Analyze Principles Of Mission Command From Performance Of General George Armstrong Custer
This research paper will focus on General George Armstrong Custer's performance. It should analyze the mission command of this commander focusing on at least 4 of the six mission command principles. These principles are: 1) build cohesive teams through mutual trust, 2) create shared understanding, 3) provide a clear commander's intent, 4) exercise disciplined initiative, 5) use mission orders, and accept prudent risk.
Speak about how the commander's utilization of these principles ultimately affected te battle's outcome and assess if the commander executed good or bad missing command during battle.
Paper Format
Title page
Introduction - Brief summary of events leading to the historic battle, its outcome, and a thesis sentence that ties mission command to that outcome.
Body - analysis of the commanders performance as described above
conclusion - mission command's impact on the battle's outcome and the significance of your analysis.
Bibliography
ANALYZE PRINCIPLES OF MISSION COMMAND FROM PERFORMANCE OF GENERAL GEORGE ARMSTRONG CUSTER
Student Name
Class
Date
Introduction
The presence of sustainability in warfighting functions legitimate the presence and practice of mission commands. From the doctrine of Army, mission commands are conducts that define military operations and decentralizes its execution. Similarly, “Army Doctrine Publication (ADP)” determines mission commands as commander’s instruction to his fellowmen for accomplishing a mission goal. All these definitions of mission command deliver the fact that mission commands are guidelines that outline the course of actions of commanders and their companions for military actions. In association, mission command is composed of six principles. For a detailed review of each principle with reference to historic view, the following study has been shaped. It addresses the performance of General George Armstrong Custer in the battle of Bighorn regarding principles of mission command.[Lundy, Mike, and Rich Creed. "The Return of US Army Field Manual 3-0, Operations." Military Review 97, no. 6 (2017): 14.] [Lovett, Donald D. The Gallant Stand: An Analysis of the Union Army of the Border's Use of Mission Command at the Battle of the Little Blue, 21 October 1864. US Army Command and General Staff College Fort Leavenworth United States, 2016.]
George Armstrong and the Battle of Bighorn
George Armstrong Custer was an American Army officer and cavalry commander who joined the army and got immediate promotions. With an age of only 23 years, Custer was entitled as a cavalry commander. He was a rebellious child who remains in punishment for most of the time for his unethical actions at the army school. His life and death both are full of contradictions due to his personality and actions. However, there is no doubt that he was a great army man of his time. He fought many fights and believed in attacking the rivals from the front rather than hunting them from behind unlike other troop leaders do. On the contrary, Custer died with two gunshots on him in his last battle termed as Battle of Little Bighorn. In this battle, Custer fought against the Native Americans. However, Custer’s operational plan was known to the rivals as a result of which sudden amendments were made on the operational plan. The actual reason for Custer’s death is still unknown. It is because as no clues were found to explain the actual happening of the ground. However, Custer was a great warrior and team leader. This fact is evident by his team’s devotion to all his commands.[Anderson, Douglas Firth. "Finding Custer: A Review." Northwestern Review 2, no. 1 (2017): 11.] [3 Anderson, Douglas Firth. "Finding Custer: A Review." Northwestern Review 2, no. 1 (2017): 11. Johannesen, Danielle. "Depictions of American Indians in George Armstrong Custer’s My Life on the Plains." Humanities8, no. 1 (2019): 56.] [5 Mueller, James E. "Custar" in the News: George Armstrong Custer in the Gettysburg Campaign." In A Press Divided, pp. 141-162. Routledge, 2017.]
Build Teams through Trust
The foremost principle of command mission is to build a team with trust. In detail, the generated team must possess capabilities to effectively perform and be reliable4. Moreover, no distraction should limit the performance of the built team3. In association, the commander’s orders are to be retained by every member of the team with trust in the strategies of commander and no conflicts are given room for inauguration5. Creation of such a sound team requires proactive approaches that were not a difficult task for a leader, like George Armstrong Custer. In support, it has been observed from the past studies that Custer employed the collaborative approach for building cohesiveness among his team4. Moreover, Custer appointed senior officers who were obliged to frequently visit the team and comfort it by creating a sense of belonging with each member of the team3. With consideration of the stated actions, Custer's performance as a soldier and lead commander clearly state that he built a cohesive team with mutual trust that accompanied him in every battle he fought. This is also an essential reason that the entire team was stabbed in the battle of Bighorn that is known as “Custer’s Last Stand”.
Create Shared Understanding
As stated earlier, the generation of a proactive team with trust is an essential principle in mission command, similarly, the sharing of understanding is crucial. In simpler terms, a widespread understanding of what is to be accomplished by being in a warrior team is a significant ingredient that makes up a proactive team. With this, the common purpose is shared among the team that in turn creates a sense of belonging and increases the level of trust and reliability6. In response to this, Custer created levels for sharing a common goal and understanding its tendency. At first, the shared understanding was determined by recovery of material from the battles. The second level of shared understanding stated the execution of the command. In other words, the commands were to be obeyed equally and simultaneously. This fact was shared by the entire team so that no objection is present at the time of battle4. Thirdly, maintenance of sustainability was shared among the team equally. Therefore, self-defense was taught intensely to the team. As Custer wanted to sustain his warrior-ship, so he did not want to lose any amount from his troop3. Eventually, the entire team of Custer shared understanding for being rigid in their association to the battles.[3 Anderson, Douglas Firth. "Finding Custer: A Review." Northwestern Review 2, no. 1 (2017): 11.4 Johannesen, Danielle. "Depictions of American Indians in George Armstrong Custer’s My Life on the Plains." Humanities8, no. 1 (2019): 56.6 Langhof, Jan Gunter, and Stefan Güldenberg. "Leadership and the significance of formalized organizational structures: Crazy Horse vs Custer." Journal of Management History(2019).]
Provide a Clear Intent
Just like the shared understanding and team-building with trust, the deliverance of a clear intent is another important discipline of the mission command. About this, Custer intended its team that they will hunt the Native Indian tro...
👀 Other Visitors are Viewing These APA Essay Samples:
-
The 1917 Russian Revolution and the Collapse of Tsarism
8 pages/≈2200 words | 4 Sources | Chicago | History | Research Paper |
-
Arthurian Literature in the Early Middle Ages
10 pages/≈2750 words | 5 Sources | Chicago | History | Research Paper |
-
Washington's Farewell Address
2 pages/≈1100 words | 2 Sources | Chicago | History | Research Paper |