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.
The commander may apply the tests to each course of action as it occurs to his mind. This procedure, however, may be rendered impossible by the fertility of suggestion; perhaps the commander has thought of several courses of action practically simultaneously. It is, therefore, often better to apply the tests to all of the courses of action, in turn, during a separate stage of the process of thinking. This is the procedure indicated herein, as standard, by the sequence of steps in this section of the Estimate. The process of testing, itself, may bring to mind those combinations of courses of action previously referred to (page 93).
The degree of formality characteristic of the tests varies with the nature of the problem. In a broad strategical estimate, these tests may be searching and extensive; they may then consume much time. Yet, if the commander, in making a quick decision of great urgency in actual battle, does not apply the tests, he may adopt a course of action leading to tragic results. In such circumstances, the competent commander, under pressure of danger, grasps the whole complex situation without loss of time. He is not carried away by any chance impressions. He does not overlook what is significant in the unexpected event. Because he is mentally prepared for the exercise of command (page 114) he sees things in their true proportions (page 4). In immediate response, he coolly chooses the same course of action which he would adopt if he had time for careful deliberation.
In making the tests, the commander rejects courses of action found unsuitable in that they will not, if successfully prosecuted, contribute to the attainment of the objective. He does not, as yet, reject courses of action found to be promising of only partial accomplishment of the task, because there may be later possibilities of effecting combinations to this end.
The commander also rejects, at this point, courses of action found to be infeasible of accomplishment. He is careful, however, not to reject, abruptly, any which may later be found to be feasible in combination with other courses.
Similarly, the commander now rejects courses of action found to involve excessive consequences as to costs. Here, again, however, he bears in mind the possibilities of later combinations.
The commander does not, as yet, make a selection of one course of action in preference to another. He merely desires to restrict further thought, toward his Decision, to those which are found, on the basis of the estimate so far, to be suitable, feasible, and acceptable. He may, however, make a selection to the extent of effecting proper combinations whose applicability has already been demonstrated.
The commander also takes stock, at this stage of the estimate, of the relative degree of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability of retained courses, so far as can be substantiated.
The foregoing process indicates to the commander the courses of action which may properly be retained as suitable, as feasible, and as acceptable. He therefore draws up a list of retained courses and classifies them according to the degree of their suitability, of their feasibility, and of their acceptability with respect to consequences.
This list does not necessarily represent the final combinations of courses of action; the incomplete solutions may yet become part of the course of action finally selected. Also it is not impossible that combinations already made will subsequently be recombined as a result of further analysis.
It may be apparent to the commander at this time that he does not have, as yet, any course of action which fulfills the test of suitability as to scope, either originally or by combination. A later conclusion is made (Section V) as to final combinations to achieve full scope. This conclusion, however, may point the way, as later observed, to a Decision adopting an objective short of that which would, if achieved, lead to the accomplishment of the motivating task.
While the commander realizes that the Fundamental Military Principle (page 41) governs the enemy's problem no less than his own, he has to accept more of hypothesis and conjecture (the so-called "fog of war") in applying the principle to the enemy's situation. The method of reflective thinking utilized (Section II) for the commander's own problem calls for certain further safeguards in application to the enemy capabilities, since they are of course usually not so well known to the commander as are his own.
Capabilities, in the meaning applicable herein, indicate actions which the force concerned, unless forestalled or prevented from taking such actions, has the capacity to carry out. Such potentialities of the enemy are of course among the vital factors to be considered in estimating the situation. In his estimate, however, the commander's interest is not confined to what the enemy will probably do; probabilities are subject to change, and do not, therefore, cover the whole field of capabilities. The commander is not exclusively interested in what the enemy may intend to do, or even in what the enemy may be known, at the time, to intend to do; such intentions are also subject to change. The commander is interested in everything that the enemy can do which may materially influence the commander's own courses of action.
In reaching a conclusion as to enemy capabilities, the commander makes an estimate from the enemy's viewpoint and considers that the enemy commander, faced with the counterpart of his own situation, is endeavoring to attain objectives in furtherance of his own mission. Each commander is endeavoring to create for himself a favorable military situation, and to prevent his opponent from succeeding in the same intent. The physical objectives for each may be the other's armed forces; certain positions, sea areas, harbors, or territory may also be likely physical objectives.
In such a parallel building up of plans, it is possible that the opposing forces may not come, at least for a time, into actual conflict. More especially in the initial stages, the respective plans may lead to operations in different parts of the theater. Again, the geographical direction of search may cause the forces to miss contact. Moreover, unless one commander definitely makes provision to seek out and engage, the two forces, each on the defensive, may find themselves "shaking fists" at each other across an ocean area.
Notwithstanding this possibility, however, a conclusion, on an insufficient basis, that the enemy will or will not seek him out and engage him, or that the enemy will or will not do anything else, may be fraught with the most serious consequences for the commander. Accordingly, in estimating the enemy's situation, he puts himself in the enemy's position, while subordinating his own hopes and desires. He credits the enemy with the possession of good judgment and of the resolution and ability to apply with skill the fundamentals of effective warfare, subject, naturally, to the justified conclusions which the commander has drawn (Section I-B) on the basis of the available factual data as to relative fighting strength.
This portion of the commander's estimate pertains, of course, to the existing situation as viewed by the enemy. This fact, alone, may inject into the problem certain factors which differ from those applicable with respect to the commander's view of his own problem, as determined to this point.
Frequently it may happen that the enemy does not have certain significant information. The fact of such lack of information may have been established by the conclusions drawn as to relative fighting strength (Section I-B). If this be the case, notation of the fact is made at this point in the commander's estimate of the enemy's situation. If doubt exists as to the extent and accuracy of the enemy's information, it will be desirable to credit the enemy with any knowledge which it would be dangerous for the commander to conclude was not available to his opponent.
In summarizing the enemy's situation, the commander may brief the procedure by indicating those significant features of his own situation, as summarized in Section I-A and as particularized in Section I-B, which he does not consider are known to the enemy. The commander will also indicate here any items of important information as to which he has only a suggestion or an inkling, but which he considers may be known in greater detail to the enemy.
It may appear on first thought that the best basis for determining the pertinent enemy courses of action is to make a deduction of the enemy's mission. Sometimes, undoubtedly, this is the case. However, it is not always possible to deduce the enemy's mission correctly. If the deduction is incorrect the remainder of the estimate will be on an unsound basis. If, as may happen, the enemy's plan has been captured, or if, by some other method, conclusive information has been obtained, it may be possible to state the enemy's mission. Even then, however, the enemy's mission may sometimes be changed. It is thus evident that the commander, by restricting his thought, may frequently fail to consider all of the enemy capabilities which may materially influence his own course of action.
With this precaution in mind, the commander, at this point in his Estimate, proceeds to analyze the effect desired by the enemy. The commander intends to use his deductions, if such use appears to be sound, to narrow the field of consideration as to enemy courses of action. However, he reminds himself that such restriction will be dangerous unless it is established on sound grounds.
The first mental act toward determining the effect desired by the enemy is to form a reasoned opinion as to the situation which the enemy wishes to maintain or to create. The maintenance or creation of this situation, existent or to be brought about, is an enemy objective.
From earlier association with the enemy, from intelligence of his peacetime preparations, and from a knowledge of his political and military history, his broad current policies are generally matters of common report. The motives impelling the enemy to action may thus be evident. Past or present tendencies of the enemy, along certain specific lines of endeavor, may be known. These may be corroborated by the enemy action which has recently occurred.
In military undertakings of major scope the objectives of the enemy are often difficult of concealment. A survey of the objectives which the enemy has been pursuing may allow a reasoned opinion to be formed as to the enemy's immediate objectives,—whether, at least, his future action will be offensive or defensive. The importance to be attached by the enemy to certain physical objectives may be indicated by the broad aims known to exist. Present composition and disposition of the enemy's forces may betray the effort which he intends. Circumstances, clearly disadvantageous to the commander's forces, may disclose what his enemy's aim may be for maintaining or creating a favorable (enemy) military situation.
However scant or incomplete the data from such sources or from others, the commander seeks to gain, by piecing together, a composite basis of workable value in arriving at a sound conclusion as to the enemy's future action.
The enemy objective thus visualized may serve as the purpose of the enemy's mission. The situation thus envisaged may be specific or broad in nature, depending on the soundness of the deductions. This, in turn, will depend on the extent and character of the information available.
It may now be possible to deduce a definite task, which when accomplished, will attain the indicated purpose. However, as previously stated, it is not desirable to be unduly specific. The commander reflects on the several possibilities which if carried out will attain the purpose. By being inclusive instead of restrictive in this matter, he avoids the danger of overlooking enemy capabilities. Moreover, the information available will not always justify the derivation of a specific task.
By this process of reasoning, the commander may arrive at a studied opinion as to the enemy's appropriate effect desired. The commander's safeguard is that he has not been too restrictive or specific. He expects to encompass within his conclusion the limits of the enemy's objectives and actions, so that his own planned action will not fail to cover all enemy action which can materially influence the situation.
Situations may be encountered when, in the equation referred to in Section II-B (page 135), no value can be assigned the factor of the appropriate effect desired which will constitute a sufficient basis for deducing enemy courses of action. Such situations are not unusual, especially in problems of lesser scope. In such cases, the commander is compelled to consider all possible enemy courses of action which can materially influence his own plan. Therefore, in instances of this nature, it is apparent that the procedure of giving first consideration to the commander's own courses of action affords the advantage of (see page 134) narrowing the field as to the enemy capabilities.
If, then (to repeat, because of the importance of the matter), the commander believes that he has, in the deduced enemy effect desired, a sufficient basis for evolving all pertinent enemy capabilities, he now proceeds, by the mental process described in Section II, to list the enemy courses of action which he thinks merit attention. If there be no adequate basis, the commander will find it desirable to list all enemy courses of action which can materially affect his own effort.
The survey of fighting strength (Section I-B) has established, through consideration of the "means available and opposed", and of the "characteristics of the theater", the limitations of enemy capabilities from the standpoint of feasibility. Because, however, so much of the enemy's situation is usually conjectural, it is important to give the most searching attention to the comparison summary in Section I-B,—in fact, to consider fully every element of weakness and strength, and of advantage and disadvantage. Such a study will disclose every possibility which the enemy might exploit. The commander may thus determine, for example, the enemy strength which can be moved into positions within time limits that can affect the commander's courses of action; he can also examine into possibilities of obtaining information concerning the enemy's moves.
Such a study enables the commander to envisage the enemy operations which presumably can materially affect his own plans. He may now list the presumed capabilities of the enemy, in the form of courses of action, for purposes of further analysis. Naturally, he lists courses which appear to be suitable, feasible, and acceptable as to consequences, but formal tests are deferred until the next phase of the estimate.
Having listed pertinent enemy courses of action as described above, the commander next tests them for suitability, for feasibility, and for acceptability as to their consequences.
The procedure is the same as for his own courses of action (Section II). However, since the enemy's appropriate effect desired, if deducible at all, is often only an approximation, the test for suitability is usually less rigid or absolute than for the commander's own courses of action. By the same token, since the enemy's fighting strength will usually include elements of conjecture and hypothesis, the test for feasibility may be less reliable than when applied to the commander's own courses. In fact, if there are any reasonable doubts as to feasibility of an enemy course of action, it is properly retained for further consideration. The same considerations and the same safeguard apply with respect to acceptability of the consequences.
All enemy courses of action which, after test, are retained for further study are now listed by the commander.
While it is manifestly of advantage to the commander if the number of enemy courses can reasonably be reduced to only a few or even to one, it is important that no material enemy capability be neglected because of undue restriction of the field.
The previous analysis will have indicated, at least, in some cases, the degree of suitability and feasibility, and will have enabled the commander to form a considered opinion as to any preference, from the enemy viewpoint, on the basis of consequences as to costs.
In many instances, therefore, it will be possible to arrange retained enemy courses in order of priority, i.e., the more likely being listed before the less likely. In case of doubt, the higher priority is awarded by the commander to enemy courses which are more dangerous from his (the commander's) point of view.
In other instances, no priority can properly be indicated.
As a result of this study, the commander may now be able to combine certain enemy courses. In any case, he closes this portion of the estimate with a list of them, classified so far as he finds justifiable, and thus made available for further effective use in the estimate.
The extent to which detail is desirable in Section IV of the Estimate will vary with the nature of the problem (page 95). Experience usually demonstrates, however, that an estimate in only the necessary detail escapes the danger inherent in undue detail which would tend to befog the main issues. As the commander proceeds with his estimate, he will recognize the need for additional examination into details, and will conduct such examination accordingly.
The next step in the estimate is the natural one of comparing the commander's retained courses of action with those of the enemy which have been retained for further study. This process consists of executing, in imagination, the plan contained in each of the commander's courses of action, against that in each of the enemy's. One method is for the Commander to take the initiative with each of his plans and mentally to push it through with vigor. By this procedure, he concentrates his thought on the effect to be produced, on the changed situation which that effect will bring about for the enemy, on the modification in the enemy's effort which will be caused, on the resulting obstacles which these modifications will create, and on the provisions which will have to be made to overcome the obstacles.
It will at once be apparent that the commander may have to re-estimate the enemy situation during this analysis. Such necessity arises because of the changes made by his own course of action upon the enemy situation. The commander will desire to reach a studied conclusion as to what counter action the enemy may take when the nature of the planned action against him becomes evident. This re-estimate of the situation may be brief, as it is an adjustment of factors which are familiar through previous examination. Sometimes the re-estimate will have been made mentally, before reaching this point, and adjustments may already have been made in the written estimate, in anticipation of this contingency. Sometimes the commander may find it desirable, after reaching this point, to re-write, at least in part, his original enemy estimate (Section III). The particular procedure adopted is unimportant; the important feature is to recognize that such a re-estimate process is normal, and especially so with reference to this portion of the Estimate.
The foregoing discussion illustrates the point that an examination into enemy capabilities is not complete if the commander puts himself in the enemy's place merely for the purpose of estimating the original situation from the enemy viewpoint. In addition, the commander examines each of the enemy's modified problems which the changed situation, created by the execution of the commander's plan, has superimposed upon the enemy's original problem. Thus only can the commander analyze the various ways whereby the enemy may oppose his own proposed courses of action. Thus only may sound conclusion later be reached, in the next subsection of the estimate, as to what course of action, or combination of courses, is the best.
The comparison of plan against plan thus far has been restricted to the method whereby the commander takes the initiative with each of his own retained courses of action. Another method is to imagine the enemy as taking the initiative, carrying through each of his courses against each of the commander's courses. This method is applicable, for instance, to cases where the enemy is able to initiate action which, by its nature, would frustrate the execution of any of the commander's courses. The choice of methods is a matter of judgment on the part of the commander.
It is rarely that courses of action can be compared without resolving each, to some extent, into the detailed operations which it comprises. However, this analysis is confined, as previously explained (see page 145), to the details whose consideration is necessary for purposes of a sound comparison. In some cases there may be need for study in the greatest detail. Generally, however, the requirement can be met by considering for each operation the kind of action, the types of weapons, and the physical objectives.
During the progress of these analyses of the impact of operations upon each other, there may occur to mind further operations which an alert and awakened enemy may undertake in opposition; the counter to these operations may also suggest itself.
The use of the chart, with positions and forces plotted, is here frequently essential; in tactical problems diagrams and tables showing possibilities of position, distance, speed, maneuver, gun ranges, relative strength in types and weapons are useful.
Through the procedure described above, the commander is afforded further opportunity to test his courses of action, as to suitability, feasibility, and acceptability. He can, once more, view each of his courses from the standpoint of its suitability. The visualized enemy action may introduce considerations, not previously realized, as to whether certain of his own courses are suitable to the appropriate effect desired, when results are envisaged on the basis of the possible opposition. As to feasibility, the analysis permits him to make a further estimate of the enemy capabilities with respect to obstructing or preventing the desired outcome of his (the commander's) courses of action. In addition, by visualizing the pertinent operations involved, he enables himself to evaluate the costs to be expected.
Should the commander conclude, at this stage, that further consideration of any of his courses, so far retained, is not justified, he will naturally reject such courses so as to confine further analysis within narrower limits.
Should he find, during his analysis, that further combinations should be made among his retained courses, he makes such combinations and uses them in his comparison.
However, he defers, until the next subsection, his choice of the course to be finally selected, or his conclusion that none can justifiably be adopted. The process of comparison is confined to deduction, rearrangement, and justified rejection, preliminary to weighing and selecting in the next subsection.
The commander is now ready to ponder over his retained courses of action as further analyzed in the light of enemy opposition. All of these courses, if carried out, are presumably competent, in varying extent, to attain the appropriate effect desired. He will now examine and consider them with the specific intent of coming to a conclusion as to which one, or which combination, he will select as the best. The analysis of each course of action in comparison with each enemy course has made possible a comparison, to this end, of the commander's retained courses with each other.
At this point, therefore, the commander again assembles his retained courses of action.
He includes the combinations which the preceding analysis has indicated belong properly together. He then considers the final tabulation in the light of the considerations now to be noted.
The conclusive tests are now made for suitability, for feasibility, and for acceptability as to consequences. Because of the importance of this terminal analysis, it is desirable that the tests be as precise as possible.
The commander now has, in addition to his list of the retained courses of action, a summarized comparison of each with the others, under the several pertinent headings. He next examines this all-inclusive summary, with the intent of selecting the best course of action.
It may be found that one, or another, or a combination, is best. Again, there is the possibility of considering, as best, a course of action which, if carried out, will only complete an initial stage toward the accomplishment of the motivating task.
If the result of the analysis has demonstrated that there is no satisfactory course of action, this fact is here stated, with a notation as to the reasons for such opinion. In this case the commander faces a dilemma.
Usually a task imposed on the commander by higher authority will be a carefully considered assignment of part of the superior's planned effort. The commander may expect normally to find that his own estimate of the situation will yield courses of action which, if successfully carried out, will accomplish the task assigned. The reasoned plan of the superior is a safeguard in this respect.
Nevertheless, realism requires that the commander be fully prepared to meet the possible dilemma:—When he cannot envisage a course of action for accomplishing the assigned task, or when, of the several courses of action under consideration, he finds none satisfactory, what is he to do? (See page 70).
Under these circumstances the commander reviews his estimate in all its aspects. By minute re-examination he endeavors to find ways of accomplishing his assigned task. If he cannot accomplish the task, he seeks for ways whereby he can further such accomplishment so far as is reasonably feasible. If unable, in any degree, to further the accomplishment of his task, he endeavors to contribute, so far as he feasibly and acceptably can, to the accomplishment of the purpose of his mission.
It is to be expected, of course, that, if unable to accomplish his assigned task, the commander will make constructive representations (page 103) to higher authority. The latter may then assign additional forces or may otherwise alter the problem,—for example, by assigning a new task. However, a situation such as described may occur when the commander is alone in a distant theater or when for other reasons he finds himself unable to communicate, in time, with higher authority.
In such a situation the commander is under the necessity of determining, for himself, a task which is suitable, feasible, and acceptable under the circumstances (page 52).
It is evident that, at some point in the foregoing procedure, the commander has been forced to abandon the solution of his basic problem, because he has found that there is no sound solution. He has not completely abandoned the solution of his original problem, because he has not yet exhausted all of its possibilities. However, the solution of the original problem has unquestionably entered a new phase, or step.
The new step presents the commander with a new problem, a phase in the solution of the original problem; the new problem is related to the abandoned basic problem, because it arises out of the same situation, which has not changed. The new problem is, however, differentiated from the basic problem because it is based on a different incentive. The incentive for the solution of the new problem arises directly out of a decision made by the commander himself, i.e., his decision that no sound solution for the basic problem can be found. The new problem is one for the commander himself to solve, i.e., it cannot properly be delegated to a subordinate for solution, because its solution is necessary as a basis for the commander's detailed plan. For these reasons the new problem is, by definition (page 106), a subsidiary problem, of the type distinctive of the second step.
At what point in the solution of the original problem does the commander abandon the basic problem and proceed with the solution of the new, subsidiary problem which has arisen as described? There are various possible answers, all with a basis of reason, to this question.
From the standpoint of theoretical precision, it might be said that the basic problem is abandoned when the conclusion is reached that its motivating task cannot be accomplished. It might also be said that the basic problem is abandoned when the conclusion is reached that the commander can in no way contribute toward the accomplishment of the motivating task.
Practical experience indicates, however, that the basic estimate can profitably be utilized until the conclusion is reached that no contribution can be made to the purpose of the mission. At this point a new estimate, subsidiary to the basic estimate, necessarily begins. This view is confirmed, theoretically, by the fact that, at this point in the procedure, a radical change occurs with respect to the appropriate effect desired. In such circumstances, the commander concludes that he cannot contribute, in any degree, to the accomplishment of his immediate superior's general plan.
The incentive for the solution of the subsidiary problem will therefore arise, on the basis thus adopted, when the commander has concluded that he cannot contribute to the accomplishment of his basic mission, and that he is under the necessity of evolving a new mission for himself. His basic Decision (see discussion, hereafter, of Section V of the Estimate Form) will reflect this conclusion and will thereby afford him a basis for the solution of his subsidiary problem.
Problems of the foregoing nature, where the commander justifiably departs from his instructions, are not unusual during the first step. However, they are scarcely typical of that step so long as an organized chain of command is in effective operation. In the more usual case, the commander, at this point in his estimate, makes note of his selected course of action. Whether he selects a single course or a combination, the selection is thereafter known as the best course of action (singular).
In the final section of the Estimate the commander is concerned with a decision as to the selection of an objective or objectives determined by himself, for the attainment of the appropriate effect desired. This decision also indicates, in proper detail, the action to be taken for the attainment of the commander's selected objective. The decision reached at this point becomes the commander's general plan of action or provides the basis therefor. It is accordingly so important that when it has been formally stated in a basic problem it is thenceforth known as the Decision.
The Statement of the Decision. Frequently the statement of the Decision may be merely a restatement of the best course of action. Such phraseology is often adequate, provided, naturally, that the selected course of action has been, itself, correctly expressed (page 95). Sometimes, however, the commander may desire, at this point in his estimate, to develop such expression more fully. He may at this point develop his selected course into a general plan, or he may defer this development to the second step.
In any event the commander now scrutinizes his selected course of action to ensure that its expression conveys exactly the meaning which he has in mind.
He bears in mind, also, that his Decision will settle the pattern of his future action. If the selected objective is inferred, rather than specifically stated, the commander will then ensure that the inference, with all its vital implications, is plain.
As to the statement of the action required to achieve this objective, the commander realizes that the pattern laid down by the Decision is merely a shape or general outline. The details will be introduced later. The Decision covers the general outline of the action contemplated for the entire force.
If, for example, only a part of the commander's force is to act, while the remainder is to remain inactive, the Decision will cover not only the kind of activity but also the extent of the inactivity. However, for convenience in stating the Decision, such inactivity may be inferred, rather than expressly stated, so long as the meaning is made clear. Thus, if the force, except for a raiding task group, is to remain inactive for the time being, the Decision may properly be "to raid enemy communications in the area —— with a task group consisting of ——", so long as the commander is satisfied that the implication is clear, under the circumstances, that the remainder of his force is to remain inactive.
The commander may properly include brief summarizing remarks as to the methods, broadly viewed, whereby he intends to take action. However, he introduces such detail only to the extent that he feels amplification is needed, either for his own benefit or for the assistance of others who may use his estimate.
Deductions or inferences which the commander wishes to note may, at this point, be included with the Decision as corollaries (see next page).
Where combinations of courses of action have been made in selecting the best course, the meaning can sometimes be improved at this point by modification of the previous wording.
When, as previously discussed (page 151), the commander has concluded that he cannot feasibly or acceptably adopt any course of action which will accomplish his task, contribute in any measure to its accomplishment, or even contribute in any degree to the accomplishment of the purpose of his mission, he records that fact in his Decision. His study of the problem will by this time, however, have given him the necessary data for a conclusion as to what his new mission should be. He therefore closes his basic estimate with a Decision, coupled with a purpose therefor, (see below), which will serve as a new mission, i.e., as an appropriate effect desired. This provides a basis for his solution of a subsidiary problem whose incentive is derived from this Decision.
Of course, if the commander has had time and opportunity to represent his situation on this basis to higher authority, and has received a new task therefrom, the new task, coupled with the purpose also indicated by higher authority, will provide the mission for the solution of a new basic problem.
The Purpose of the Decision. The purpose of the Decision is identical with the motivating task,—provided, of course, that the Decision, if carried out, will accomplish that task in full. When stated, the purpose is usually connected with the Decision by the words "in order to".
If the commander has concluded that he will take action by stages, the Decision may cover only the first stage. In all cases where the Decision will only partially accomplish the motivating task, appropriate words to link the Decision to its purpose may be such as "to assist in" or "preparatory to".
The statement of this purpose, in connection with the Decision, is frequently helpful and is sometimes necessary in making clear the exact relationship between the Decision and the motivating task. In the next planning step, where the detailed operations are determined, this purpose is an important guide because each detailed operation is expected to contribute to the accomplishment, not only of the Decision, but also of the motivating task.
Corollaries to the Decision. The Decision may involve certain deductions or inferences, either delimiting or amplifying its nature. The commander may find it desirable to make note of these matters in connection with his Decision. He may later wish to use these notes when formulating his plan. Since these matters relate to deductions or inferences which naturally follow as results of the Decision they are properly referred to as "corollaries" to the Decision.
The nature of such corollaries may best be shown by an example. It is supposed, for instance, that the commander has made the Decision "to guard the Eastern Caribbean barrier against enemy penetration". During the course of his estimate of the situation, he has come to the conclusion that his operations to carry out this Decision will extend into the area limited by Port X on the north, and Port Y on the south. This conclusion is a deduction, which immediately assumes importance when the Decision is made. The commander states this deduced conclusion here, in connection with the Decision, for future guidance in resolving the Decision into detailed operations, as well as for later use in his directives to limit the action of his subordinates.
No particular form is specified for such corollaries. It is satisfactory to list them as Corollary I, Corollary II, etc. They do not constitute a part of the Decision.
Relation of the Decision to the Detailed Plan and Directives. The Decision is the basis for the commander's plan of action for his entire force. This plan is promulgated in one or more directives. The Decision, as it appears in the Estimate, is not yet the concern of subordinate commanders. It does not become their concern until it is used in directives. As incorporated in the commander's detailed plan and in his directives, the Decision, whether further developed or not, constitutes the commander's general plan and is referred to in those terms.
The Decision, as it appears in the Estimate, is not bound by any rigid specifications as to form. Later (Chapter VII), when the commander prepares for the inauguration of planned action by the formulation and issue of directives, he assumes the obligation of conveying the substance of his Decision to his subordinates in clear language. At that time he will again have to subject its expression to scrutiny, and may find that he has to make modifications solely for clarification.