Military Review English Edition January-February 2015 | Page 39

DIALOGUE AND TRUST

(Photo by Sgt. Brian Smith-Dutton, 3rd Brigade Combat Team PAO, 101st Airborne Division)

Leaders from units of the 101st Airborne Division (Air Assault)
conduct a combined arms rehearsal 1 April 2014 at Fort Campbell, Ky., in preparation for air-assault operations during Operation
Golden Eagle.

not necessarily an output of dialogue. How does the
Army practice creative and critical thinking?
Many of the processes used by staffs are inescapably
algorithmic, or closed-ended. In other words, they are
formulaic and specific; they lend themselves to checking
the block. In comparison, ADM is heuristic, lending itself
not to a formula but to a process of discovery through
the application of experience and common sense. The
heuristic methodology used in the ADM depends on the
collective depth and breadth of experience of the staff
members, as opposed to algorithmic methodologies such
as the MDMP and TLP, which are structured with a
plethora of how-tos to guide an inexperienced staff.
Dialogue is an ideal starting point for the teaching
of creative and critical thinking within a staff and unit.
However, creative and critical thinking skills must also
MILITARY REVIEW  January-February 2015

be practiced through scenario-based training to fully
prepare soldiers and their leaders for applying mission
command. Currently, the Army extensively uses scenario-based training in its exercises and PME. However,
there is an expectation that conventional military thinking (e.g., the MDMP and TLP) will prevail, in contradiction to the usual PME motto of training the force, “how
to think, not what to think.”19 Developing creative and
critical thinking helps refine the coup d’oeil (“stroke of the
eye,’’ or the ability to immediately see and assess the OE)
within the commander and staff. How does this come
together in a decisive action training environment?
First, it should be noted that algorithmic paradigms
have an important place in training and operations and
should not be neglected. Recalling the venerable Army
Training and Evaluation Program, units would focus on
unit-level functional tasks considered essential to mission accomplishment. These tasks were rehearsed and
executed by the numbers to the point that a unit that
achieved “T” (trained) status would be able to execute
the task at night, in the rain, and in mission-oriented
protective posture 4 (known as MOPP 4). This method
has great utility for certain tasks. For example, perhaps
an engineering unit will need to erect a bridge to facilitate a river crossing. The time to be learning to erect
the bridge is not upon arrival at a river’s banks during
operations with a division close behind.
Clearly, mastery of functional tasks through drill is
extremely important to executing a mission. Yet, on
the other side of the training paradigm is the heuristic domain. Here, commanders need to understand
and develop not only how their subordinates think
but also what they think. An example from the popular the Star Trek movie series illustrates the point.
The Kobayashi Maru was an unwinnable (with one
exception) exercise designed to test the mettle of
future commanders and also to reveal to their superiors how and what these future commanders would
think when faced with an ambiguous, unwinnable
situation with overwhelming odds against them.20
Understanding the nature of heuristics also
involves intuitive judgment; the value of difficult
exercises is apparent. As commanders more fully
understand and visualize their OE, it is instructive
for them to be able to intuit what their subordinate
leaders likely will do in a highly stressful and ambiguous environment.
37