PRINCIPLES OF COMMAND
By Rear Admiral Lloyd H. Chandler, U. S. Navy
Knowledge of the Principles of Higher Command Higher Command
By the expression higher command the present writer understands is meant the larger activities pertaining to the duties of a commander-in-chief or of other officers still higher in military authority, but it is difficult to make an exact differentiation and state definitely just what activities pertain to higher and what to ordinary command. Beyond a doubt, however, the creation of broad general plans: strategic, tactical, administrative, of organization, etc., are attributes of higher command. Perhaps an understandable rough dividing line may be indicated by saying that such general plans are comprised within the functions of the higher command as are created and as a whole retained by the officer creating them and by his superiors in office; portions and details only being transmitted to subordinates from time to time, and perhaps in different form, as it becomes necessary for such subordinates to carry them out. Again, it may be said that the functions of higher command are those which have no counterpart within the sphere of the subordinate; such, for instance, as the organization of a fleet composed of forces of different types, or as the making of strategic plans for a campaign or tactical plans for a battle. The definition is far from perfect, however, for while the commander of a battleship force, for example, has no problem of organizing a fleet composed of different types, still he has, or should have, a large voice in organizing a force of ships of the same type into administrative and tactical units, etc.; a task not essentially dissimilar in principle from that of his senior. Similarly, such higher subordinate commander may be called upon at any time to command a detached force on independent detached duty, and then the organization of the task forces and the preparing of plans fall upon him.
So, while the above discussion is illustrative, it is perhaps wisest to avoid attempting any definition and to say in general terms that the phrase higher command includes the greater and more important activities of officers of high rank. Accepting this general definition, it may be said that the principles underlying the conduct of the higher command are those which underlie every sort of command, from the highest to the lowest, but that it is the higher command that calls for the fullest knowledge of all the principles of command, and for the most exact, careful, and effective application of them all.
PLAN MAKING
While plan making is of course an essential preliminary to every well-conceived and well-executed activity, the term is nevertheless generally employed in our vernacular as implying the preparation of plans of campaign for actual war or for maneuvers in preparation for war. For the former purpose a Planning Section has been established in the Division of Operations, Navy Department, and in this section plans are formulated for possible campaigns and thereafter kept up to date according to latest information received and to follow possible changes in policy by ourselves and by possible enemies and friends. Supposedly in close conjunction with this section would work the officers in higher command afloat; those who would be charged with the execution of such plans should the occasion arise. To prepare officers for such planning duty the War College is maintained, where officers are taught, not the best methods alone, but, what should be the same, the accepted standard methods for doing this work. Considering the making of plans as a mission, the War College trains the necessary personnel for carrying on this work, and the Planning Section actually carries it on by means of the personnel trained by the War College.
Not only must the high command officers necessarily take the part indicated in the work of the Planning Section, but they must, each in his own sphere, carry out the lesser plan making necessary for employing the fleet or its units for the purpose of carrying out the greater plan. And so it runs down through many leading subordinates—plans within plans! The great general plan involves separate, although coordinated activities for the several higher subordinates; the particular plan of each such subordinate involves another lesser plan by each of his immediate leading subordinates, etc., and this continues until it becomes unnecessary for the final subordinate reached to draw up a written plan. Thus a plan of campaign issues from the Department the commander-in-chief draws up and issues his plans to his force commanders, who in turn transmit these orders, or else prepare their own plans and instructions, and issue them to their commanding officers. In most cases the mission of a ship in a division is merely to carry out orders received as they are received, and at that point the preparation and issuance of special written orders ceases as a-rule to be necessary; such matters are properly covered by standing orders and regulations of the fleet and ships. It is therefore apparent that all these plans should be drawn up in the same general manner and in accordance with the same general line of thought, in order that, taken together, they may form an effective and consistent whole. Hence we see that in planning, as well as in execution, indoctrination, mutual understanding, and co-operation are of vital importance. And it will no doubt be readily granted that the detailed methods of doing this work, the mechanics of it, so to speak, must necessarily be the same in all cases if we wish to avoid friction and misunderstanding.
Passing from the higher plan making of actual war, we come to that of simulated war; that is, of maneuvers. The process is the same in this case, and it is only necessary to point out in regard to it that maneuvers are not only for the purpose of exercising the fleet, etc., but are essentially a means for exercising the higher officers in coordinated effort in the plan making branch of their profession.
Further down still, we have the plan making necessary for carrying on the daily peace time activities of the fleet; in its highest form represented by the Navy and Fleet Regulations, Standing Orders, etc., all of which must at times be supplemented by special orders covering special contingencies. The more nearly the methods adopted in this work follow those taught for the higher plan making, within reasonable and common sense limits, the more highly effective will be the work of the fleet and of the several units composing it.
STAFF WORK
The staff is the personnel which carries on the personal work of the officer in high command. Reference has been made to the mechanics of plan making, and as in that case, so also in every other activity, there must be certain mechanics of operation whereby the will of the commander is made known to and enforced upon his command. It is the duty of the officers of the staff to operate such mechanics effectively: they are concerned in all work done by the officer in high command, from the most important, the making of war plans, to the least important. His mind creates theirs provide the detailed means for carrying out his conceptions, and they personally perform the incidental labor. It therefore goes without saying that the more highly educated are the staff officers in this particular class of work, other things being equal, the more effective is the work of the commander—a strong reason for the establishment of a school for prospective staff officers.
Not only are the staff officers concerned in the larger affairs of the fleet, but in one way or another, to a greater or lesser degree, their influence pervades and their actions affect almost every fleet activity, even the least. It is therefore necessary that such officers should possess in the highest possible degree all the qualities necessary to enable them to play their part in these lesser things, as well as in the greater, without creating friction or discord, and to the betterment of the fleet and the up-building of morale and efficiency; in a word, a good staff officer is one who in a high degree himself possesses all the qualities necessary for the efficient exercise of command.
Knowledge of How To Acquire Knowledge
A most important requisite in the way of knowledge is the possession of the knowledge of how to acquire knowledge. At the Naval Academy (and the same is true of all schools and colleges in civil life, although in a lesser degree at the more advanced technical schools, colleges, and universities where the students are as a rule of more mature years) our prospective graduates, in our case prospective naval officers, spend a certain limited number of years of study in trying to cover the fundamental groundwork of a knowledge for the reasonable acquirement of which a lifetime of hard study is all too short. In the nature of things, then, the work at the Naval Academy must be extremely elementary and incomplete. That institution does all that it can hope to do if it teaches the midshipmen before graduation:
- What branches of knowledge exists that are requisite or useful to a naval officer.
- What the general nature of each such branch of knowledge is, and upon what general principles it is based.
- From what sources knowledge in regard to each particular branch may be obtained.
- How to gain such knowledge from these sources; that is, how to study effectively.
- The desire to acquire knowledge, and a realization of the necessity for doing so.
- In what way, in general, knowledge in each such branch will be useful to a naval officer, and how to start out to learn to apply it effectively in actual life.
Summarized, this means that an undergraduate education can do little more than furnish the student with an index of knowledge and a desire to further explore the field, together with some information as to how to conduct such explorations. Very little can be taught the undergraduate as to how to actually use knowledge that ability can only come through further and deeper study, and as the result of experience. Some never realize this—and fail. Some realize it sooner and some later, and the later the realization comes, the harder it is to catch up. And the older a thoughtful officer grows the more fully he realizes that, struggle as he may, his actual knowledge will always be far, far less in proportion to the whole field to be covered than he would desire it to be. At times this realization may bring discouragement, but when this feeling manifests itself the solace lies in the appreciation of the fact that all others are in a like predicament, and that what brings success is not the amount of knowledge possessed expressed as a percentage of the whole field that ought to be covered, but whether that percentage of knowledge is higher than that possessed by one's competitors and, more important still, by one's possible adversaries.
CHARACTER, WHICH INCLUDES THE POWER TO USE ABILITY
Character in General
From the several dictionaries that are accepted as standard, combining those detailed definitions that are pertinent to our present subject, we may for our present purposes deduce the following definition:
Character—The combination of qualities distinguishing any person or class of persons; the aggregate of distinctive mental and moral qualities belonging to an individual or race as a whole; the individuality that is the product of nature, education, habits, and environment; highly developed or strongly marked mental or moral qualities; individuality, especially as distinguished by moral excellence; good mental or moral condition. Character is what one is; reputation is what one is thought to be.
From this definition we see that when we say that a man is of a character suitable for command, we mean that he possesses to a satisfactory degree certain mental and moral qualities; and, as a general expression of these qualities, we may say that they are:
- Ability, and the power to use it
- Strength, mental, moral, and physical.
- Justness.
- Tact.
These four qualities will each be discussed separately, although it will be seen that there is no clearly cut line between them. The word ability has heretofore been employed as meaning knowledge and the technical skill to use it, and we now refer to the power to use ability, that is, to the element in character which furnishes the driving power that makes ability useful; which, in the last analysis, becomes a matter of strength of will and of character.
From a military and naval point of view we must also recognize the fact that, theoretically at least, the character of an individual may be regarded from two entirely distinct points of view first, as to his possession of the qualities which will make him a successful commander in a military organization and in military organizations and in military operations; and, second, as to what kind of an individual he is personally apart from his powers of command. In theory we can conceive of an individual who himself, in his immediate character, might be anything but an admirable character or honorable person, but who might nevertheless succeed to a high degree as a military commander. We therefore see that in our consideration of this topic we must recognize the existence of two theoretically separate entities, which are:
Military character, which may be defined as that phase of character which directly affects one's ability as a military commander, and
Personal character, which is that phase of character which affects the personality of the individual as a man, but which does not directly affect his ability as a military commander.
Of course there can be no such abstract separation; there is hardly any quality in a man's general character that would not directly affect both his military and his personal character. Rodney was a great naval commander, but a man of more than doubtful personal character, and in considering his case, as well as in that of many others, it has been found essential to satisfactory description and discussion to make at least a partial division of the character of the individual under the two headings given above.
MILITARY CHARACTER
The man who possesses high military character is therefore one in whom are to be found developed to a high degree the elements of character that directly and favorably affect his ability to command. It is difficult to set forth comprehensively and clearly what these elements may be, but a fair estimate may be made by stating the following qualities must be present in a high degree:
Balance—symmetry of mind; poise; evenness of mind.
Accuracy—exactitude; preciseness; ability of mind to receive impressions, assimilate them, and act upon them correctly.
Judgment—discrimination; nice perception; appreciation of difference; discernment; acuteness; penetration; wisdom sapience; common sense; rationality; enlarged (broad) views; wisdom in action; prudence; foresight; ability to differentiate between the practicable and the impracticable.
Quickness—acuteness of mind; ability of mind to receive impressions, assimilate them, and act upon them rapidly.
Caution—prudence; discretion; circumspection; foresight; vigilance; coolness; self-possession; presence of mind; watchfulness; not to be confused with timidity.
Stability—perseverance; firmness; constancy; steadiness; singleness of purpose; tenacity of purpose; persistence; patience; pertinacity.
Resolution—determination; will; decision; strength of mind strength of will; firmness; stability; energy; manliness; vigor courage—mental, moral and physical; zeal; devotedness; self-control; self-possession; self-reliance; self-government; self-restraint; self-denial; strength; perseverance; tenacity.
Courage—absence of fear; valor; resoluteness; boldness; spirit; daring; gallantry; intrepidity; contempt of danger; defiance of danger; audacity; dash; confidence; self-reliance; manliness; manhood; nerve; mettle; hardihood; fortitude; firmness; stability; resolution; prowess; willingness to take risks when necessary.
Imagination—originality; inventiveness; inspiration.
Activity—life; spirit; dash; energy; quickness; alacrity; promptitude; expedition; punctuality; eagerness; zeal; ardor earnestness; industry; vigor; devotion; assiduity; painstaking energy; diligence; perseverance; vigilance.
Ability to inspire—power of rousing and inspiring others.
Initiative—power to act correctly on impulse generated within one's self.
Integrity—justice; justness; equity; impartiality; constancy; faithfulness; fidelity; loyalty; incorruptibility; trustworthiness; singleness of heart.
These numerous synonyms have been arranged as far as may be under the several heads indicated, but it will be noticed that they all more or less run together; that they all have more or less in common; which means, what we all know to be a fact, that character is a composite quality in which the elements have been fused into a common whole, and not a mere mechanical mixture in which the many components have simply mingled without changing one another's character.
It will also be noted at once that practically every quality enumerated, if possessed in too high a degree, becomes not a virtue, not a desirable quality, but a fault in character; thus stability and resolution, if carried to excess, become obstinacy; courage pushed to an extreme; rashness, etc.
Of the qualities enumerated, that which the layman expects to find most strongly developed in an officer is courage, and this characteristic is therefore worthy of some special discussion, especially as that same layman is more than apt to think that, if an officer possesses mere physical courage, it is all that need be expected or required. To the civilian mind mere personal courage is very likely to cover a multitude of sins; but, while physical courage is of course a necessity in every man who is to take part in the operations of war, it is, unfortunately, far from being all that is required, or, for a man in high command, even the most important requisite; unfortunately, because of all forms of courage, mere personal bravery and disregard of danger are about the easiest qualities to find in men. There are two kinds of courage; physical courage, and moral courage or courage of the mind.
There are also two kinds of physical courage: first, that which is possessed by a man who by nature knows not fear; and, second, that shown by a man who, knowing fear, still shows personal bravery. Among the. synonyms for courage that have been enumerated, we have two: contempt of danger and defiance of danger; the first phrase may well represent the courage of the man who knows not fear, and the second that of the man who, knowing fear, still shows bravery. While there are many who do not know fear, still their number is doubtless inconsiderable compared to that of those who show bravery in spite of their natural fears. It is not necessary to decide the question as to which of two such men is the more truly brave; but it may be pointed out that the first may have little or no moral or mental courage at all (as was Benedict Arnold), whereas the personal bravery of the second is based purely on such qualities of mind and soul. Also, the man who is contemptuous of danger, who naturally does not know what fear is, is more apt to be over-courageous; rash, lacking in judgment; than is he who, knowing danger and perhaps feeling fear, nevertheless defies it and carries on his duties bravely and unhesitatingly, because of his high sense of duty, honor, and love of country, or other cause. The courageous man, who yet appreciates and reflects on danger and prepares himself to meet it, is the one who produces valuable results, while the rash and over courageous man performs acts of which it may be truly said: "C'est magnifique; mais ce n'est pas la guerre."
Personal courage, the power to defy personal danger, is a common virtue, however, and never was this more conclusively shown than by the matter of fact way in which officers and men, very many of them absolutely green to the service and to sea life, went about their duties at sea during the late war, most of them in fear, no doubt, but all, almost without exception, in nonchalant disregard of the ever present submarine peril. Fear of the submarines no doubt existed in most hearts, but it led to vigilance and care, and not to fright or cowardice. So mere physical courage is the least uncommon form of that quality; the one which we can always count upon, barring low morale or some sudden temporary panic generally resulting from such lower resisting powers. Harder to find are the men who possess moral and mental courage; the strength of character and will that enables them to assume and bear responsibility in times of stress and danger; and this quality is absolutely necessary in an officer who is to exercise the higher command. And not only must such commander have this moral courage and strength of character, but he must also be able to bear equably and without detriment to his other qualities, the strain that responsibility throws upon him. Unless he can do this with a confident bearing, concealing any doubts and fears that may beset him, he cannot expect to maintain the confidence and morale of his force. Napoleon almost without exception failed to find admirals who possessed this most necessary quality: "poltroon of mind, though not of heart," he called one of them.
PERSONAL CHARACTER
Personal character is that phase of character which exerts no direct influence, or no influence at all, upon the ability of the individual as a military commander. Probity in financial affairs, morality in the limited and technical sense of the word, etc., may be mentioned as the most prominent features of personal character. Even temper, a sympathetic disposition, etc., are other such qualities. With the personal qualities of the individual, so long as they are strictly personal only, we have little to do, but so rare is it the case that personal character does not markedly affect military character, that in our estimation of any individual we must consider personal as well as military character, and in education, training, environment, and in governing the formation of habit, we must give great attention to the creation of high personal as well as high military character.
RECIPROCAL EFFECT OF MILITARY AND PERSONAL CHARACTER UPON EACH OTHER
We have just noted that military and personal character cannot really be separated; that one affects the other. Therefore if we wish to build up one we must build up the other. In the definition we find that character, among other things, is the individuality which is the product of nature, education, habits, and environment. That is, in each individual, nature provides, congenitally, a certain field for development; and the resultant character depends, first, upon the qualities inherent from birth, and, second, upon education, habits, and environment. Now these last three forces must be applied to the individual as a whole; they cannot touch the formation of military character without touching that of personal character as well; and from this fact flows the reasoning that prompts us to safeguard the personal character of the recruit and of the younger officer and midshipman; to educate them generally as well as in strictly naval matters, and to guard their environment and their formation of habits. A bad personal habit must reproduce itself in some form in military habits; a poor environment as to personal character will lead to poor personal habits, which will in turn surely become incorporated into the military habits of the individual. The sin of personal laziness is perhaps typical of this process; natural disposition and environment create this bad personal habit, and this very soon becomes transmuted into military sin of lack of zeal and industry and its kindred faults.
No better examples of the effect of personal character upon military character can be given than those of Rodney and Nelson. For a full analysis of these cases see Mahan's Types of Naval Officers for the former and Life of Nelson for the latter. It is enough to say here that Rodney allowed his personal interest in certain financial transactions to seriously affect his performance of duty as an officer; whereas Nelson in a marked degree, in his earlier days at least, subordinated all personal considerations to the demands of duty, even at much cost and trouble to himself. In his later days Nelson, under the evil influence that more or less controlled him, showed in himself a similar difference, as contrasted with the Nelson of the earlier days.
REMARKS ON THE QUALITIES OF MILITARY CHARACTER
While space does not permit the effort to illustrate the need for each of the qualities enumerated as requisite for high military character, some few discursive comments and illustrations will not be without interest, and it is hoped may be permitted.
Of all the qualities of mind enumerated, which, if any, can be said to be the most important? There can be no positive answer to this question, any more than there can be to the query as to whether the motive power or the armament of a ship is the most important; but in considering it there is to the writer a strong temptation to say that, given other qualities in a reasonable degree, quickness, or rather, accurate quickness, is of the first importance for a naval officer with a slow mind is an annoyance to himself and a thorn in the flesh to his seniors.
An excellent example of proper stability of mind was shown by Admiral Togo during the Russo-Japanese war, while he was waiting in the Straits of Tsushima for the arrival of the second Russian fleet. When that fleet was very slow in arriving and when his scouts failed to find it as anticipated, there was very, strong pressure brought to bear upon him from others, many of them of very high rank (doubtless his own mind also strongly urged him in the same direction) to act on the assumption that the enemy had gone to sea with a view to approaching Vladivostok through the Straits of Tsugaru, thus avoiding the Japanese fleet at Tsushima. Togo withstood all such pressure, feeling that his estimate that the Russians would pass through the Sea of Japan must be right, and while not neglecting other precautions, he clung firmly to the belief that seemed to him to be logical and right, with results that are known to the world.
STRENGTH OF CHARACTER
In our consideration of character were enumerated many qualities of mind and soul that are essentials of high military character. Looking back again at those essentials we see that they represent in general: first, the high impulse from within that tells an officer wherein his duty lies and inspires within him the desire to perform that duty to the highest possible degree; and, second, the driving power or force which enables him to move steadfastly and resistlessly in response to the call of duty thus presented to him. In some lights the terms strength of character and high military character may be regarded as synonymous, but again there is a fine shade of difference in definitions. High military character involves strength of character, it is true, but it might perhaps be justly argued that in high military character there are other elements than strength. Be that as it may, there is no doubt that strength of character involves the strength to decide correctly and in accordance with the highest dictates of honor and patriotism, and therewith the power to carry out and enforce the decisions thus made. And this power must be of a two-fold nature, for not only must an officer have within himself the power to carry out his decisions by causing his subordinates to think and act loyally and effectively in accordance with his will and purpose, but he must be able to achieve also the often far more difficult victory of driving himself along the path of duty. No doubt habit, training, every instinct of an officer, will lead him along the path of duty, but even to the strongest and best there come times of inertness, of lethargy, of discouragement, of hesitancy and doubt; of what not enemies to strength and vigor times when the temptation to relax effort, to avoid decision, to aim something short of one's full duty, is almost overpowering. It is in these moments that strength of character comes to the rescue; for then its possessor, buoyed up by the power and spirit that are within him, moves unswervingly along the path of duty, and what is equally important and perhaps even harder—for he who holds high command is necessarily a lonely soul in his moments of extreme trial—does it calmly and quietly, and with a smiling and unwavering face and bearing, in order that none about him may perceive the doubts that are within. This is strength of character in its military sense at its best; and without it no man can hope for success in high command.
PHYSICAL STRENGTH, AND ITS EFFECT UPON STRENGTH OF CHARACTER
From what has just been said of the need of strength of character it will necessarily be seen that physical strength is a very great asset also, for it is well-nigh impossible for any man to make the efforts of mind and will just described if he be at the same time struggling with physical weakness, and physical weakness is therefore more than apt to affect strength of mind and of character unfavorably. Some historical examples, notably that of Nelson, are often cited to show that a man can be a great commander; can possess great strength of mind and of character; even though lacking in physical strength, or even when actually the victim of almost constant physical suffering. This is no doubt true, but we must certainly consider such cases as very exceptional. And who can know to what degree his physical weakness may have been responsible for the not infrequent shortcomings of Nelson in both judgment and action? Also, as history does not record them as great, who can say how many and what men, otherwise well qualified to command, failed because of physical infirmities and of their effect upon their character and powers? There are cases in which men who have already proved themselves great have in their actions shown the result upon their strength of character of physical infirmity due to age. One of these was Lord Howe, a man noted for his strength and equanimity of character, at the time of his great battle of June 1, 1794, at which time he was sixty-eight years of age. This battle was fought after four days and nights of almost continuous maneuvering, with several partial engagements, during which the English attempted to gain the weather gage originally held by the French, and succeeded, and during which Lord Howe was unable to get any rest except such as could be taken in an arm-chair. By the time the battle ended he was utterly exhausted and had to be helped to his cabin, and failed to follow up his victory to the utmost; being encouraged in this failure by his chief of staff. In narrating the events of this action Mahan speaks of this, and infers that it would undoubtedly have been Lord Howe's impulse to pursue had not his physical infirmities practically disabled him for the moment. Speaking of this, Mahan says:
"…In truth, it was impossible for Howe to purpose otherwise (than to pursue). Having been continuously what he was in his prime, it could not be that he would not intend, with all the force of his will, to persevere to the utmost in the duty before him. The faithfulness of a lifetime does not so forsake a man in his end. What he lacked at that critical hour was not the willing mind, but the instrument by which to communicate to the fleet the impulse which his own failing powers were no longer able to directly impart."
Strength of character may therefore overcome physical weakness at times, but as Mahan has said in a passage previously quoted, even when this be done successfully, the effort to accomplish it must necessarily be a drain upon a man's total resources of soul, which must perceptibly detract from his total power of accomplishment.
POWER TO USE ABILITY; THE "WILL TO ACHIEVE"
Performance has been said to depend upon several qualities first, ability—that is, knowledge and the technical skill to use it; second, high military and personal character—which furnish qualities necessary for effective action; and third, strength of character, of mind, of soul, and of body. This last, strength, has been considered in part as an element of character, and such it is but beyond that, its importance is so great that it may well be considered as an element of command in itself. Its first action is to inspire in the individual the "will to achieve" and to do this it calls upon a number of motives, personal, perhaps selfish, as well as altruistic. Ambition, for one's self and for one's service and country; loyalty to country, duty, service, and to one's immediate commander; and perhaps other motives; all combine to inspire this "will to achieve." This is the mainspring of all action, for under its impulse the commander acts, first to determine his duty and what his actions should be to perform it, and then to act accordingly.
JUSTNESS
To denote the quality which it is now desired to discuss, the word justness has been taken rather than the more common word justice, for the reason that, while the dictionary definitions of the two words are in general form the same: namely, "the quality of being just," nevertheless justice is most frequently understood in its restricted and secondary definition, as being "the administration of the law." Unless capable of administering absolute justness, a commander will fall short of perfection by just so much as he fails in this respect, and will correspondingly fail to inspire in those around and under him the high degree of morale and loyalty without which no commander can hope to be successful. While the word justness as used includes legal and military justice, in other words justness in the administration of discipline, that phase is by no means all; in fact it is in reality a lesser aspect of the broad question. Justness in personal relations, sympathy with others, tact, etc., are all essential elements of justness in its truest and best sense. And, what is too often forgotten, justness means, not only nor even mainly, the disciplining of those who fail or offend, but to a much greater degree the encouragement and commendation of those who do well. An officer who is quick to rebuke but slow to commend is essentially and fundamentally unjust, and such an one can never secure from his subordinates the highest degree of loyalty, morale, and efficiency; can never hope to win from those whom he commands the "last touch that cannot be commanded but can only be given"; that "free contribution of the man to his defined duty" of which Professor Hocking speaks.
TACT
Tact is a somewhat intangible asset and correspondingly hard to define, but it is nevertheless the binder whereby the qualities requisite for command of personnel are unified and made effective in all dealings with those under one's command; without it the value of all other qualities is very greatly reduced. It may be said with confidence, however, that unless tact be based on justness it will be valueless; officers and men are quick to detect the defective character of an outwardly tactful bearing and of actions that do not contain within themselves the essentials of justness. Mere outward and superficial tact; such tact as is often displayed on social occasions; while perhaps creating a favorable prepossession in the first stages of acquaintanceship or of official relationship, will not carry far if it be merely on the surface; and when lack of sincerity is once detected such tact becomes, not an asset, but a constant and most irritating cause for offense and discontent. Whatever be the motives prompting the employment of a tactful bearing and of tactful actions, if they be not based on natural feelings and a sympathetic nature; if they be based on an acquired and not upon a natural habit; if they be exercised only to accomplish certain results ("for what there is in it"); the hollowness of the pretense will soon be discovered, and as a result bad, and not good, consequences will follow.
SUMMARY OF REQUISITES FOR COMMAND
Having now analyzed the principal requisites for successful command, and segregated and discussed the major principles underlying them, it becomes possible, as a summary, to construct the character of an officer in high command as it should be. The appended diagram shows the requirements that have been considered in the preceding pages, but even with that, all is not said, for in discussing the perfect man, whether in general or as an officer, there are so many fine shades of meaning that enter, so many elements that must be present, that we can only despair of reaching anything more than reasonably accurate general conclusions. For instance, we have noted certain qualities as requisite, and have pointed out that the possession of certain, if not all, of these qualities in too high a degree, become positively detrimental. Where does self-confidence become self-conceit, and transform itself from a necessary quality into one which blinds its possessor to many things that he should see and appreciate, and thereby lead him into egregious errors? This, and many other similar questions, can receive no concrete answer; and, because this is the case, the subject can never be covered in a thoroughly satisfactory manner. Nor is it believed that the qualities enumerated cover everything that is requisite; probably every reader of this thesis will think of something that has been omitted; so the writer can only say that he fully realizes the incompleteness of this paper, in spite of its length, and the fact that many points worthy of great elaboration have been touched upon but lightly, if at all.
It may be deduced at once from the statement of the requirements that no man can ever be a perfect commander; it is evident that omniscience alone could accomplish this; and the men whom history has recorded as the greatest each appears, when his life, character, and actions are closely analyzed, as falling short of the perfect standard in many respects. This is true of the man who probably stands highest of all in naval reputation. Nelson; and if failure to attain perfection exist in even the greatest of whom history teaches, there is little chance that the future will ever produce the perfect commander. That this is true need cause no discouragement to the officers of our service, for, as has already been said, what is true for us is equally true for others, and, while we realize that we must always fall far short of what we would wish to be, at the same time the officers of other navies are in a like predicament. Therefore it is our duty, while striving to reach the highest degree of perfection, attainable, not to be discouraged by our own shortcomings so long as we can feel assured that such shortcomings do not exceed those of officers of any other navy. While we cannot hope to be perfect, we can, if we bend our entire strength to the effort, feel reasonably sure that we will not be surpassed by those who may come up against us, and may hope that we may exceed the majority in excellence; it is to this end that every officer of our navy should exert himself unremittingly and to the utmost.