Generalship: All That Really Matters

Introduction

Until a man learns how to command himself it is unlikely that his command over others will prove a profitable business

– General JFC Fuller

First it would be necessary to understand what the star ranks are. Stars are for the ‘Generals’ and it starts from one star i.e. Brigadier (in many armies it is addressed as Brigadier General), two star Major General, three star Lieutenant General, four star General and five star Field Marshall. Word General Officer is common to all armies. This is the rank which serviceman attains after a long stint at the Regimental level, that is to say, major part of his career is spent in the field ranks performing the task as managers of men; commanding units/sub units, handling of tactical combat situations and being the leader in the front line. A General Officer is the one, who comes out of the regimented service and in actual sense adorns the rank without the regimental shoulder title; he is now the commander of the formation having composition of various regiments in the operational ORBAT (order of battle). Thus the term ‘General’ is an apt description of this star rank.

The Generalship is nothing but leadership, thus it cannot be compared with any appointment of public servant or civil services which the Armed Forces officers usually debate. Public Servants/Civil Services where none of the appointments are leader by empowerment. There is a distinction between a leader and those who are serving under a leader. Leaders are responsible and accountable for their actions but public/ civil servants are only answerable to their leader. Thus the civil services and Generals ego status does not stand any ground as both have separate domain of responsibility and work. A General can venture into any part of his command responsibility and is accountable whereas the bureaucrat is confined to his department and can influence a decision of an elected leader or underwrite a proposal of the General on the papers of the ministry or advise, thus facilitates the decision making but cannot take a ‘own’ call as it is not in their preview of the job, they are always faced with the omnipresence of the ‘right to veto’ of the political boss/masters and government clearances. In the Indian scenario where the pedestal of political structure remains yet fragile, with politicians having shallow knowledge base, constricted outlook and personal political gains being predominant, this lends to dependency on administrative/civil services cadres, therefore public/civil servants automatically gain an upper hand/ dominate, they have made a niche for themselves. This phenomenon is common world over therefore Generals face maximum ego tussle with this category of governmental services.

Lot has been said about the Indian Generals, there are many tales and anecdotes. First let me categorise the types of Generals existing in the Indian Armed Forces, there are only two basic types of Generalship that is personalised and institutionalised, in former type the factor of personal element is predominant and in the later the institution. In the realm of institutionalised General the professional and good General category falls. If we take the attitudinal or behavioural aspects and then classify, there are many but the prominent among them as per my perception are – firstly are those Generals who only want to hear their own voice, are big boast of their ego, have tendency of ‘foot in mouth’ syndrome, where self is most predominant or at very high scale, usually get exploited due to their self importance and the environment takes advantage of such Generals through ego bashing – secondly are those Generals who show lot of concerns but there is no selflessness in the concern – thirdly are those who toe the line everywhere and anywhere such Generals believe in connections and for them what matters is ‘only self’ – fourthly are those Generals who are so entrenched in their status/privileges that they do not have time for professionalism they rarely try to develop or think of making a difference – fifthly are those Generals who cannot fathom or do not understand ‘Game Play’ and are usually bystanders – sixthly are those who understand ‘Games Play’ but do not take stand or have conviction or show ignorance – lastly are the professional Generals who have courage of conviction and character and these are very few in numbers. In my opinion these are the basic categories world over; more categories can get created or generated with various permutation and combination of the said basic categories. Whatever may be the case, General is a leader, who has come up through the selection and the promotional ladders and is accountable to his command, the Forces and the Nation. Generals have to directly deal in matters related to national security and the organisational needs to maintain the operational preparedness of the nation’s Forces, ensure that the Armed Forces are reckoned as instrument of national power and lastly project national security concerns and requirement with the bureaucracy and the policy makers. Thus lack of professionalism in the Generalship here does make a large difference. True professionalism is the only way which creates grounds for neutralisation of mindset on capability, degenerate ego tussle and substantiates correct projections. Fault lines in professionalism will tend to increases the cautiousness among the others or making people have reservation on their belief or taking matters not in its face value when presented by the Generals. This will affect perceptiveness and create a belief contrary to the sanguinity of the transactions. The situation gets more aggrieved with mediocre and incompetent Generalship.

In the Indian Army understanding of the concept of ‘General Officer’ in real terms is Major General and above, even though the Brigadier is given one star and a flagstaff. In fact the rank of ‘Brigadier’ is the first rank of General Officer cadre, it is for this reason the status is of one star General, during World War II Brigadier Generals had commanded Divisions. Brigadier is the first rank of Generalship, he is the first level formation commander. If this rank is kept out of the term ‘General’ then the concern for professionalism in the Generalship is/will be lacking. If we take application of formation command in conceptualised rank structure and appointment of commanders especially in context of battle/operations, the first stepping stone for professional development as General i.e. Brigadier is missing in our context. It is for this reason many military analysts world over had considered this rank of Brigadier as the first stepping stone and cradle to professionalism in Generalship and in some of the modern armies the rank is designated as Brigadier General, this had a purpose. From this rank the Generalship in fact starts, where the tag of regimental command is practically forfeited and the rank has no regimental affiliations attached. Very many are not aware of this in the public or within the Forces.

However in some armies in order to have continued regimental affiliation, the regimental lanyard, buttons and belts with regimental emblems is made part of the General’s accruements, the regimental/ Arms leanings in such General ranks are thus very obvious. Regimental level traditions are OK to a level and it cannot be stretched beyond some level where apprehensions make way in perceptions and it applies to the accruements of the Generals and regimental links also. Some Armies believe in having a different entity for the Generals, thus the accruements are totally different from the regimental accruements from the rank of Brigadier upwards; basic logic is that General must come out of the affiliation of arms and regiments and be a General Officer, this makes all the subjects under his command equal without any prejudice attached to affiliations.

Every General cannot have all the Generalship skills and qualities, irony is that the number who can master the most is so very small and it is for this reason that in every exposure to battle/conflicts have revealed more bad Generals than good Generals. Generals at times are so rigid with their ranks, status, seniority and the positional egos that some of them fail to see beyond self and this is where the term good and bad General gets further defined. What matters in Generalship is the level of competency and delivery of command responsibilities to meet the objectives/goals; this demands professionalism. Moreover totally blaming the environment or the organisation for lack of good Generals is not warranted for it is this very same General who had made the others as General. Generals themselves are to be blamed for promoting mediocre Generalship. This problem is worldwide and Indian Army or the Armed Forces are no exception.

Generals who are from the combat arms during their tenure does both operational command and staff. Whereas the specified Generals of supporting arms and services departments who perform the appointment of the departmental heads and does staff in support to the operational commander or at the service or operational headquarters. Command and staff both are echeloned and pyramidal in structure. I am covering in general the General Officer Cadre both in command of a Formation or in Staff in this book ‘Generalship – All that really Matters!’ My intention is not to upturn the apple cart or criticise, but to bring out the astute Generalship imperatives which I feel must be practiced, in fact present Generals are no greenhorns but many of them lack the finesse which make an effective General. The world associates Generalship with ‘spit and polish’, ‘business of combat’ and ‘ceremonial patriarchies’, Generalship in actuality is a complex and complete leadership at directorial level which encompasses multipurpose role of a strategist, a tactician, an analyst and above all an administrator, in other words he is a ‘Absolute Leader’, this is what differentiates command of Formation and command of the Regiment. Field Marshall Lord Wavell had vividly listed out the qualifications of a General "Physical and mental robustness; calm courage and determination; character, humanity and will to win; zest for the game; common sense and knowledge; administration; commanding of forces; relations with staff, troops, and subordinate commanders and the need to communicate well with your political superiors as a necessity." In my opinion, in the present conflict environment Generalship demands more than the said listed qualities, each stratum and level of command has its uniqueness of qualifications in varied degree and level.

From Brigadier to the Chief of Army Staff are in the category of ‘General Officer’, however the skill and abilities required is very varied as the task and conduct of Generalship are different at each level. With changing environmental variables and fast pace of development in military concept of battle and technology, changing socio-economic aspects of human resources management in the Forces and geo-political changes and its associated challenges, the task of formation commanders has become more challenging. Generals have to develop acumen of skills and abilities to prove their effectiveness and capabilities.

Generalship of a Formation is a specialised job and it requires shrewdness of very high order, as the Generalship does not only involve operational command but has associated issues of battle preparedness, management of resources which includes both material and the men behind the machine, interaction with the governmental bureaucracy and policy making machinery and above all Generals have a responsibility to the society by providing policymakers i.e. the political heads with correct estimate of strategic probabilities and the demand of resources to meet all such strategic probabilities in the interest of the national security. The tenure of command of a General encompasses only two, first, is the command to prepare (i.e. peace time) and second, in command of operations (i.e. conflict/war or operations at field). From a distance it might seem to be an easy game, but once into the game it is something which is rather difficult and very demanding. People who are watching from the stands, Generalship is all about pomp and show and perks and privileges, as these are only visible. There is more behind the perceptive hallow which the people are not privy to and it is for this very reason Generalship becomes a topic of interest.

The relevance of Generalship I found is equally applicable to the corporate higher/senior management, while writing the contents even though I have given examples of military leaders and campaigns, but personal observations during my corporate innings in respect of higher/senior management has been added to make the suggestions/ recommendations more pragmatic in application, there is no denial of the fact that corporate also has lot to offer to the people in military uniform in honing the skills of higher defence management.

What I am discussing in this book are very elementary perquisites of command, basically I am aiming to highlight those issues which make Generalship matter. I am sure very many Generals will be aware of these issues, some may just gloss over and say ‘nothing is new’ and for few it will be learning Generalship. The complete endeavour is to bring out the facts as prevalent in today’s environment and is very true factually. The other aspect is that by understanding the qualification of Generalship the civil world will get an insight especially those who have dealings with Generals or the Corporate World to have perception how the higher command functions and can take clue for their own higher/senior management development.

Leadership is a potent combination of strategy and character. But if you must be without one, be without strategy

– General Norman Schwarzkopf

Chapter One

Qualifications

Before you start some work, always ask yourself three questions – Why am I doing it, what the results might be and will I be successful. Only when you think deeply and find satisfactory answers to these questions, go ahead.

- Chanakya, Indian philosopher 320 BC

Backdrop

If one goes about listing the qualification required of a General, the list will be exhaustive, as everyone will be having their own perspective, views and opinion. In my opinion the qualifications which have direct impact on the Generalship are basically two – General’s ability and General’s analytical aptitude i.e. reasoning. One must not confuse qualification with the qualities, it is the qualifications which make the General command and qualities on the other hand are the ones which move the command i.e. the Military formation which he is commanding.

The qualifications which actually make successful General are his abilities, it is the ability which makes the command get integrated with the aims/objectives and capture right command decisions, and thus it is an essential imperative. If we look into the spectrum of abilities it encompasses many issues which in itself qualify as the Generalship aptitudes in directing the command, these are very different from the leadership traits/qualities. In qualification another aspect of the ability is to reason and carry out analysis; this has been covered in a separate chapter as it is independent of the general abilities. Decision making which is the primary responsibility of a General, is very much related to this ability of reasoning.

General officers must have a vision of what future battles/conflicts will look like and what capabilities the forces requires to prevail in those battles/ conflicts, this requires not only knowledge but also competency, thus the abilities have to be developed to build the competency and make the vision happen. The abilities which I have discussed will make a huge difference in effective command, providing directions and ensure implementation of the orders. Ability development is a necessity, it is only then that acumen in abilities will get mastered. Here I would like to emphasize that abilities not only makes a General resolute but prepares him to handle the command. Chanakaya in his philosophy of king and kingdom had said "He who is prepared for the future and he who deals cleverly with any situation that may arise are both happy; but the fatalistic man who wholly depends on luck is ruined", the abilities gives correctness to the process of judgment and astuteness to opinions/views, one cannot command depending totally on providence.

The chapters of Ability and Reasoning (Analyst) cover the human angles which are important and crucial in establishing the professional entity and building sensitivity which will be handy in developing the attitude and aptitude of Generalship. What I have expressed is what I found lacking in many Generals. General Montgomery had very aptly described the ability of Generalship, I quote "The acid test of an officer who aspires to high command is his ability to be able to grasp quickly the essentials of a military problem, to decide rapidly what he will do, to make it quite clear to all concerned what he intends to achieve and how he will do it, and then to see that his subordinate commanders get on with the job." The ability gives direction and impetus to the command.

The qualifications may be very many and each of us will be having different opinions, what I will be covering are those essentials which make a good and professional General, let us not stick to the military manuals and the military precise, there are many such issues which are beyond the syllabus of command courses, which will help in establishing the authority and create an positive impact on the command and the environment.

Ability

There are only four types of officer. First, there are the lazy, stupid ones. Leave them alone, they do no harm…Second, there are the hard-working, intelligent ones. They make excellent staff officers, ensuring that every detail is properly considered. Third, there are the hard-working, stupid ones. These people are a menace and must be fired at once. They create irrelevant work for everybody. Finally, there are the intelligent, lazy ones. They are suited for the highest office.

-General Erich Von Manstein

The questions are whether some of them are born Generals or can Generalship traits be developed or do promotion systems rightfully confer true and genuine Generalship? These questions are important because competent General is really a matter of concern. The definition and the ambit of Generalship as provided by Socrates, "The General must know how to get his men their rations and every other kind of stores needed for war. He must have imagination to originate plans- practical sense and energy to carry them through. He must be: observant, untiring, shrewd, kindly and cruel, simple, and crafty, a watchman and a robber, lavish and miserly, generous and stingy, rash and conservative. All these and many other qualities both natural and acquired he must have. He should also, as a matter of course, know his tactics", therefore if we go by the definition then Generalship must have certain inborn capabilities; certain imbibed qualities, certain developed acumen and lastly on becoming a General develop certain personality traits to deal with the conferred position. The second question is the requisites as explained by Socrates, are they applicable to personal self of the General or should it be taken as qualifications and developed in the interest of the command or are they the answer to selflessness or service before self which is part of character expected from the Generalship. How many Generals follow these in their true meaning and how many of the Generals take the literary meaning and/or interpret it in their own way, are the aspects that will matter or make a difference. During the Socrates’ days Generalship was a matter of front line job and simple command of leading by example in the battle front but in today’s world the concept of continued existence matters and there are variety of Generals each having uniqueness and peculiarities which are part of their personal and concomitant command. There are true professional Generals, Generals who have been favoured, some Generals who have acquired Generalship in literal sense, some get rewarded with Generalship on platter and some who have manipulated to reach the rank of General, these are the universal categories, very one will be having different attitude and aptitude, thus importance of qualification will be different to each category. It is for this reason certain basic abilities have to be developed by all the categories.

I would not like to get into the issue and discussion of what qualities are expected from a General; one can find lot of materials in the textbooks and manuals. What is importance is the expectation by the troops under command of certain basic abilities, demand of the environment and convictions. Before getting into the Generalship there are few issues which must be addressed, first, coming out of the shackles of affiliations of units and sub units, regimentation syndrome and sentimental attachments which had been the part of the service character since the commission days and second is one must realise the term General Officer. The transition phase actually determines the seriousness in making of a General, number of Generals during this phase get influenced with the aura of the stars, car flags and privileges’ therefore a mindset gets into place, such Generals are ‘no go’ types, they hardly mend. There are some who take the profession of Generalship seriously. Skills and ability required are many and no man can include all of them, possibly it is impossible to find Generals with all the qualification but astute Generals are the one who have the ‘GO’ to master most of the art and ability of Generalship. However in some of the cases the ability and the interest of adding new ones gets so constricted, that at times the organisation regrets the promotion and it makes the environment feel that the promotion has been made below the expected level of competency. There may be, the syndrome of highfliers existing in the organisation but it is seen that on being conferred with the promotions such persons either get shot down or egotism makes them shallow or they lack depth to handle added responsibilities. Thus abilities determine the status of good and bad General.

The irony is and it is a human tendency that, every potential General feels he is the most suitable one, but the fact is that the level of confidence must commensurate with the exposure and experience of leading the men in combat and this is possible when the said Generals have been front runners as commanders at subordinate ranks. Anyone who has not been the front line commander or has been proficient unit/sub unit commander or efficient manager or a good combat tactician in the junior command ranks, should not get anywhere near the General’s rank. There are three types of character in Generalship, the first type are those who are grounded to the fundamental principles, is professional and for whom career is part of the profession, the second type is the one who are schemer but are thorough professional and is concerned only of their own career and the third type is the one who have been promoted beyond their competency level and fighting to survive. In my opinion these are three basic types, there will be many and one can list down more but each will fall within the parameters of the said three described basic character types.

Therefore the first requisite of Generalship is the ability to command and what does ability actually involves? Chanakya had described the ability as, In order to control over one’s senses, one has to be humble and modest. It is the learning that makes man humble. A ruler with an inflated ego and arrogance cannot be a good ruler. If he gets down to solving the people’s Problems, he has to become humble to succeed. With wisdom one becomes capable and Wisdom raises the quality of governance, the wisdom is the combination of theory and practice. It makes the ruler more capable and more efficient, thus ability for a General is professionalism which must have wisdom and caginess.

The idiosyncrasy attached with the rank of General to a very large extent is taken as traits which create a trade mark and type, very many Generals follow these idiosyncrasies blindly depending on the influence it had created in their perception or in order to establish their authority they ape such practises, thus one will find Generals in changed personalities on assumption of command. Therefore creating an illusion of personality through carriage of imitative characteristics is not the actual ability to command. Then what are the abilities, this is where the Generals must play their games. The ability to take stress, pressure etc are all part of OLQ (Officers Like Qualities) and has been covered in details in texts and various literatures or biographies. My attempt is not to cover all those qualities which make a good General, enough has been said about it and every General feels that he is the most deserving; this is a normal human behaviour. I am not getting into naming Generals or describing good and bad ones, I have tried to bring out certain crucial abilities which I feel all Generals must possess and is lacking in many.

Ability to Workout with the Staff

Generals realise that the pivot of their command is their Staff Officers, they alone cannot single-handedly run the formation yet some Generals think dealing with the Staff is a mundane issue. Workout with the Staff, I consider it as an ability which very few Generals give importance, most of them think that things will fall into place due to the authority of power or take on the onus on self to do the staff job or try to make do without the Staff. One cannot deny the fact that Staff is a necessity in military command; it is that immediate circle of assistants who act to translate the commander’s operational will into reality. Some Generals develop so much of faith in their Staff that they prefer to have them in all their command assignments. There are enumerable examples, take the case of General George S Patton or General Montgomery who had carried their Staff when moved to command another formation or promoted to command higher formation, these brilliant Staff Officers had made a difference in their command. Generals have blind spots and to cover these they prefer their own men, as the working compatibility and confidence are in sync. However to have his own say in selecting his staff the General has to have influence at right place. It has was observed during the World War II that such officers who had proved themselves as brilliant Staff Officers and who had come up from such favoured placement and assured progression from their General, when promoted to become a General have not been fair to their Staff, this was due to the complex ‘me then and you now’, such attitude in General brought stagnation in performance of the Staff and very few of such Generals have been successful in command. Generals both who have not been (this is very rare!) and who have been in staff, must have ability to be compatible with their staff when in active command of a Formation.

If the General is influential then he can select his primary Staff but for a General who is not that fortunate he has to make do with the posted Staff. I have seen, staff appointments being or had been swapped unofficially under internal arrangement, like Colonel Administration made to do the job of Colonel General Staff, the said General in his wisdom had found that by doing so he is able to meet his requirements; such arrangements questions the General’s ability to workout with his posted Staff, he must have the ability to patronise his Staff. There are enumerable examples in the military history where posted Staff performing brilliantly due to the influence of the personality of the able General. The Staff Officers must be considered as close associates to the General who act to translate the commander’s operational will into reality thus they are important part of the command. I agree that most of the Generals are not fortunate with their Staff placement and have to make do with Military Secretary’s Branch (MS Branch) postings/appointments. There have been cases when Generals were denied their choice of Staff Officers on whom they heavily relied upon, failed in their command. From the military history and biographies of Generals I have taken some of the observations on tactful handling of their Staff, there may be many but in my view few essential ones which make a difference, I am listing these down:-

   Never do yourself when someone is there to do it for you, develop faith and trust on the Staff. Give your intention and let Staff give the output. There will be more fit Staff than unfits. Never be whimsical as this makes the fit to look out for change. Unfit are great managers and will get their place adjusted through pulls and pressure, to be pressure free they must be removed or helped to get themselves moved out.

   Establish personal relationship and do not interfere with matter of minor details.

   ‘Right man for the Right Job’ is rare as the Staff posting is based on the profile maintained by the Army Headquarters; the probability of adjustment does always exist. Make him fit well into the team.

   Encourage those who do not hesitate to disagree. A very rare quality in a Staff Officer and if the General has someone with this temperament he is lucky.

   General’s individual talent in staff work provides scope of improvement and setting of standards. Create compatibility through improvement.

   Clear defining of the General’s vision and intentions and explicit road map of implementation, the refinement aspect must be left to the Staff. This enables understanding of the vision and intentions.

   Tenacity and obstinacy need to be regulated, give scope to Staff to be genuine, innovative and experiment with your temperament/ intensions. The General must have ability to discern correctly between tenacity and obstinacy in the Staff, this will help in control of Staff outlook and temperament.

   Decentralisation of the control and latitude of freedom of action. Hovering over the Staff is detrimental.

   Train the Staff as per your requirement. Command function is a process that is progressive and continuous. The General unaided cannot do this properly. He must have a close circle of functional assistants and train them to fulfil his command obligations.

   Lastly, to quote Field Marshal A P Wavell and what he rightfully said about the General and Staff "I will give you two simple rules which every General should observe: first, never to try to do his own staff work; and secondly, never to let his Staff get between him and his troops."

Lucky are those Generals who have ability to pull the string at right place in choosing competent and like-minded Staff. Some Generals have the privilege of having their own selected Staff and the said Staff had been instrumental in making the General successful. However such privileges are exceptions. The ability to workout with the posted Staff is an art. The General has to work on developing this art to workout with his Staff, thus on taking over command he must make himself very clear of his functional attributes and expected response to achieve the compatibility, General must clearly spell out his:-

   Vision: This is the command will or one can say operational will; this must include the complete gambit of the command. Vision can be continuation of the predecessors’ efforts or a value addition to the existing concepts or introduction of new vision. Vision encompasses giving meaning to the plans, identification of the target objective, integration of efforts and exploiting the appropriateness of relative ground imperatives and situations obtainable in relation to the desired objective. Generals must have a vision of what future conflicts will look like and what capabilities are required to prevail in those conflicts, the basic aim must be to develop a strategy for victory. The prospects of the idea of the vision and its adequacy, relative importance of the fields on which the vision have to rely upon and synthesis of the environment which is directly related to the vision are some of the issues which warrant consideration. The staffs are the one who facilitates in building of the vision. General who has a good Chief of Staff/ Deputy is lucky, there has to be someone who is capable in reining the wild ideas. Professionalism is must; the question of vision and the occupancy is very important to make the vision a reality, it gets sacrificed when Generals are more concerned with their tenure and the next assignment.

   Road Map to Make the Vision a Reality: This is unfolding of the vision. It is not only a visualisation but also the realisation of the actual or creating an environment of acceptability or getting the ultimate objective to be achieved through practical application of the vision, which matters. Important aspect is going through with the vision irrespective of difficulties/hindrances. Actually the steering of vision which is in control of the General but the vehicle to actualisation of the vision as such is Staff dependent. It a challenging task to steer the Staff through the vision. One thing the General must be very clear, that is vision must be within the dynamics of the professionalism and meet the overall aim or the purpose of the command. What is important here is eye for details and evaluations of option and decision in mapping the pathway? One more aspect the General has to ensure is that the vision should be within the ambit of the achievability and if it is not so then Staff will themselves be ambiguous and tentative in their approach. Idiosyncrasies must be avoided as genuine professional vision never can be on whims and fancies. This is where most of the Generals go wrong! Lack of prudency of vision will create loss of direction and bring uncertainty; it is like when men under command are yet to shoot the ball straight one changes or shifts the goal post? The leader has to be practical and a realist yet must talk the language of the visionary and the idealist said Eric Hoffer American Philosopher, this is what the Generals have to ensure when mapping the pathway of the vision. To achieve the vision one must have confidence on their staff.

   Intents: Vision gives out the intension and this must be made very clear to the Staff. Fads are never intentions; this is where most of the Generals err. Intention is your operational will. General has to make his intentions as well as the priorities very clear. There has to be sincerity in the intentions as this brings sincerity in the Staff. Intentions cannot be prejudicial nor have any favoured biases. This definitely must percolate to the Staff, Chief of Staff/Deputy who are very important element of command, here I would like to quote General JFC Fuller As a battalion commander is given a second-in-command, who should be his understudy and not an administrative hen brooding over the headquarter eggs, so should every commander in war, from Brigadier upwards to General-in-Chief, be given an executive second-in-command, who being able to replace him at any moment, will enable him to spend a far greater time than he can with his troops, it is they who synthesise the intention with the ground realities, if they are weak and is ‘yes sir’ type then intentions will be get distant away from the operational will. To quote Sun Tzu from his Art of War, he had explicitly made it clear that the requirement of understanding the importance of honesty of purpose and clarity of intentions are important, he said "There are three ways in which a Ruler can bring misfortune upon his army: By commanding the army to advance or to retreat, being ignorant of the fact that it cannot obey; this is called hobbling the army. By attempting to govern an army in the same way as he administers a kingdom, being ignorant of the conditions which obtain in an army; this causes restlessness in the soldier’s mind. By employing the officers of his army without discrimination, through ignorance of the military principle of adaptation to circumstances; this shakes the confidence of the soldiers". Thus intentions of the General have to be in consonance and true to the professional proficiency of the Formation. When this is there the intension gets linked well with the vision and Staff in that case is synchronised with the General’s intention.

   Progressive Thinking: It must be very clear to the General that no two wars are alike and there can be no template in the operational art, the best example is the French debacle in World War II as the French Generals were in the fallacy of working operational plans based on the concept of the last battle i.e. World War I and had their battle management tuned accordingly. The German blitzkrieg on the other hand was just the opposite; idea was to change the concept of warfare. Most convenient way to command is follow the handing/taking over scripts and the war plans, in this eventuality the Staff is also comfortable as all inputs are readymade and no extra effort are required.