Chapter XVII: Section II: Determination of Suitable, Feasible, and Acceptable Courses of Action

A. Analysis of the Assigned Objective.

In order further to clarify the problem, consideration of the commander's courses of action may profitably commence with an analysis (page 53) of the assigned objective. Section I-A contained an appreciation of this objective on the basis of the salient features of the situation. A close examination is now possible in the light of the additional information furnished by the full details (Section I-B) as to the means available and opposed, and as to the characteristics of the theater (page 121).

Accordingly, the mission (page 121), is now again stated, and is restudied. The task is thoughtfully examined anew, in view of the forces and positions now known. The purpose is scrutinized with equal care, because it indicates the further end in view for the common effort. Now, obstacles to success which, in Section I-A, could not fully be appreciated can be examined against the background afforded by visualization of the enemy's ability to oppose the attainment of the assigned objective.

This analysis calls for such discussion by the commander as is essential to better understanding of his assigned objective. Some restatement and repetition may be desirable as to the subjects already discussed under the appreciation of the assigned objective. In solving certain types of problems, where simple estimates, only, are required, there may be no necessity for further treatment. Even in these cases, however, the commander restates his mission in this subsection, in order to ensure a clear comprehension of its task and purpose, as a sound basis for his further solution of the problem.

B. Survey of Courses of Action.

The Fundamental Military Principle (page 41) represents an equation (page 23) based on five factors: the appropriate effect desired, the means available, the means opposed, the characteristics of the theater, and the consequences as to costs. Of these five factors, all but the last (the consequences as to costs) have by this time, in the course of the estimate, been assigned values as definite as the commander's information and his study permit.

From this point on, the problem is to evolve tentative solutions (courses of action) and to test them (page 98), severally, by reference to the factors. The tests as to suitability and feasibility can now be made with reference to the known factors. The test as to acceptability of the consequences involves an unknown factor. However, for each tentative solution of the problem, a value can be assigned for this factor, because all five factors are interdependent (pages 32 and following), so that the value of any of them can be set by a study of the others. It is through this procedure that evaluation of the consequences factor is accomplished (an application of the corollary Principle of the Acceptable Consequences as to Costs, page 35).

By means of the standard tests, the several tentative solutions are also compared to each other in the light of envisaged enemy action, so as to enable the commander to select the best solution.

* * * * *

The commander now, as a result of his reflective thinking as to courses of action, makes a list of those which he has visualized for himself. There may be one course of action, or many; ordinarily there are several.

Examples of courses of action have been given in the basic discussion of the subject (pages 89 and 92). In listing his courses, the commander can add to clarity of thought and of expression by visualizing the objective embodied in each course and by envisaging also, the action, expressed in proper detail, for its attainment. This process is naturally the more important when the objective is inferred rather than specifically expressed, and when the action involved calls for more description than can be obtained merely by stating the objective.

For example, the commander may include a course of action such as "to raid enemy trade in the area EFGH". The objective is here inferred; it is not clearly stated. The commander may therefore be well advised to add a notation of what the objective is; indeed, more than one objective may be involved. Objectives thus inferred might include, when specifically stated, the infliction of damage on enemy trade, the infliction of damage on enemy combatant forces protecting such trade, the disruption of enemy supply arrangements, or such others as may be applicable.

This clear visualization is essential to the establishment of the relationship between the assigned objective and the objective inherent in the course of action (page 89). If, for instance, the motivating task is to "divert enemy forces to the area EFGH", the commander may consider the course of action "to raid enemy trade in area EFGH". By infliction of damage to, and by disruption of, enemy supply (objectives of his raiding), he expects to accomplish the diversion of enemy forces to the area EFGH, because the enemy will wish to protect his trade against such raids. The relationship between the assigned objective and the objective inferred in the course of action is thus made clear.

With regard to expression of the action to be taken, the commander may properly desire to be more explicit than by merely saying, for example, "to destroy the enemy". Here the objective is clear (it is "the destruction of the enemy"), but the expression of the action is so general that additional description may be needed. Examples of more explicit statement have been given previously (page 89).

On occasion the higher commander may predetermine the commander's course of action for the attainment of the objective assigned to the latter. Circumstances under which such procedure may be properly applicable, and the effect which it has on the commander's estimate, have been previously discussed (page 86).

C. Application of Tests for Suitability, Feasibility, and Acceptability.

The courses of action which the commander has envisaged are now subjected to test (page 98). This essential stage in thought is intended to put the courses of action to proof as tentative solutions of the problems. The principle here recognized is that suggestion has no logical nor rightful claim upon action or belief until it has received adequate confirmation. Such confirmation is, in part, provided by these tests.

The tests applied are for suitability, for feasibility, and for acceptability as to consequences. Each of these tests is a separate one. Each course of action is formally subjected to test. When the tests are completed, the courses of action stand classified in these respects. During these tests, some courses of action may be rejected; such are then omitted in the final classification.

These formal tests are not to be confused with the preliminary tests already given by the commander to each course of action as it occurs to mind. Necessarily, there is such a preliminary test, because the commander does not wish to entertain inappropriate courses of action. For a competent commander, the mental power to envisage solutions of a military problem is so much grounded in experience that appropriate suggestions are most likely to occur; in fact, discriminating thought with respect to military problems is natural for such a commander. This immediate discrimination is, however, merely the preliminary test. It prevents setting up wooden soldiers only to knock them down, but it does not necessarily subject each suggested solution to a thorough analysis.

The commander may apply the tests to each course of action as it occurs to his mind. This procedure, however, may be rendered impossible by the fertility of suggestion; perhaps the commander has thought of several courses of action practically simultaneously. It is, therefore, often better to apply the tests to all of the courses of action, in turn, during a separate stage of the process of thinking. This is the procedure indicated herein, as standard, by the sequence of steps in this section of the Estimate. The process of testing, itself, may bring to mind those combinations of courses of action previously referred to (page 93).

The degree of formality characteristic of the tests varies with the nature of the problem. In a broad strategical estimate, these tests may be searching and extensive; they may then consume much time. Yet, if the commander, in making a quick decision of great urgency in actual battle, does not apply the tests, he may adopt a course of action leading to tragic results. In such circumstances, the competent commander, under pressure of danger, grasps the whole complex situation without loss of time. He is not carried away by any chance impressions. He does not overlook what is significant in the unexpected event. Because he is mentally prepared for the exercise of command (page 114) he sees things in their true proportions (page 4). In immediate response, he coolly chooses the same course of action which he would adopt if he had time for careful deliberation.

In making the tests, the commander rejects courses of action found unsuitable in that they will not, if successfully prosecuted, contribute to the attainment of the objective. He does not, as yet, reject courses of action found to be promising of only partial accomplishment of the task, because there may be later possibilities of effecting combinations to this end.

The commander also rejects, at this point, courses of action found to be infeasible of accomplishment. He is careful, however, not to reject, abruptly, any which may later be found to be feasible in combination with other courses.

Similarly, the commander now rejects courses of action found to involve excessive consequences as to costs. Here, again, however, he bears in mind the possibilities of later combinations.

The commander does not, as yet, make a selection of one course of action in preference to another. He merely desires to restrict further thought, toward his Decision, to those which are found, on the basis of the estimate so far, to be suitable, feasible, and acceptable. He may, however, make a selection to the extent of effecting proper combinations whose applicability has already been demonstrated.

The commander also takes stock, at this stage of the estimate, of the relative degree of suitability, feasibility, and acceptability of retained courses, so far as can be substantiated.

D. Listing Retained Courses of Action.

The foregoing process indicates to the commander the courses of action which may properly be retained as suitable, as feasible, and as acceptable. He therefore draws up a list of retained courses and classifies them according to the degree of their suitability, of their feasibility, and of their acceptability with respect to consequences.

This list does not necessarily represent the final combinations of courses of action; the incomplete solutions may yet become part of the course of action finally selected. Also it is not impossible that combinations already made will subsequently be recombined as a result of further analysis.

It may be apparent to the commander at this time that he does not have, as yet, any course of action which fulfills the test of suitability as to scope, either originally or by combination. A later conclusion is made (Section V) as to final combinations to achieve full scope. This conclusion, however, may point the way, as later observed, to a Decision adopting an objective short of that which would, if achieved, lead to the accomplishment of the motivating task.