With regard to expression of the action to be taken, the commander may properly desire to be more explicit than by merely saying, for example, "to destroy the enemy". Here the objective is clear (it is "the destruction of the enemy"), but the expression of the action is so general that additional description may be needed. Examples of more explicit statement have been given previously (page 89).

On occasion the higher commander may predetermine the commander's course of action for the attainment of the objective a.s.signed to the latter. Circ.u.mstances under which such procedure may be properly applicable, and the effect which it has on the commander's estimate, have been previously discussed (page 86).

C. Application of Tests for Suitability, Feasibility, and Acceptability.

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 cla.s.sified in these respects. During these tests, some courses of action may be rejected; such are then omitted in the final cla.s.sification.

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 a.n.a.lysis.

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 circ.u.mstances, 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.

D. Listing Retained Courses of Action.

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 cla.s.sifies 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 a.n.a.lysis.

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.

SECTION III

EXAMINATION INTO THE CAPABILITIES OF THE ENEMY

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.

A. Survey of the Enemy's Problem.

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.

(1) Summary of the Enemy's Situation.

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.

(2) a.n.a.lysis of the Effect Desired by 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 a.n.a.lyze 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 a.s.sociation 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. Circ.u.mstances, 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 encompa.s.s 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 a.s.signed the factor of the appropriate effect desired which will const.i.tute 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.

B. Survey of 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.