Preparing Military Commanders for Tomorrow's Battles

In the final instalment of our five-part series on educating Army leaders for future war, we delve into the need for significant changes in the Army's approach to leadership and professional military education (PME).

The high number of Russian general deaths in Ukraine, with at least seven generals reportedly killed and Ukraine claiming to have killed twelve, underscores the importance of this issue. Historically significant, this trend suggests that poor tactics, electronics, and communications discipline, as well as overly centralized decision-making processes and a lack of strong junior leaders, especially noncommissioned officers, are contributing factors.

The US Army prides itself on strong leadership, with a professional NCO corps unmatched in its capabilities and a focus on developing junior officers. However, the Army's approach to leadership needs to adapt to changes in the character of war and new generations of soldiers.

The Army should redefine leadership by directly linking it to context. Leadership should be separated into the categories of simple, complicated, complex, and chaotic contexts. The future leaders of the Army must be at least as adept at building strong and trusting teams as they are at preparing themselves as individuals.

Curriculums currently fall short of educating future officers about the challenges of future warfare. Army training should focus on adaptability, agility, and resiliency, rather than repetition. Training scenarios should be intentionally changed to force participants to be adaptive.

Mid-grade officers will likely find themselves working on staffs that have a role in synchronizing and employing electronic warfare, cyber, space, and information capabilities. Technical courses should devote time to the effects these systems could have on Army formations and how to properly employ these capabilities.

The Army's approach to leadership needs to shift away from a focus on individual prowess and towards building strong and trusting teams. Battlefield leadership has traditionally been a strength for democratic militaries compared to more authoritarian ones. However, the US Army, despite its strengths, has struggled to fully implement mission command.

PME does not currently include enough focus on the changes in warfare. All PME needs to include more focus on how electronic warfare, cyber, disinformation, space, and several other technological developments are shaping future battlefields. Education on these topics is currently lacking in most PME courses.

The Army should update ADP 6-22, Army Leadership and the Profession, to distinguish evergreen qualities associated with the nature of leadership from leadership practices and styles that are contextually specific and sensitive to the changing character of warfare.

The Army should also review its evaluation and promotion system to reverse the trend of promoting officers most similar to themselves. The search results do not specify the names of the two authors of the article in question.

More significant changes to better prepare Army leaders for future war include new approaches to professional military education (PME) and training. The Army should continue to provide a framework for members of the Army profession to assess how leadership should adapt as warfare changes.

The Defense and Strategic Studies course on Leadership in Future War is a promising first step, but because it is not a required course, too few cadets are exposed to its ideas. The Army should make this course, and similar ones, mandatory to ensure that all future leaders are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary for success in future war.

Finally, the Army should consider changing its personnel policies to attract and retain innovative leaders. This could include rewarding those who act ethically and legally but eschew convention. The Army must adapt the character of its leadership to the changing character of warfare and to the new generations of soldiers populating the Army's ranks.

In conclusion, preparing Army leaders for future war requires significant changes in the Army's approach to leadership and PME. The focus on future warfare must begin at the start of an officer's career, during their precommissioning education program. The Army should provide a comprehensive education on the challenges of future warfare, focusing on adaptability, agility, and resiliency, and emphasising the importance of strong and trusting teams. By making these changes, the Army can ensure that its leaders are prepared for the complexities and uncertainties of future war.