Can We Revive Auftragstaktik? (V)

Franz Uhle-Wettler

Emil Hünten Jäger Defend a Farmhouse

This post concludes a five-part series. To read preceding installments, please see

Can We Revive Auftragstaktik?

Can We Revive Auftragstaktik? (II)

Can We Revive Auftragstaktik? (III)

Can We Revive Auftragstaktik? (IV)

What is Auftragstaktik? And Can We Revive It?

Franz Uhle-Wettler

(Conclusion)

The Revival of Auftragstaktik

When, in 1945, Germany collapsed, Auftragstaktik, or what was left of it, died with it. Two or three decades later, however, the practice, or, to be more precise, the idea of Auftragstaktik, came back to life.

This renaissance resulted, in part, from the desire of NATO nations to obtain a means of offsetting the quantitative superiority enjoyed by the forces of the Warsaw Pact. It also owed much to the fear that, in an age of electronic warfare, the radios that transmitted orders, information, and requests for permission would be jammed.

In these years of enthusiasm, it proved easier to embrace the outward expression of Auftragstaktik than recreate the culture that had created it. Thus, while many embraced the proposition that commander’s intent trumped explicit orders, fewer understood the five preconditions - professionalism, self-confidence, forbearance, and the right sort of garrison life, and supportive personnel policies - needed to prevent disciplined disobedience from degenerating into ‘every man for himself’.

Professionalism begins with a deep and abiding interest in all aspects of the art of war. Such persistent passion, however, serves only as a foundation for the ability to quickly make sense of a military situation, devise a suitable course of action, and execute that plan in an effective way. Thus, in addition to reading, observing, listening, and pondering, a military professional must continually practice the art of solving tactical problems.

Self-confidence depends upon professionalism. However, where the latter dwells largely in the head, the former belongs to the realm of the heart. That is, the soldier able to practice Auftragstaktik takes great pride the men he leads, cares little for his career, and takes great pleasure in bearing the burden of command, especially in moments of danger, crisis, or opportunity.

Forbearance makes it possible for superiors to allow their subordinates the latitude that they need to take initiative and, better yet, to foster the latter’s capacity for self-directed action. This requires that superiors exercise considerable humility, and, in particular, accept, to the point of enjoyment, the possibility that a man of lower rank might come up with a better solution. Forbearance also depends upon a reluctance to intervene in situations in which a subordinate makes a decision that strikes the superior as less than ideal, as well as the willingness to reprimand a subordinate for failure to exercise initiative in a situation that calls for action.

When in garrison, commanders who want to encourage their subordinates to acquire the knowledge, skills, and attitudes that permit the practice of Auftragstaktik spend most of their time on their feet, visiting with their men. When they do this, they ask the sort of open-ended questions that invite honest, thoughtful replies, thereby promoting interest in professional matters, rewarding self-confidence, and modeling forbearance. In order to do this, moreover, he will gladly sacrifice the collection of meaningless statistics, the writing of standing operating procedures, and the conduct of the sort of formal inspections that make soldiers polish the soles of their boots.

Finally, the army that wants to place Auftragstaktik at the heart of its organizational culture will seek ways to promote the sort of officers who command in this way and, at the same time, convince those who aspire to careers in middle management to seek opportunities elsewhere. After all, if we wish to raise lions, we cannot treat them like sheep.

---

Decision Games

---