Will Judgment Be a
Casualty of NCW?
Winner, Armed Forces Joint Warfighting Essay Contest
By Lieutenant Commander Larry LeGree, U.S. Navy Proceedings,
October 2004
DOD (KEVIN R. REED)
Technology is a powerful enabler, but it threatens to compromise
the decision-making prerogatives of the commander closest to the action
with the best view to make decisive judgments.
Network-centric warfare, the conceptual framework under which the prosecution
of future conflict is envisioned, is aptly called a revolution in military
affairs (RMA). Bandwidth and baud rates are the new watchwords for readiness
and combat effectiveness, and it is a foregone conclusion that increased
connectivity makes for better information to the commander.
Thus far, however, the groundswell of technological innovation and
the resultant professional discussion over the use of new battlefield
information management systems have tended to focus on increased technological
capabilities. What is missing from the dialogue is how network-centric
operations (NCO) might affect the development and sustainment of military
judgment.
The quality of a military decision depends to a certain degree on
the availability of information, but it absolutely depends on the decision-making
ability of the commander. Increased connectivity is going to happen—it
is happening. What must accompany its implementation is an understanding
of its potential misuses within the framework of military decision making.
How is the ability to make decisions (the leadership and judgment aspect)
going to be influenced by the increased transparency of the decision
chain under network-centric operations (the technological aspect)?
Command by Negation
Decisions are made in context. In the military, this involves rules
of engagement, chain-of-command dynamics, communication paths, the fog
of war, institutional boundaries, geographic circumstance, force disposition,
and a variety of other factors. The manifestation of the Western decision-making
structure is the concept of “command by negation.”
In civilian management terms, command by negation can be likened to
employee “empowerment.” It is the notion that the on-scene commander
at the lowest level of hierarchical authority is entrusted with tactical
decisions. Subordinate commanders are expected to take all available
action to complete a mission until “reined in” by a senior commander.
Such a system encourages aggressiveness, innovation, and initiative.
To maintain the fine line between subordinate initiative and chaos,
the rule of law and institutionalization of command structure are held
sacrosanct at all levels. This system requires motivated and well-trained
personnel entrusted to carry out independent action—a hallmark of the
U.S. military.
A central tenet of command by negation is that
the best information is held at the unit level. A second is that unit-level
commanders can be trusted to make sound tactical decisions within the
engagement criteria specified by rules of engagement, general guidance,
and threat assessments. Implicit in this second foundational concept
is the assumption that training and advancement procedures in place
are sufficient to “grow” unit-level leaders capable of making sound
tactical decisions within the bounds of their engagement criteria using
the benefit of immersion knowledge. Immersion knowledge cannot be gained
from a network or through a series of briefings. It must come through
presence, experience, and judgment, with judgment being the key.[1]
Command by negation is a decentralized, “loose” control system. In
essence, the top of the chain of command understands that the bottom
possesses the best information about a given tactical situation and
is best situated to respond effectively within their means. General
guidelines, overall objectives, and rules of engagement are promulgated
at the top and paired with force dispositions. This concept, when compounded
through several layers of a chain of command, reinforces flexibility
of response and ensures those with the highest quality information make
the most rational decisions on a tactical level. Further, this concept
is not service specific. Its principles are equally germane from squad
leader to joint task force commander.
Hierarchical Control and Centralization
One way to understand a system in which command by negation is the
norm is to examine tactical application of its counterpoint—for example,
the Russian mismanagement of the conflict in Chechnya. By all measures,
this conflict continues to be an unmitigated military and political
disaster, in no small part because of a command structure whereby Russian
policy was not properly transformed to operational effect.
