Զորքերի կառավարման արդիական եղանակը և ԶՈՒ-երում դրա ներդրման խոչընդոտները / THE MODERN WAY OF COMMAND AND CONTROL AND OBSTACLES TO ITS IMPLEMENTATION IN THE ARMED FORCES

Abstract

The combat power and any other potential capabilities of the armed forces can only be fulfilled if applied good governance. As known, in modern armies the control is carried out mainly in two ways – by means of detailed (linear) command, and mission command. The detailed command is reduced to micro control, when the subordinates receive through the scale of rank detailed instruction on the way of executing assigned missions. When commanding takes the second type (directive command, or command principle on the basis of giving freedom in accomplishing the task), the senior commander (leader) assigns the objective, the forces and assets available to complete the task, as well as the limit within which the subordinate leader can act independently (make separate decisions and accomplish them), while the frames are determined by the commanders intent. Mission command requires the subordinate leader to have an organizational mindset, which should penetrate into all spheres of the formation’s activity. At the same time, the implementation of such system requires capable, adaptive and agile military leaders at each command level. In army, such concept bases upon three main notions, applied by commanders during warfighting (combat operations) to overcome the occurring obstacles; these are the Philosophy, Warfighting Function and Accomplishment. The implementation of such type of control in the armed forces may encounter some obstacles, such as, for instance, mediated liaison between seniors and subordinates, this resulting in failure of devolution to the subordinate units; a complex concerning unconditional like-mindedness with higher commanders and the atmosphere of following exclusively their instructions, this excluding pluralism of opinions in the group (organization); bureaucratic formal-administrational thinking and uncertainty-based risks, lack of mutual trust between the commander and their subordinate personnel; insufficient educational and scientific level. One could argue that the mission command principle is a philosophic (logical) agreement between the commander and subordinates, which is based upon mutual trust and mutual understanding. Such relations require on behalf of the commander a clear and unambiguous control and at the same time granting the subordinates as more freedom of action as possible when completing assigned tasks. With a reference to the outcomes of the study of the international practices in implementing this way of control, the author has reached the conclusion that a stepwise model of its implementation is needed.