In connection with the factor of consequences as to costs, the requirement as to acceptability is a weighing of expected gains and of reasonably antic.i.p.ated losses, a balancing of the one against the other, with due attention to the demands of future action, (see page 61).

Military movement normally involves an inescapable expenditure of military resources. The characteristics of the theater, alone, will exact their due toll, even if no enemy be present. In the presence of the enemy, such expenditures may increase with great rapidity. The fundamental consideration here is whether the resultant losses are disproportionate to the gains.

Avoidance of movement is frequently the correct decision, because movement, if it offers no advantages, is scarcely justifiable even if it entails no material loss. Movement, merely for the sake of moving, is not a profitable military operation. However, the conduct of military operations without major movement is a concept inherently defensive (page 75), even apathetic, whose outcome, against an energetic enemy, can rarely be other than defeat. In the execution of advantageous movement to achieve correct military objectives, the competent commander is always ready to accept the losses which are inseparable from his gains.

The foregoing considerations as to advantageous relative positions are applicable, not only in the realm of the commander's decisions as to his own action, but also to his judgments rendered when higher authority calls for recommendations (see page 42).

Apportionment of Fighting Strength

Fundamental Considerations. The a.s.signment of a task may be expected to carry with it availability of fighting strength deemed adequate by higher authority for accomplishment of the operation involved.

In appropriate instances, the higher command may call for recommendations as to the amount and character of the means deemed adequate by the subordinate for performance of the task with which he is, or is to be, charged (page 42).

In any case, means having been made available, it remains for a commander to whom an objective has been a.s.signed to apportion these available resources in such manner as to provide the requisite strength at points likely to be decisive, without unduly weakening other points. In effect, he is charged with a practical adjustment of means to ends. This responsibility is discharged by the effective utilization of means and prevention of waste nicely balanced through full consideration of all essential elements of a favorable military operation. The procedure involved has been indicated (see the corollary Principle for the determination of the Proper Means to be Made Available--page 34).

The relation between the strength to be brought to bear in dealing with a selected physical objective, the tactical concern of the moment, and that necessary to the attainment of the strategical aim (see pages 9 and 10), const.i.tutes a fundamental consideration in effecting such a balance.

In making a correct apportionment, there will be involved not only the physical elements of fighting strength, but the mental and moral as well. With respect to mental and moral factors, the capabilities of particular commanders and organizations may be an important factor in apportioning forces to tasks. In the physical field, numbers and types occupy a prominent position, each however, requiring consideration from the standpoint of the existing situation.

Thus, forces composed of appropriate types and suitably equipped and trained may exercise greater effect than numerically larger forces not so well adjusted to the requirements of the situation. On the other hand, numerical considerations become predominant under conditions otherwise substantially equal.

These considerations, viewed in the light of the relationship of naval operations to land areas (page 63), indicate the importance which may attach to immediate availability, with a naval force, in addition to its own air strength, of a proper complement of land forces (with appropriate air strength) which are organized, equipped, and trained for amphibious operations.

The same considerations point also to the vital importance of due provision, with respect to the armed forces of a State, for joint operations involving concerted action on land, by sea, or in the air.

In connection with the capabilities of particular commanders (page 66), it will be appreciated how important it is, more especially in amphibious or joint operations, for responsible officers to have a correct understanding of the powers and limitations of the several types of military forces involved, be their primary medium of movement the land, the sea, or the air.

Factors of dispersion and concentration are also involved in apportionment of fighting strength.

While undue dispersion may result in lack of adequate fighting strength where required, a certain degree of dispersion may be necessary to meet the demands of movement and of freedom of action.

Serious errors in this regard, however, may result in inability to furnish support where needed, and in consequent punishment or isolation of one or more valuable detachments.

In distant operations some dispersion is required to safeguard long lines of communication. The requirements for this purpose may sometimes be so great that, unless the total available strength is adequate, a due apportionment to the guarding of long lines of communication may so weaken the main force as to prevent the attainment of the objective. (See also page 63.)

Proper dispersion is, therefore, a requirement to be met, while undue dispersion is to be avoided. But realization is also necessary, in this connection, that there is an equal danger in over-concentration.

An undue concentration of means at any point may subject such a force to unnecessary loss. Another disadvantage may be lack of adequate fighting strength elsewhere.

Accordingly, axiomatic advice that it is unwise to divide a total force, while containing a sound element of caution, is misleading and inadequate, for division is often necessary or desirable. To be adequate, a maxim or rule relating to division of force should indicate when, and in what measure, such division may or may not be necessary or desirable. (See also page 25.)

Similarly inadequate, however true as a generality, is the statement that the requirements of effective warfare are met by bringing superiority to bear at the decisive time and place. Such an injunction is of little a.s.sistance in solving practical problems as to the appropriate degree of superiority, and as to the proper time and place.

In like manner, any rule is faulty which advises a commander to seek the solution of his problems by always bringing to bear his elements of strength against the hostile elements of weakness. It may be found, on occasion, that it is necessary or desirable to act with strength against strength.

But it is equally faulty to maintain that action, to be effective, seeks always to deal with the enemy by first destroying his elements of strength. Even when the strongest opposition cannot be defeated by direct action of this nature, success may still be possible by first disposing of elements of weakness. When the stronger elements of a hostile combination cannot be defeated without undue loss, yet cannot stand without the weaker, consideration may well be given to an apportionment of fighting strength on the basis of seeking a decision against the latter. The defeat of a relatively small force at a distance from the area where the main forces are concentrated in opposition, may hasten the attainment of the ultimate objective.

The main effort, where the greater force is employed, may be identical with the effort contributing most directly to the final result. This ident.i.ty, however, does not always exist, and the decisive influence is frequently exerted by a relatively small force, sometimes at a distance from the princ.i.p.al area of action.

Diversions (see also as to feints, page 59) are not likely to be profitable unless const.i.tuting a sufficient threat, or unless offering apparent advantages to the enemy which he feels that he cannot forego.

Success will attend justified diversions if they lead the enemy to reapportion his fighting strength to meet the threat, either because he expects repet.i.tions (see page 73, as to raids), or because the area involved may become a new theater of action, or for other pertinent reasons.

Means which are inadequate for the attainment of an objective if used in one effort may sometimes be rendered adequate by utilizing them in a series of successive impulses. Similarly, the effect of employing means otherwise adequate may be intensified by the delivery of attacks in waves.

Procedure for Determining Proper Apportionment. The fundamental considerations outlined above as to apportionment of fighting strength have application both to the offensive and the defensive (see also discussion on page 75). As to all of these considerations, the solution for the particular situation is to be found only through an a.n.a.lysis of the factors applying to the particular problem.

Thus, the first consideration relates to suitability, and requires that the apportionment of means be suitable both as to type and as to amount, in order to produce the appropriate effect desired in view of the means opposed and of the influence of the characteristics of the theater. The fundamentals involved, applicable in all human activities (see the Principle of the Proper Means to be Made Available--page 34), are the factors cited above. These are also, of course, indicated in the Fundamental Military Principle.

The correct apportionment may also be influenced by any military changes to be effected in the characteristics of the theater (as indicated in the Principle of Proper Physical Conditions to be Established--page 34). Thus, the establishment of a well defended base may operate, properly, to reduce the requirements for apportionment of a force for a particular duty in that locality. Similarly, the proper use of fortifications, obstacles, demolitions, and routes by land, sea, and air, as well as facilities for exchange of information and orders, all operate to increase fighting strength relative to that of the enemy.

The next consideration, that of feasibility, takes account of the type and of the amount of means that can be apportioned in view of the means available.

In connection with the foregoing there will be appropriate requirements for the operation as a whole and for its component operations. All of these requirements may call for a.n.a.lysis of the relative positions to be utilized, with reference to the selected physical objectives, and of the requirements for adequate freedom of action.

Finally, the requirement of acceptability as to the factor of consequences will call for consideration of the results of the allotments of forces to particular tasks. This is necessary in order to arrive at reasonable conclusions as to the military costs involved either in event of the success of the effort or in event of its failure, and with respect, more especially, to the effects on future action.

The attainment of the objective, however suitable as to the effect desired, may be found, on the basis of due study, to be infeasible or to involve unacceptable consequences. The inescapable conclusion is then that an increase in relative fighting strength is required or that another objective, feasible of attainment and acceptable with respect to consequences, is necessarily to be adopted (see page 52-53).

Freedom of Action

Fundamental Considerations. In providing for proper apportionment of fighting strength, a commander may attain the end in view by increasing the physical, mental, or moral elements of his own strength, relative to the enemy's, or by decreasing the enemy's strength through imposing restrictions on hostile freedom of action.

Freedom of action will enable a commander to prosecute his plan in spite of restrictive influences. That enemy interference will, to a greater or less extent, impose restrictions on freedom of action is to be expected. Restrictions may also be imposed by physical conditions existing in the theater of operations, and by deficiencies and omissions which are within the field of responsibility of the commander to correct.

Even with fighting strength adequate to overcome enemy opposition and physical handicaps, deficiencies and omissions within a commander's own field may become effective checks to further progress unless avoided through the exercise of foresight. To this end, it is desirable to consider certain possibilities which are likely to promote freedom of action if properly exploited, and to restrict it if neglected.

To a considerable extent, a commander has within his own control the degree of influence which his force will exert in the creation or the maintenance of a favorable military situation. The power applied by a military force is determined not only by the fighting strength of its component commands, but also by the degree of coordination of their several efforts in the attainment of the objective (see also page 12).

Whatever the inability of the commander to influence the other aspects of a situation, the ability of his command to act unitedly is a matter largely in his hands.

When time permits, subordinate commanders, apprised of contemplated tasks in general terms, may be called upon to submit recommendations as to the detailed instructions to be issued them, as well (page 66) as to the means to be allotted for the purpose. By this procedure, individual initiative (page 15) is fostered and the higher command enabled to utilize the first-hand knowledge and experience gained on lower echelons without, however, divesting the higher command of any of its responsibility.

The command system may provide for unified action through unity of command or through cooperation resulting from mutual understanding. On the a.s.sumption that commanders are competent and that communications are adequate, unity of command is the more reliable method. However, it cannot be obtained everywhere and at all times, because of the necessary decentralization of the command system in areas distant from the commander. In such areas, unity of effort may sometimes be a.s.sured by provision for local unity of command. At other times, unity of effort may depend entirely on cooperation between adjacent commands within the same area. (See page 12.)

Organization (see page 13), the mechanism of command, is most effective when, through the establishment of authority commensurate with responsibility (page 12) and through the a.s.signment of tasks to commanders with appropriate capabilities (see also page 66), the highest possible degree of unity of command is attained. The command organization and mutual understanding are of primary importance as methods of ensuring maximum power with available fighting strength, and of affording consequent maximum contribution to freedom of action.

Deficiencies in technical training are capable of imposing grave restrictions upon freedom of action. Material equipment, even though it may represent the acme of perfection in design and construction, will not surely function unless skillfully operated and maintained.

Even though mobility and endurance be otherwise a.s.sured, the capacity which they represent is not susceptible of effective employment unless the methods of movement, i.e., of effecting change in relative position (page 59), are intelligently planned and are developed to a point which a.s.sures facility of operation when in the hands of skilled personnel.

Tactical training, not omitting that required for joint operations (page 67), is one of the vital factors of fighting strength, with respect, more especially, to its contributions to freedom of action.

A state of high and stable morale (page 9), founded upon sound discipline, is an invaluable characteristic of fighting strength. An understanding of the human being is therefore an important feature of the science of war.

Discipline, in its basic meaning, is the treatment suitable to a disciple. The objective of discipline is therefore the creation and maintenance of the spirit of willingness to follow where the commander leads. The exercise of leadership is not restricted, however, to those occasions when the commander can be physically present. The exigencies of war and the requirements of control prevent the commander from being always, personally, in the forefront of action. These restrictions as to considerations of s.p.a.ce however, impose no limitations on leadership in terms of time.

The influence of the competent commander is a factor always acting to shape the situation according to his will (page 47), though the necessities of the moment may compel his presence elsewhere. The ability to create and maintain a faithful following who will execute the commander's will wherever he may be (page 15) is, accordingly, a primary attribute of command.

With this objective in mind, the true disciplinarian runs no risk of confusing harshness with the exercise of justice. He understands the difference between an overbearing arrogance, arising from unconscious ignorance, and the pride which springs from a justified self-respect.