Commander’s Visualization
“Situational understanding (SU) and commander’s visualization (CV)” are two interrelated concepts crucial to the success of large-scale ground combat operations. SU refers to comprehending the current operational environment, including the enemy’s disposition, friendly forces, terrain, and other relevant factors. Conversely, CV involves creating a clear and coherent image of the battlefield and the desired end state. The relationship between SU and CV is symbiotic, as they complement and reinforce each other. To achieve a CV, a commander must first develop a comprehensive SU. The commander can gain a holistic understanding of the operational environment by gathering and analyzing information from various sources, such as intelligence reports, surveys, and inputs from subordinates.[1] This situational understanding forms the foundation for the commander’s visualization. With a clear understanding of the current situation, developing a compelling mental image of the battlefield and making informed decisions is possible.
However, building and maintaining SU and developing CV in large-scale ground combat operations pose significant challenges. One challenge is the complexity and dynamic nature of the battlefield. The Hürtgen Forest case study exemplifies this challenge. Major General (MG) Cota faced difficulties comprehending the enemy’s positions and intentions due to the dense forest, limited visibility, and constantly shifting frontlines. This complexity made it challenging to develop an accurate and up-to-date situational understanding, hindering MG Cota’s ability to visualize the battlefield effectively. Another challenge is the limited availability and reliability of information. In large-scale ground combat operations, commanders rely on various sources for intelligence, including aerial reconnaissance, ground reports, and signals intelligence. However, the availability and quality of these sources can be inconsistent, leading to incomplete or inaccurate situational understanding. In the Battle of the Hürtgen Forest, MG Cota encountered challenges in obtaining timely and accurate information about the enemy’s strength and intentions, making it difficult to visualize the battlefield comprehensively.[2]
Furthermore, the fog of War, uncertainty, and the need for timely decision-making add to “the challenges of building and maintaining SU and developing a CV.” In the Hürtgen Forest case study, MG Cota faced a fluid and chaotic battle environment with limited visibility and confusing reports. These factors increased the ambiguity and made it challenging for him to maintain a clear situational understanding and develop an accurate mental image of the battlefield. MG Cota’s judgment played a crucial role in overcoming these challenges. He had to make critical decisions based on incomplete information and adapt his visualization as the battle unfolded.
SU and CV are interconnected concepts in large-scale ground combat operations. Building and maintaining SU is essential for commanders to develop an effective CV. However, complexity, limited information, and the fog of War make it challenging to achieve a comprehensive SU and create an accurate CV. The Hürtgen Forest case study demonstrates these challenges, highlighting the importance of judgment and adaptability in overcoming them. By continuously reassessing the situation and adjusting their mental image of the battlefield, commanders can enhance their situational understanding and visualization, leading to better-informed decisions and increased operational effectiveness.
Essay #5–L407: Sustaining an Ethically Aligned Organization in War
Maintaining an ethical command climate in War is a paramount responsibility for military commanders. The consequences of unethical behavior erode trust among personnel and can have severe implications for mission effectiveness, public perception, and the well-being of those involved. Drawing upon the “Fall of the Warrior King” case study, we will analyze two key examples highlighting ethical leadership’s importance in maintaining a positive command climate.
“A commander’s ability to sustain an ethical command climate in War” depends on several factors. First, effective communication plays a crucial role. A commander should clearly articulate the mission, objectives, and expectations while emphasizing the importance of upholding ethical standards.[3] By establishing a shared understanding of ethical behavior, commanders can guide their subordinates toward making informed decisions that align with justice, respect, and integrity. Secondly, leading by example is fundamental. A commander who embodies ethical behavior sets a standard for others to follow. By consistently demonstrating integrity, accountability, and adherence to established rules of engagement, commanders inspire trust and create a culture of ethical conduct within their units. Such actions foster a sense of shared responsibility and provide a strong foundation for ethical decision-making, even in the most challenging and high-pressure situations.
An unethical command climate can arise from various factors, often due to a failure in leadership and an erosion of moral values within the unit. One major factor is the need for more accountability. When commanders fail to hold individuals accountable for their actions or ignore misconduct, it sends a message that ethical violations will go unpunished. This undermines trust, creates a culture of impunity, and breeds resentment among personnel. In the “Fall of the Warrior King” case study, LTC Sassman directed one of his company commanders to lie about the truth of what really happened to two Iraqi detainees by not disclosing the fact that one of his platoon leaders ordered the Iraqis to be thrown into the river. This is the first known event in LTC Sassman’s career in that he blatantly ignored a war crime regardless of the Iraqi men surviving the incident, which is what was briefed initially. LTC Sassman understood the fact that this incident would result in the firing of his platoon leader if announced to his Brigade Commander. His lack of trust between himself and the Brigade Commander led to his decision not to disclose information that he knew he should have. This incident led to LTC Sassman being removed from command and placed under investigation, which led to a host of other incidents that were taking place that led to this moment. Like other major war crimes in past and previous wars, one notably in Vietnam known as the “My Lai Massacre,” there is a build-up to the moment it happens. Just like throwing Iraq civilians in a river at night, some events built up to this moment. LTC Sassaman’s aggressive tactics in dealing with Iraqis likely contributed to the way his subordinates got to this moment. LTC Sassaman, on one occasion, ordered a dead Iraqi insurgent to be balled up in barbed wire and left outside the village for everyone to observe. He aggressively ordered his men to kill more insurgents, which was an order from then-GEN Odierno. These actions led to treating the civilian population more aggressively, which led to civilians fearing LTC Sassaman.
Maintaining an ethical command climate in War requires commanders to prioritize effective communication, lead by example, and hold individuals accountable for their actions. The “Fall of the Warrior King” case study underscores the consequences of an unethical command climate while highlighting ethical leadership’s positive impact. By fostering a culture that upholds the values of integrity, respect, and accountability, commanders can ensure the well-being of their personnel, preserve mission effectiveness, and enforce the moral obligations of the military profession in even the most challenging circumstances.
Bibliography
Bradbeer, Thomas G. “Major General Cota and the Battle of the Huertgen Forest.” US Army Combined Arms Center. Accessed June 8, 2023. https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/cace/DCL/DCL_MGCota.pdf.
Heuser, Beatrice. “Ethical, Political, and Legal Concepts of War.” War, 2022, 67-126. doi:10.1093/oso/9780198796893.003.0003.
Iordache, Mihai. “Air Mission Commander. Command and Control.” Land Forces Academy Review 25, no. 1 (2020), 8-14. doi:10.2478/raft-2020-0002.
[1] Mihai Iordache, “Air Mission Commander. Command and Control,” Land Forces Academy Review 25, no. 1 (2020): xx, doi:10.2478/raft-2020-0002.
[2] Thomas G. Bradbeer, “Major General Cota and the Battle of the Huertgen Forest,” US Army Combined Arms Center, accessed June 8, 2023, https://usacac.army.mil/sites/default/files/documents/cace/DCL/DCL_M
[3] Beatrice Heuser, “Ethical, Political, and Legal Concepts of War,” War, 2022, doi:10.1093/oso/9780198796893.003.0003
write