Mission Command:
Governor Henry Harrison and the Battle of Tippecanoe
Successful leadership on a battlefield can be measured in different ways. It is possible for a good, successful leader to lose a battle. Conversely, it is possible for an ineffective leader to win a battle, given the right circumstances. What distinguishes a successful leader from an unsuccessful one is his/her ability to oversee an operation using effective mission command. In ADP 6-0, mission command as a philosophy is defined as “as the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable disciplined initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations” (ADP, 1). William Henry Harrison, Governor of the Indiana Territory, executed good mission command in the Battle of Tippecanoe because of his ability to effectively utilize the doctrinal tasks of “understand, visualize, describe, direct, and lead” operations.
Overview and Implications
The Battle of Tippecanoe was fought on November 7, 1811 in Battleground, Indiana between a confederacy of Native Americans and American forces. The confederacy of Native Americans was led by Tenskwatawa, often referred to as the Prophet, in lieu of his brother Tecumseh who was absent from the battle. The United States forces were commanded by William Henry Harrison, governor of the Indiana Territory. Tecumseh and his brother, the Prophet, were massing Native American warriors at Prophetstown because they were opposed to cessations of Native American land carried out by the United States government. Governor Harrison marched 1000 troops to Prophetstown as a demonstration of force and in order to eliminate the enemy if necessa...
... middle of paper ...
...he Battle of Tippecanoe. Though the Americans took severe losses during the surprise assault on their camp, the damage would have been much worse if not for Harrison’s good execution of mission command using the doctrinal tasks of “understand, visualize, describe, direct, and lead” operations. He gained a good picture of his operational environment and determined a desired end state—to neutralize the threat of Tecumseh’s warriors at Prophetstown. Then, he made a detailed plan and directed its execution. Throughout the entire process, he led his men from the front with determination and calm.
Bibliography
Walker, Adam. A Journal of Two Campaigns of the Fourth Regiment US. Infantv in the Indiana and Michigan Territories. Keene, NH: Sentinel Press, 18 16.
Whickar, Wesley J., ed. “Shabonee’s Account of Tippecanoe.” Indiana Magazine of History 17 (1921): 353-63.
COL Prescott’s role in the Battle of Bunker Hill, or more correctly know as the Battle of Breed’s Hill, is a great example of how to properly execute mission command. An overview from The Cowpens Staff Ride and Battlefield Tour (Moncure) reveals a number of operation and strategic objectives that the American militia had to consider. In this instance, COL Prescott takes charge of 1200 men with instructions to defend against incoming British forces that were seeking to occupy the surrounding hills during the Siege of Boston campaign. COL Prescott utilized a variety of steps in the operations process that contributed to his expert utilization of mission command over his forces. Through various sources from published works by experts on the subject, COL Prescott’s mission command demonstrates its effectiveness in his understanding of the situation against the British, his visualization to create an end state for t...
In 1811, Indiana was a territory rather than a state. A charismatic Indian leader, Tecumseh, led a confederation of tribes in central and northern Indiana and opposed further American expansion. Governor William Henry Harrison aimed to gain land for settlers and achieve statehood. These competing interests led to conflict in the fall of 1811, culminating in the Battle of Tippecanoe and the destruction of an Indian town and the center of a new Indian confederacy, Prophetstown. Harrison’s strategic aims and actions were not in line with the intent of his commander, President Madison. However, Harrison’s leadership during tactical action in the Battle of Tippecanoe demonstrated effective execution of the doctrinal tasks of Mission Command.
The Steptoe Battle otherwise known as the Battle of Pine Creek marks the beginning of the Coeur d’Alene War that disarmed the tribes in the region. After Steptoe’s defeat, Colonel George Wright led an expedition into the Northeastern corner of Washington that completely subjugated the Spokane, Palouse, and Coeur d’Alene’s to American policy. Following the war, the United States Army disarmed the tribes and slaughtered three hundred horses to eliminate their ability to maneuver on a battlefield. The terms of peace laid out by Colonel Wright destroyed the tribe’s capability to mount resistance against the United States ever again.
On June 25, 1876, The Battle of Little Bighorn took place near the Black Hills in Montana. This was one of the most controversial battles of the 20th century and the line between good guys and bad guys was grey at best. Gen. George Armstrong Custer (reduced to LTC after the civil war) had 366 men of the 7thU.S. Cavalry under his command that day. Sitting Bull (A Medicine Man) led 2000 braves of the Lakota, Northern Cheyenne, and Arapaho tribes (Klos, 2013). At the conclusion of the battle, the stories of the Indians savagery were used to demonize their culture and there were no survivors from the 7thcavalry to tell what really happened.
Operational leaders see how the individual components of an organization fit together and use those individuals work to make a larger outcome. When they focus on a problem, they think of what works best within the process and systems to make an impact on the situation. These types of leaders play a big part in making sure that things get done in an effective and functioning manner. According to the Army Doctrine ADP 6-0, the Army over time has strayed away from operational leaders and adapted Mission Command, which gives leaders the ability at the lowest level the capability to exercise disciplined initiative in an act of carrying out the larger mission . Mission Command is made up of the following six steps: Understanding, Visualize, Describe, Direct, Lead and Assess, in which a commander is responsible for. General Patton understood the intent of the Battle of the Bulge on different levels, he was able to form a mental image for the course of actions for the allies, enemies and lead his Army into combat while guiding his officers and soldiers to succeed in meeting his intent. The Battle of the Bulge is where General Patton gained one of his greatest military achievements by using his tactical leadership and logistical genius, which in return helped him turn around the main forces and forced the Germans to drive back in their final counter-offensive. General Patton strongly exercised Mission Command by understanding, visualizing, leading, and commanding what was known as the largest and bloodiest battle during World War II.
Clark, during the 1770’s, was helping Kentucky defend itself from Native Americans. At the time, Clark was transporting gunpowder to the frontier between the Americans and the British. The Native Americans, who lived in the Northwest, disliked the Americans in the Northwest and their claim on Kentucky and with the British backing, waged war with the Americans. Clark was now in charge of defending the settlements and was promoted to major. Clark then made plans in taking British held forts in the region and persuaded Governor Patrick Henry to support him in capturing the forts. Clark had won the support of Patrick Henry, was promoted to lieutenant colonel, and was given command of the mission (“George Clark” 1). With the command of the mission, Clark had lead 175 men who traveled to Fort Kaskaskia, Illinois in six days. The fort was almost defenseless and was easily taken with Clark’s force. Clark had sent Captain Leonard Helm to capture Fort Sackville, after learning that the fort was undefended from American spies. Leonard Helm had then captured the fort, but was taken back by Henry Hamilton shortly after. Henry Hamilton, the famous British “Hair Buyer”, used militia and Native Americans to take Fort Sackville. In the winter, Clark lead a force of 170 men ...
The 7th Cavalry Regiment's destruction at the Battle of the Little Bighorn in June 1876 is the subject of over a century of debate. LTC George A. Custer failed to exercise four key responsibilities that were expected of him as the regiment’s commander. He failed to understand the problem and environment, visualize a feasible solution, clearly describe it to his subordinates, and effectively direct his forces. These four aspects of mission command are integral to the operations process and help Soldiers understand and execute their commander's intent. Custer's failure to properly fulfill his role in the operations process resulted in his death and a strategic defeat for the nation.
...rned the essential plans that a leader would need to lead him troops. He also had the morale and spirits to keep the troops ready to fight for the freedom they wanted, as well as his ability to command such troops in placement and tactics.
According to Army Doctrine Publication (ADP) 6-0, mission command philosophy is, “the exercise of authority and direction by the commander using mission orders to enable discipline initiative within the commander’s intent to empower agile and adaptive leaders in the conduct of unified land operations.” Commanders execute mission command throughout all phases of the operations process. ADP 5-0 states that, “Commanders drive the operations process.” The six steps that allow Commanders to drive the operations process are: understand, visualize, describe, direct, lead, and assess. I will discuss four of these steps used by COL Freeman’s analyze his ability to properly execute mission command in this Battle.
The War Hawks demanded a more aggressive policy toward the British after the Battle of Tippecanoe because they argued that by letting fleeing Native Americans seek refuge within Canada’s border, the British were conspiring against the U.S. with the Native Americans as their allies. As a result of the Battle of Tippecanoe, many Native Americans, driven from their camp in Prophetstown with their confidence in Tecumseh and the confederacy destroyed, fled to safety in Canada. Since the British owned Canada at this time, some Americans saw this as a threat from the British because they thought the British were not only supplying the Native Americans with a safe haven, but arming them too. They then urged Congress to take action against the British
Andrew Jackson had already gained a reputation for being a fierce fighter and leader for his fighting with Native Americans by the time he fought in the Battle of New Orleans. However, the Natives were primitive, and the Battle of New Orleans was against the strong British Empire. In command of the British forces was Major General Lord Edward Pakenham, and his army consisted of hardened veterans who had fought the French. The American forces included active duty military, state militia, pirates, and free blac...
In history there have been many infamous battles. Ia Drang, Guadalcanal, Bataan, Pointe Du Hoc, San Juan Hill, Little Big Horn, and The Alamo are America’s hallowed battles. They are events that shaped our collective consciousness as a nation. One notorious conflict that has shaped the world as the aforementioned have shaped our nation is the Battle of Thermopylae. This epic struggle between the hoards of Persia and the decedents of Herakles decided the course of western civilization. Three-hundred brave, free citizens of Sparta defended the “Hot Gates,” a narrow mountain pass in northern Hellas, against 2 million servants of the self-proclaimed god-king Xerxes. For 3 days, the Lakedaemonians made the savages pay so dearly they lost the taste for battle. However, this heroic effort would prove insufficient and the Persian swarm was too big to fail.
LTC George Armstrong Custer did not effectively apply the concept of mission command as a warfighting function during the Battle of Little Bighorn. While it is important to understand the context in which Custer made his decisions, those circumstances offer little in terms of excusing the fiasco that was Little Bighorn. Custer failed to follow orders, did not take pertinent intelligence into consideration, did not adequately plan or execute protection of his forces, and fought without essential fires equipment available to him. Custer did exercise good sustainment, but it was for naught, as the battle was brief.
Regardless of the career you choose in your life, whether it be an accountant or a Soldier in the United States Army, someone, somewhere most likely had an influence to bring you to that decision. The Army defines leadership as the process of influencing people by providing purpose, direction, and motivation while operating to accomplish the mission and improve the organization (JP, p. 1). Now imagine you are a young Private, in one of the most dangerous places in Iraq and you have constant leadership changes, and not much support from your direct leadership. I am sure at this point you can imagine, it is not the best scenario to be in. Throughout the duration of this essay you will read about Sergeant First Class Rob Gallagher and Sergeant First Class Jeff Fenlason, their leadership abilities, and the techniques they attempted to use to resolve the issues in this Platoon that was in a downward spiral after losing many leaders to the hell of war.
As an officer in the United States Army, it has been imperative for me to understand every facet of leadership and why it remains important to be an effective leader. During this course, I have learned some valuable lessons about myself as a leader and how I can improve on my leadership ability in the future. The journal entries along with the understanding of available leadership theories have been an integral part of my learning during this course. For all of the journals and assessments that I completed, I feel it has given me a good understanding of my current leadership status and my future potential as a leader. All of the specific assessments looked at several areas in regards to leadership; these assessments covered several separate focus areas and identified my overall strengths and weaknesses as a leader. Over the course of this paper I will briefly discuss each one of these assessments and journal entries as they pertained to me and my leadership.