One of the interesting things in writing a series of books is that the reader isn’t meant to see the big picture on the front end. This series is no exception. In the first book, we are examining an Elephant with a magnifying glass, in the second, we’re seeing it through binoculars, and the third, well, the damn thing is now outside the window.
Similar to that analogy, Command of military forces requires a similar process. In the first book we see the transition of a military commander from the more local, “save my own ass” approach, to where the concerns are far wider. Trust me, a battlefield will look different to the Lieutenant Platoon Leader, as opposed to the Battalion Commander, up to the very top at Theater Command. This is because they each have a role to play, and must keep their eye on their part of the ball. If the Lieutenant thinks that the Theater Commander has a clue about the location of his platoon, then think again.
General Patton was successful, in part, because he knew that you can only track so much, and do it well. As an Army Commander, his scope of concern was limited to the placement of Corps and the Divisions they controlled. General Eisenhower, on the other hand, limited his view to where the Army Groups were located, along with the Armies they controlled. Of course, Eisenhower’s plate was even more full at times, because he had to concern himself with where the Navies and Air Corps/Forces, were located. This is how it works, and so too, you will find that these are the views taken by the leaders in these books. The higher up the chain of command, the more the view changes.
Similar to that analogy, Command of military forces requires a similar process. In the first book we see the transition of a military commander from the more local, “save my own ass” approach, to where the concerns are far wider. Trust me, a battlefield will look different to the Lieutenant Platoon Leader, as opposed to the Battalion Commander, up to the very top at Theater Command. This is because they each have a role to play, and must keep their eye on their part of the ball. If the Lieutenant thinks that the Theater Commander has a clue about the location of his platoon, then think again.
General Patton was successful, in part, because he knew that you can only track so much, and do it well. As an Army Commander, his scope of concern was limited to the placement of Corps and the Divisions they controlled. General Eisenhower, on the other hand, limited his view to where the Army Groups were located, along with the Armies they controlled. Of course, Eisenhower’s plate was even more full at times, because he had to concern himself with where the Navies and Air Corps/Forces, were located. This is how it works, and so too, you will find that these are the views taken by the leaders in these books. The higher up the chain of command, the more the view changes.
RSS Feed