Here the task is to deny the enemy the use of available bases in the area described; in addition, the higher commander has specified that this be accomplished by the adoption of a predetermined course of action (page 88), expressed in the words "by capturing X Island." Higher authority has in this case made the subordinate's estimate of the situation for him, and has thus arrived at the decision which the subordinate would ordinarily reach for himself.

Such procedure may be deemed advisable under certain circumstances: for example, when time is pressing; when a close control of the situation is an important factor; when the qualifications of the subordinate are unknown, as yet doubtful, or known to be inadequate for the operation in hand; or, for various other reasons which may suggest themselves according to the nature of the problem.

Occasionally, higher authority, for similar reasons, may also prescribe the action to be taken, in considerable detail. Examples occur during operations of unusual complexity, or when the personnel factors call for special care in coordination of the action.

Sometimes, higher authority, instead of announcing both the task and the predetermined course of action, may indicate only the latter; in the example given above, the higher commander would then direct, "Capture X Island". The directive might also include, in some detail, the action to be taken to this end.

Procedure such as noted in the foregoing examples involves certain special considerations from the viewpoint of the subordinate. These considerations are discussed hereafter (page 96).

The Mission. In our naval service an assigned task, coupled with its purpose, is known as a mission. As explained previously (page 48), the purpose indicates the larger aim which is to be served by the execution of the task. The task indicates the assigned objective, i.e., what is to be accomplished; the purpose, the further objective to be served thereby.

The word mission is a derivative of the Latin verb, "to send". Its use implies the act of sending someone, or of being sent, as an agent for some special duty, a duty imposed by one in authority. Although an individual, free to do so, may select his own mission, and thereby send himself on a special duty, this is not usually the case where an effective military chain of command exists. Normally the sending authority is the immediate superior; the agent, the immediate subordinate.

The mission, once assigned, does not change until it has been accomplished or until it has been modified or revoked by higher authority, usually the immediate superior by whom it was assigned.

As previously explained in this connection, the designation of a purpose, linked with a task, is an essential element of a mission as treated herein. It is essential to unity of effort that the purpose of the mission of a commander be common with that of other commanders of the same echelon who are to participate in the effort enjoined by their superior's directives. Directives expressed in the Order Form (page 112 and Chapter VIII) facilitate clear recognition of this purpose, which appears in the general plan of action prescribed in the second paragraph of that form. The commander may consider the relationship thus:

My assigned task is to be accomplished for the purpose of carrying out my designated part of my immediate superior's general plan.

It is customary to simplify the foregoing to the statement that the mission is:

(Task) (statement of the assigned task),

(Purpose) in order to assist in the successful execution of (statement of the superior's general plan).

The words "assist in", etc., may frequently be understood and therefore omitted.

The foregoing expression of a mission affords, as later explained (Chapter VI), a method for clear visualization of the effect desired by higher authority. (See also page 84.)

All of his assigned tasks which materially influence the commander's Decision (hereinafter discussed) are properly included in his mission; other tasks, naturally, may be omitted in this connection. In the case of a double or multiple task (page 86), all the tasks may be related to a single purpose, or the included tasks may each, or in certain combinations, be linked separately to appropriate purposes.

Survey of Factors of Fighting Strength. The feasibility and acceptability of action for the attainment of an objective are dependent (see the Fundamental Military Principle—page 41) on the factors of fighting strength. Fighting strength (page 35) is derived from the means available and opposed, as influenced by the characteristics of the theater of operations. A survey of these factors, in proper detail according to the nature of the problem, is therefore a necessary phase in the process of its solution. Such a survey completes the basis for the study of courses of action.

Courses of Action. The estimate process naturally takes account (page 80) of methods for attaining the objective indicated in the assigned task. The military profession has, from time to time, applied a variety of terms to designate such methods. Terms so used include, among others, "plans open to us" (or "to the enemy"), "lines of action", and "courses of action". The last-noted, having been standard in our naval service for many years, is the term used in this discussion.

Each course of action is thus a plan of military operations for the attainment of the assigned objective, and each thus indicates (page 37) "an act or a series of acts" which may be undertaken to that end. Until a final selection is made for embodiment in the Decision, each course of action is a tentative solution of the problem. For the reason given below, a course of action, while under consideration as a tentative solution of the problem, is also correctly conceived as indicating an objective and, in proper detail, the action for its attainment.

When embodied in the Decision, the adopted course of action or combination of courses becomes the commander's general plan (or the basis thereof) for the employment of his force; such a general plan will naturally indicate the commander's general objective (page 49) and, in proper detail, the action to be taken for its attainment (page 44).

The objective may be specifically stated or may be inferred (see page 82; also page 84 for the corresponding discussion of the expression of tasks); but, in any event, clear thinking demands that the objective be definitely envisaged. There is a manifest advantage in such definite envisaging of the objectives involved in courses of action. Suitability as to the appropriate effect desired—the first requirement in the selection of a correct objective (page 51)—is much more readily tested on this basis. The practical bearing of this fact becomes apparent during the early stages (Chapter VI) of the process of solving military problems.

Frequent examples of naval courses of action include (see page 92):

(1)     "To destroy the enemy force." Here the objective, "destruction of the enemy force", is specifically indicated.

(2)     "To divert the enemy force." Here also the objective, in this case "diversion of the enemy force", is specifically indicated.

(3)     "To evade the enemy." Here again the objective, "evasion of the enemy", is specifically indicated.

(4)     "To cover friendly and neutral trade." Here the objective, "protection of friendly and neutral trade by the utilization of advantageous covering positions", is more or less inferred.

(5)     "To escort trade." Here the objective, "protection of trade by escorting it in convoys", is more or less inferred.

(6)     "To patrol the trade routes." Here the objective, e.g., "protection of trade by patrolling the trade routes", is inferred.

(7)     "To raid." Here the objective, e.g., "infliction of loss and damage by raiding", is inferred.

In the foregoing instances, the action to be taken is indicated in general terms. The extent to which the action may properly be indicated depends on the nature of the problem and is necessarily left to the judgment of the commander. Two possibilities, between which there may be various intermediate cases, are as follows:

For a further application, it will be noted that the national policies referred to early in this discussion (page 7) are national courses of action, considered and adopted as methods of attaining national objectives.

The expression "courses of action", in the sense of a plan considered or adopted as a solution of the problem, has the defect that it appears to emphasize the action, rather than the paramount component, i.e., the objective. So long as this fact is borne in mind, the limitations of the term "courses of action" need not operate to influence, adversely, the solution of the problem.

As noted above, the commander brings to mind courses of action by the mental act of "envisaging", i.e., "viewing with the mind's eye or conceptionally", "seeing as a mental image", bringing fully and distinctively to view. How is this done?

Although the time available for the process depends on the particular problem, the process itself is the same for all. During the clarification of the problem, the commander will have entertained certain ideas,—ideas as to such matters as the existing situation, the desired new situation, the possible physical objectives, the relative positions and movements of the forces involved, and related matters. His training and experience cause these ideas to evoke others, which are associated in his mind with problems of the past,—in particular, with the bearing of such ideas on the outcome of those problems.

This process of thinking, if it is to be effective as well as reflective, requires mental access to certain sources of ideas. These sources may lie in the study of history, or in the wealth of doctrine and instructions gathered into official manuals and into other professional writings, or in the commander's own practical experience. Logicians who have investigated this natural process point out that suggested solutions are the resurrection of ideas from past experience. Good thinking demands access to a large storehouse of ideas connected in various and flexible ways. The best available knowledge is the main source from which reflective thinking obtains relevant and promising suggestions for a solution.

By such resort to analogy, the commander utilizes the accumulations of past experience. Sometimes he finds that the courses of action thus suggested are exactly suitable as tentative solutions for his problem. In other instances, of course, only parts of the present situation are found to be analogous to those previously encountered. Even then, however, the similarity of the facts may be helpful in providing suggestions. Guidance based on limited or partial similarity has been demonstrated to be better than purely intuitive thinking.

The commander cannot be content, however, to depend wholly on the guidance of the past. Sometimes, moreover, he may not be able to obtain suggestions by analogy. New suggestions, ideas not drawn from past experience, are very desirable; they are possible, also, in the sense that the result of the analysis of past experience may be reassembled, in imagination, in novel ways. New courses of action, overlooked in the past, may be contrived. Original combinations, not previously entertained, may be devised. Readiness to employ the novel and the new, as well as to utilize the old, is a prime qualification for command.

Reflective thinking of this nature requires adequate knowledge of the capabilities of weapons, so that new possibilities may be perceived as to coordination in their use. While analogy looks backward to find applicable lessons, the search for novelty seeks suggestions from potentialities not heretofore utilized.

The development of the full possibilities of new weapons is an important source of forward thinking. Such thinking constantly integrates the current developments in war. The competent commander does not wait for history to be made; he makes it.

Familiarity with experimentation, research, and new performance is also a fruitful source of suggestions. When used, this method results in advance demands by the armed forces for new weapons not yet supplied.

Closely allied to analogy is the application of ordered and classified knowledge as to the nature of warfare. Aware of the effects which can be brought about by the weapons at his disposal, the commander identifies his objective with one or more of these effects.

The application of ordered and classified knowledge of naval warfare starts, naturally, with a consideration of its objectives, and proceeds thereafter to the study of the various classes of operations which may be utilized to this end. Naval effort has as its objective the keeping open of sea communications (see page 62). Command of the sea exists for one belligerent when he possesses and can exercise the ability to move surface traffic, while also being able to prevent the enemy from doing so.

Naval warfare, therefore, logically includes operations for the purpose of gaining, maintaining, or disputing command of sea areas, especially under conditions where freedom of movement and the keeping open of sea communications are of vital importance.

Such operations may be classified under the headings:

On the basis of this classification, specific operations, broadly considered, appear to be limited in number. As to classification (1), applicable operations are: to destroy the enemy naval forces, to contain them, or to divert them. For (2), applicable operations are: to raid, to make war against enemy trade, to attack or defend naval lines of communication, and to conduct amphibious warfare requiring overseas movement. For (3), applicable operations are: to blockade trade, to defend own coastal and critical areas, to safeguard expeditions against enemy territory, and to carry out offensive operations against enemy coastal objectives.

Manifestly, each such operation, broadly viewed, may be considered, in an estimate of the situation, as a course of action. Each such course of action (or operation) will involve, if developed into a more or less complete plan of action, numerous detailed operations which constitute parts of the whole. (See page 37.)

There can be no rigid line of demarcation, always applicable, between courses of action and the more detailed operations pertaining thereto. For example, "to raid" may be, in one instance, an operation of such a character, from the viewpoint of the commander, as to be envisaged, correlatively with "to destroy", as one of his courses of action. Yet, in another problem, a raid may be visualized, properly, as a detailed operation pertaining, in a subordinate capacity, to a more comprehensive operation envisaged as a course of action "to destroy".

Similarly, what is a broad course of action from the viewpoint of one echelon in the chain of command, may be correctly viewed, on a higher echelon, as a detailed operation. Operations assigned in tasks imposed by higher authority become the basis for the determination of courses of action on the next lower echelon, a procedure which continues throughout the chain of command until specialized, on the lowest echelons, in the form of a simplified routine (see page 84).

While the list of courses of action given above is made up from the viewpoint of broad strategical problems, a similar list can be assembled for other problems. For example, the order, "Destroy enemy naval forces", if taken as the motivating task of a tactical estimate, will be the basis for certain courses of action, constituting, when complete (see below), a well-recognized general plan for a naval battle. This plan will in turn call for various detailed operations on the part of the several subdivisions of the force under the commander who makes the estimate (see page 95).

As a tentative solution of the problem a course of action may be complete or partial, i.e., it may, if carried out, provide for the complete attainment of the objective; or, such complete attainment may require a combination of several of the courses of action under study.

The exclusive consideration of courses of action of the complete type possesses the advantage of minimizing the total number of solutions under study. This simplifies the procedure of analysis and of comparing courses of action with each other, because of the relatively small number of courses to be tested and to be compared.

However, it is frequently difficult, and sometimes impossible, to visualize complete courses of action, especially during the early stages of the estimate. Sometimes the initial visualization of partial courses and their eventual combination into a complete solution will be found necessary.

Therefore, either or both of the foregoing systems of formulating courses of action may be found appropriate, according to individual preference and the nature of the particular problem.

Individuals, comparable with respect to knowledge, appear to vary greatly in their ability to produce the appropriate suggestion, as to courses of action, at the right time. The reason for this phenomenon is not altogether clear, but it is known that thinking seems to be limited not merely by the range of knowledge, but by whatever part of it becomes available when needed. This point invites attention to another procedure which is open to the commander with respect to stimulating reflective thinking. This procedure recognizes the fact that, when two or more minds attack a problem, together, the combined effort often increases the applied mental power. This fact is universally recognized, for example, in the utilization of staff assistance (page 13).

Inherent and acquired ability have unquestionably much to do with the possibilities of visualizing single courses of action with respect to their completeness as to attainment of the objective. One method of visualization seems to be the mental picturization of more or less detailed operations, followed by their combination, through rapid synthesis, into complete courses of action.

An example of this method would occur where several rather specific operations were visualized, involving seizure of certain localities as a defensive measure. If it were then observed that the objective in each such case was "denial to the enemy of a particular naval-base site in the area ABCD", an appropriate expression of a comprehensive course of action would be "to deny the enemy naval-base sites in the area ABCD".

Another method of visualizing appropriate courses of action seems to involve initial recognition, in the first instance, of such courses as broad and comprehensive general plans, without first visualizing and combining their details. This method appears to be more usual after considerable experience or training. It is therefore possible that this second method is merely a practiced development of the first, the process of synthesis being so rapidly accomplished that it becomes subconscious.

The nature of the particular problem has also an unquestioned bearing on this subject. In instances where no single course of action can be found which is adequately expressive of complete attainment of the objective, the final selection of a method of attaining the objective will necessarily be through a combination of the courses of action under study (page 93).

For example, if the assigned task were to "protect trade in sea area ABCD", the extent of the area, together with its geographical position relative to locations from which enemy attacks could be launched, might not be such as to permit the attainment of the objective by a single course of action such as "to escort trade in convoys" or "to patrol the trade routes". Both of these courses of action might be necessary, and, in addition, perhaps, the further course "to cover focal points M and N".

Each of these courses of action has, as its objective, the establishment of a protected area or areas, stationary or moving, for the safe passage of merchant vessels. However, for purposes of expressing the course of action involved, the contemplated procedure is in this case better indicated by a combination expressed in terms of action, the objective being inferred as a matter of mutual understanding. The less particularized expression of the course of action in terms of the objective would, in this instance, convey a less definite idea of the procedure under consideration.

Similar considerations pertain frequently to naval problems, more especially to those involving naval engagements of considerable scope. The solution of such a problem takes, typically, the form of an operation consisting, not of a single "act", but of "a series of acts", i.e., of a number of stages or phases of battle, each being a preparation for the one following, until the final stage provides for the attainment of the assigned objective.

For example, a first consideration might be "to reduce enemy carrier aircraft strength by" certain pertinent operations. A second consideration might be "to reduce enemy battle-line speed by" certain operations in order to force the enemy to accept battle. A third might be "to reduce enemy battle-line speed, life, and hitting power by gunfire" within certain range bands, in order to exploit own strength and enemy weakness at those ranges. A fourth might be "to continue reduction of enemy battle-line strength by gunfire, closing to" such a range as is suitable to that end. Finally, a fifth consideration might be "to inflict conclusive damage on enemy battle-line with torpedoes". All of the foregoing partial courses (other possibilities having been studied and discarded) might then be combined into one operation as the selected course of action "in order to destroy the enemy battleship strength",—such destruction being the assigned objective.

The degree of detail in which a course of action may be visualized for purposes of the estimate will vary with the same factors, i.e., personal facility and the nature of the problem. Practice in the solution of problems appears to develop such facility that entire plans can be visualized as courses of action, each plan reasonably complete as to details with reference to physical objectives, relative positions, apportionment of fighting strength, and provision for freedom of action. However, it is rarely, if ever, necessary to visualize courses of action minutely in an estimate of a basic problem; the extent to which they are viewed mentally, as detailed plans, need only be such as to fulfill the requirements of the particular problem (see Section I of Chapter IV).

The statement of a course of action, for purposes of the estimate, will naturally be along broad and comprehensive lines, although some important matters of detail (relatively speaking) may be added if this is found desirable as the estimate proceeds. It is with these considerations in mind that the standard practice has been developed of formulating courses of action, while under study as tentative solutions of the problem, in broad terms, appropriate to general plans of action.

The commander may find, on occasion, what appears, on first examination, to be an exception to the rule, herein treated as valid, that a course of action, correctly conceived, always contains the two elements (1) objective, specific or inferred, and (2) action for its attainment. However, apparent exceptions to this principle are due to special conditions which, on proper analysis, reveal no actual exceptions. Certain examples, now to be discussed, demonstrate this fact.

For instance, when the higher commander deems such procedure advisable (page 86), he may make his subordinate's estimate of the situation, as well as his own, and may accordingly indicate both a task and a predetermined course of action for the subordinate to pursue: for example:

In such a case the higher commander has indicated the predetermined course of action in the words "by capturing X Island". This expression indicates a specific objective, the capture of X Island. The expression also indicates, though not in any detail, the action to be taken, i.e., it specifies "capture", rather than "occupation", "isolation", or some other form of control (page 8). Any further development of the action is left for the subordinate to determine. The procedure to be followed by the subordinate commander in solving such a problem is described hereafter (page 102) in the discussion of the analysis of courses of action. In any event, it is manifest that there is here no exception to the rule that a course of action, correctly conceived, contains the two elements of objective and action for its attainment.

A further example may occur when the higher commander, instead of indicating both the task and the predetermined course of action, indicates only the latter (page 86), by directing "Capture X Island". Once the subordinate has recognized this directive as containing a predetermined course of action, but not a normal task, he realizes that the objective so indicated would ordinarily be left for him to select. He also realizes that the action to be taken for its attainment is left for him to determine, in further detail.

In this case, then, what is really a predetermined course of action appears in the guise of a task. When the commander, receiving the directive, has recognized this fact, he proceeds in the manner hereafter indicated (page 103) in the discussion of the analysis of courses of action.

In any event, it is manifest that here, also, there is no exception to the rule that a course of action, correctly conceived, contains the two elements of objective and action for its attainment.

In such a case as the foregoing, how does the commander recognize that the apparent task is really a predetermined course of action? He could easily go astray because the directive, until analyzed, appears to contain a normal task. The directive indicates an objective, thereby resembling a task. The directive will usually indicate, at least in some degree, the action which the subordinate is to take. Hence, so far as superficial appearance is concerned, the subordinate commander may easily mistake the predetermined course of action for a normal task. However, he discovers the difference when he endeavors to find courses of action which are appropriate to this apparent task.

The commander will then discover that, while he can visualize actions whose accomplishment will attain the objective indicated in the apparent task, he cannot visualize any objective completely suitable to the case (page 93), intermediate between the assigned objective and the indicated action. He can state the assigned objective in other words and adopt such a statement as an expression of his general objective, but the two objectives, the one he selects and the assigned one, will really be identical.

This inability to visualize an objective of the commander's own selection, suitable to the case, is inevitable, because higher authority has already done this for him. He may find it advisable to develop further the action needed for the attainment of the indicated objective. On occasion this, also, will have been predetermined by the higher commander.

The foregoing considerations have been given special emphasis and deserve careful study, because an appreciation of these facts is necessary to a true understanding of the nature of correctly conceived courses of action.

Analysis and Selection of Courses of Action. After one or more courses of action have been determined as tentative solutions of his problem, the commander will be confronted with the necessity of deciding upon that course of action, or combination of courses of action, which will best attain the assigned objective, i.e., be the best way out of the seeming difficulty. The analysis, in each case, will settle suitability on the basis of the appropriate effect desired, feasibility on the basis of relative fighting strength as established by a survey of means available and opposed, influenced by the characteristics of the theater, and acceptability on the basis of consequences as to costs.

In connection with these considerations, the detailed operations involved in each course will be analyzed so far as may be necessary (page 95) and with respect to correct physical objectives, advantageous relative positions, proper apportionment of fighting strength, and adequate freedom of action (see the Fundamental Military Principle—page 41). A selection shown to be best, from the standpoint of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability of the consequences, will be adopted as the decision.

The tests of courses of action to determine whether they fulfill the requirements of suitability, of feasibility, and of acceptability as to consequences take account of the usual included determinants as listed and explained below. The list is not rigid, and the commander, according to the nature of his problem, may desire to omit certain of the items or to include any other considerations which may be applicable.

With respect to suitability, the commander considers the following:

As to feasibility, the commander considers the following:

With regard to acceptability of consequences as to costs, the commander considers the following: