Book Review of Command (#83)

TFCG would like to wish you, your team, and your family Happy Holidays! Enjoy your break.

For those that have plenty to do, stop here. For those that don’t, here is an article I wrote earlier this year. The concept of command — mission definition, mission management, and leadership — is worth examining by military and corporate leaders. Enjoy.

Earlier this year I reviewed Command: The Twenty-First-Century General by Anthony King for Parameters, the US Army War College’s magazine. Here is the link. King’s concept that command is comprised of three facets: mission definition, mission management, and leadership is compelling. And that concept can transfer to leaders in the corporate or non-profit arena. Here is the book review:

Anthony King has produced a thought-provoking book. He examines the change in division command since 1901 in the American, British, French, and German armies in World War I, World War II, Cold War counterinsurgencies, Desert Storm, Iraq, and Afghanistan and current initiatives the armies are undertaking to transform their division headquarters. Building upon Martin van Creveld’s Command in War, John Keegan’s The Mask of Command, and Peter F. Drucker’s The Effective Executive and using dozens of examples, King argues division command has transformed from a more individualistic command in the twentieth century to a more collectivized command in the last decade.

The division has existed as a military formation since the French Revolution. In the last 120 years the division has typically included 10,000 to 25,000 soldiers under the command of a major general. The division was, and is, the Landpower formation of choice—with a mature leader a division is quickly deployable yet robust enough to handle joint, combined, and multinational operations with significant combat power. Examining the division in the twentieth and twenty-first centuries is a worthy task and should have been undertaken sooner. It may be worthwhile for future writers to focus on one nation’s divisions, doctrine, and actual command practices over the past 120 years to develop a more detailed analysis of how the division and its command have evolved.

One of King’s most important contributions is the concept that command at any level is comprised of three facets: mission definition, mission management, and leadership. Because I liked the concept so much, I read the chapter twice. Prior to D-Day, for instance, US Major General Maxwell Taylor defined the mission of the 101st Airborne Division as being able to surprise the enemy by conducting a parachute/ glider assault, seize objectives, and defend against counterattacks. Once the mission was defined, Taylor managed the division’s preparation for and execution of the D-Day invasion and provided leadership to the Screaming Eagles. Defining the mission for a division in a counterinsurgency is more challenging—from my experience, the mission definitions of division commanders in Iraq and Afghanistan ran the gamut. Few commanders took on a broad mandate for the mission, most took a narrow view, and some failed to even consider it. The mission management and leadership styles of division commanders varied in the post-9/11 invasions and counterinsurgencies as well.

King’s second major contribution is the idea that the role of the division commander has transformed—from the concept of an individualistic, or heroic, division commander pre-9/11 to a more collectivized commander since 9/11. He defines individualistic command as a division commander, with a small staff, monopolizing the responsibility for determining the mission, managing the execution, making decisions, and providing leadership to the division. He uses examples of General Erwin Rommel, commander of the German 7th Panzer Division during the invasion of France in World War II; Major General Julian Ewell, commander of the US 9th Infantry Division in the Mekong Delta Region during the Vietnam War; General Sir Rupert Smith, commander of the UK 1st Armored Division during Desert Storm; and others to illustrate the individualistic command concept. I think most military professionals will recognize this style of division command.

More problematic to recognize is the idea of collectivized command. The Oxford English Dictionary defines collectivize as “organize (something) on the basis of ownership by the people.” King defines collectivized command as “commanders, their deputies, subordinates, and staff bound together in dense, professionalized decision-making communities” that collectively determine the mission, manage the solution, and provide leadership to the division (18). Here he examines British Major General Nick Carter’s leadership of Regional Command South in Afghanistan from 2009–10 and recent initiatives by the US 82nd Airborne Division, the UK 3rd Division, and the French divisional headquarters.

I agree with King that the post-9/11 division headquarters has grown in size and developed a more bureaucratic process around decision making. Larger headquarters have an insatiable appetite for more information, more meetings, and more work from themselves and their subordinate units. I have found little evidence in practice, accounts of recent division actions in other books, and even in Command where division commanders have collectivized the process of mission definition, management, or leadership.

The most collectivized command process I know is the council of war, used most famously in the American Civil War by Union General George Meade at the Battle of Gettysburg on the night of July 2, 1863. Although King does use General Stanley McChrystal’s networked and collaborative approach to running the US Joint Special Operations Command from 2003–8, this organization is not a division, and McChrystal’s approach was not collectivized. King disappointingly cites no solid examples of division commanders bringing their team of staff and commanders together for a collectivized approach to decide on the mission or how to manage the solution. Most telling, King’s interviews with General David Petraeus, General Sir Rupert Smith, and General James Mattis all rebuff his theory that collectivization happened in the divisions they led.

Like King, I believe the command of the division headquarters is changing, and I appreciate him for recognizing the change and starting the discussion. In the end, King’s conclusion misses the mark. The change may be that divisions have simply grown from their former nimble roots into large, bureaucratic, and unwieldy organizations. Perhaps divisions and their commanders are embracing a more networked approach, using reachback or trying to flatten the organization. The supporting evidence King cites does not convince me the division command has been collectivized.

All in all, Command is a good book since it made me think deeply about the division and division command. Even with the noted shortcomings, it is a worthwhile read for commanders and leaders at all levels who need to think about how they define the mission of their units or organizations, manage planning and execution, and lead. It is also valuable for military officers and other senior leaders who are thinking about the history and the future of the division and division command.

Once again, here is the link. It is on page 151 of Parameters 50, no. 4 (2020).