander can add to clarity of thought and of expression by visualizing the objective embodied in each course and by envisaging also, the action, expressed in proper detail, for its attainment. This process is naturally the more important when the objective is inferred rather than specifically expressed, and when the action involved calls for more description than can be obtained merely by stating the objective.

For example, the commander may include a course of action such as "to raid enemy trade in the area EFGH". The objective is here inferred; it is not clearly stated. The commander may therefore be well advised to add a notation of what the objective is; indeed, more than one objective may be involved. Objectives thus inferred might include, when specifically stated, the infliction of damage on enemy trade, the infliction of damage on enemy combatant forces protecting such trade, the disruption of enemy supply arrangements, or such others as may be applicable.

This clear visualization is essential to the establishment of the relationship between the assigned objective and the objective inherent in the course of action ([page 89]). If, for instance, the motivating task is to "divert enemy forces to the area EFGH", the commander may consider the course of action "to raid enemy trade in area EFGH". By infliction of damage to, and by disruption of, enemy supply (objectives of his raiding), he expects to accomplish the diversion of enemy forces to the area EFGH, because the enemy will wish to protect his trade against such raids. The relationship between the assigned objective and the objective inferred in the course of action is thus made clear.

With regard to expression of the action to be taken, the commander may properly desire to be more explicit than by merely saying, for example, "to destroy the enemy". Here the objective is clear (it is "the destruction of the enemy"), but the expression of the action is so general that additional description may be needed. Examples of more explicit statement have been given previously ([page 89]).

On occasion the higher commander may predetermine the commander's course of action for the attainment of the objective assigned to the latter. Circumstances under which such procedure may be properly applicable, and the effect which it has on the commander's estimate, have been previously discussed ([page 86]).

C. Application of Tests for Suitability, Feasibility, and Acceptability.

The courses of action which the commander has envisaged are now subjected to test ([page 98]). This essential stage in thought is intended to put the courses of action to proof as tentative solutions of the problems. The principle here recognized is that suggestion has no logical nor rightful claim upon action or belief until it has received adequate confirmation. Such confirmation is, in part, provided by these tests.

The tests applied are for suitability, for feasibility, and for acceptability as to consequences. Each of these tests is a separate one. Each course of action is formally subjected to test. When the tests are completed, the courses of action stand classified in these respects. During these tests, some courses of action may be rejected; such are then omitted in the final classification.

These formal tests are not to be confused with the preliminary tests already given by the commander to each course of action as it occurs to mind. Necessarily, there is such a preliminary test, because the commander does not wish to entertain inappropriate courses of action. For a competent commander, the mental power to envisage solutions of a military problem is so much grounded in experience that appropriate suggestions are most likely to occur; in fact, discriminating thought with respect to military problems is natural for such a commander. This immediate discrimination is, however, merely the preliminary test. It prevents setting up wooden soldiers only to knock them down, but it does not necessarily subject each suggested solution to a thorough analysis.