Importance of a Fully Developed Commander's Intent*

The most important lesson I have learned thus far in my military career has been the importance of a fully developed commander’s intent. Both the standard definition and the need for a commander’s intent are obvious to most of us. The standard definition includes an articulation of the desired operational end-state as well as quantifications of acceptable loss and criteria for success. A commander’s intent is necessary primarily as a tool to pass the essence of the mission in the absence of other specific orders. The “in order to” section of a mission statement may be expanded in the commander’s intent, as well. Whether on the battlefield or in garrison, a clear and well-understood commander’s intent is often the difference between winning or losing; between good hard training or atrophy of soldiers and units. That said, I believe that a great many commanders stop short in the process of “fully” developing a commander’s intent and thus may unnecessarily lose momentum at some point in the battle.

Allow me to first explain the difference between a text-book commander’s intent and a fully developed commander’s intent. For brevity I will refer to the former as a Standard Commander’s Intent (SCI) and the latter as a Fully Developed Commander’s Intent (FDCI). While both an SCI and an FDCI meet the criteria described above; the FDCI will take an extra step, or two, or ten in the thought process to arrive at definite conclusions about moral and right vs. immoral and wrong. Another key difference is the echelon issuing the guidance. An SCI comes from two echelons up and is incorporated into the unit order. An FDCI should come from as high up as possible. A clear understanding of both the SCI and the FDCI is reflected (or not) in the answers given by the most junior soldier in the unit as to why his unit is executing a particular mission.

It can be said that a junior soldier with a clear understanding of his company commander’s SCI can tell you, for example, that he is conducting his mission to secure key terrain in the vicinity of Objective Blue in order to provide overwatch for friendly forces as they advance toward Objective Green; that he cannot lose his communications equipment; and that success is his continued ability to adjust artillery on any hostile forces threatening in his sector of fires. He understands that. Beyond that he does not have an understanding of the deeper reason for his mission; or at least you should not assume so.

Let’s say, for argument’s sake, that the SCI from our original example (secure key terrain in the vicinity of Objective Blue) wasn’t so skimpy with reasons and also articulated the SCI for the battalion and brigade commanders. Were that the case the junior soldier might also understand that, in the absence of orders, he should continue to fight north up to but not past Phase Line Kentucky - - Excellent! But this is still not an FDCI. An FDCI is much more.
The FDCI must come from the highest possible echelon of command and articulate:

1. The reason for the fight all the way to the root of the conflict.
2. Detailed and quantifiable goals (criteria for success to include losses).
3. The reason that our side is moral and right and the other side is immoral and wrong.

This may sound like a daunting task. You might say that an FDCI would most probably be of such volume that briefing during the orders process would not be practical. You might guess that to verbalize the three items above would only serve to confuse that junior soldier from our earlier example. You would be wrong. It has been done before to great effect. It can be done now. All it takes is the initiative and commitment to formulate and deliver.

An easy example of an FDCI can be extracted from the many wartime speeches of Sir Winston Churchill in his role as Prime Minister of Great Britain: “Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.[i]" In other speeches Prime Minister Churchill also articulated the root reasons for the conflict and why the survival of Britain and victory of the Allies over Nazi Germany were right and moral goals. These statements of intent, resolve, and moral judgments about right and wrong were on the minds of many if not most Allied service members as they secured key terrain overlooking “Objective Blue”. In the absence of specific orders, Churchill’s FDCI served as the impetus to victory in the long-term conflict.

I submit that if the commanders and men do not now have fixed in their minds the root reason(s) for the fight, the detailed goals, and why our forces are moral and right and the enemy is immoral and wrong then they do not have the benefit of a fully developed commander’s intent. If this is the case then it is likely that at some point friendly forces will lose momentum. An FDCI is what commanders owe to their troops in peacetime and in wartime. The essential nature of imparting an FDCI to one’s subordinates, to my mind, is the most important lesson I have learned thus far in my military career.

Major Lee Sullenger
Student, Command and General Staff School
U.S. Army Combined Arms Center
Ft. Belvoir, Virginia

*The views expressed in this essay are those of the author and do not reflect the official policy position of the Department of the Army, Department of Defense, or the U.S. Government.


[i] http://forum.woodenboat.com/showthread.php?p=2580985 quoting an unspecified speech by Sir Winston Churchill.