"Unity of effort is coordinated action toward a common goal; it is cooperation. It is the working together by all commanders toward the accomplishment of a common mission, which is imperative for complete and final success. Commanders must develop in their staffs and subordinates the desire to cooperate, not only among themselves but with other elements." [1]

Each of these principles of tactics--gaining a decisive advantage, moving faster than the enemy, trapping the enemy, and the goal of all of them, achieving a decisive result--presents something of a dilemma. Each requires different elements, different units, and different Marines to work effectively together. If efforts are not in harmony, results will be indecisive. If, for example, the actions of aviation are not integrated with the ground battle, they are unlikely to have a decisive effect. If artillery support is not well coordinated with an infantry attack, you will not have the force of combined arms, and the attack will likely fail.

CONTROL IN COMBAT?

At the same time, because war is characterized by disorder, uncertainty, and rapid change, control in combat quickly breaks down. It is probably a mistake to speak of control in combat. As anyone who has survived combat will undoubtedly testify, it is one of the hardest of all human endeavors to control. In fact, it is impossible to control if by that we mean one man carefully directing the actions of others.

The dilemma is sharpened by the fact that attempts to control men in combat easily undermine initiative. You are not likely to trap, or move faster, or gain leverage over a competent opponent without a great deal of initiative from Marines at every level, down through private. Yet efforts to control those Marines too often work against initiative, by teaching them not to act without orders. That kind of control undermines the initiative upon which our tactics depend.

The dilemma, then, is this: How do we achieve the goal of working together in harmony without some sort of centralized control?

COOPERATION

The beginning of an answer lies in the word cooperation. Cooperation, rightly understood, is the opposite of control. Control works top down: someone up above determines what you will and what you will not do and makes you conform to his dictates. Cooperation, in contrast, works laterally and also bottom up. You take the initiative to help those around you accomplish your shared mission.

Cooperation is essential to modern tactics. The flight leader and wingman work on the basis of cooperation; the Cobra pilots and the infantry they support cooperate; two infantry units, fighting side by side, cooperate; a mobile combat service support detachment and a mechanized force cooperate. We all work together far more effectively when we communicate laterally than when we talk only through a higher headquarters and respond only to centralized direction.

The history of tactics is rife with examples where cooperation made the difference - and control could not have done so. One such involves the reconnaissance battalion of a German armored division during operations east of the Russian city of Kharkov on September 3, 1942.

For several hours, Major Kurt Meyer had moved his battalion along a narrow trail in deep snow through heavily wooded terrain in hope of interdicting the main road north of Kharkov. Progress was very slow. Only the fact that he could not turn his vehicles and tanks around in the close terrain kept him moving forward.

As his main body entered a clearing, Major Meyer noticed that his vanguard company had left the trail to conceal themselves in the trees on the far side of the clearing. Halting the column, Meyer crawled forward. From the trees on the far side of the clearing, the terrain sloped down to a road and rose again on the other side of it. To his astonishment, the road held several thousand Russians moving west toward Belgorod, recently occupied by German forces. These were fresh troops, supported by vehicles, artillery, and tanks. Overwhelmingly outnumbered and outgunned, Meyer ordered his battalion to move off the trail and into the woods and to remain quiet, hoping to avoid detection.

About to conceal themselves, the Germans suddenly heard the drone of aircraft. Halting the battalion, Meyer recognized the aircraft as German Stuka dive-bombers. The bombers, upon seeing the dense column, circled to gain altitude and began bombing and strafing the Russians. Pandemonium followed. Meyer, seizing upon the confusion, immediately ordered his companies to attack. When the Panzers emerged from the trees, the aircraft signaled recognition.

As the Stukas worked up and down the column, Meyer's Panzers blocked the Russians fleeing up his slope toward the trees. The far slope was a barren snowfield that offered no cover. Hundreds of Russians were killed, and hundreds more surrendered. The action prevented an estimated corpssized unit from attacking the German assembly area at Belgorod. [2]

The example shows what cooperation, unplanned and uncommunicated, can accomplish. The aircraft were unexpected. Meyer's Panzers were present by coincidence. The aircraft had no radios with which to contact the tank unit. The outnumbered Panzers could not have attacked the Russians single-handedly. Undoubtedly, an air strike alone would have damaged the Russian column, but without the immediate cooperation of Meyer's Panzers it would not have been decisive.

DISCIPLINE

Cooperation resolves the dilemma of finding a way to harmonize efforts, to get everyone working together without creating the centralized control that undermines initiative. It also raises another question: How do we get people to cooperate?

The answer is the fl lion of effective tactics: discipline. Discipline is one of the basic components of tactics. It underlies all the other components because without it, you will not be able to gain leverage, maintain superior relative speed, or trap the enemy-or attain a decision, for that matter, which is the purpose of the other three.

However, the discipline needed for cooperation is different from what some may think of when they consider military discipline. It is not imposed discipline, but self-discipline.

Imposed discipline is the discipline of the Prussian army of Frederick the Great, where the object was to make each soldier fear his NCOs and officers more than he feared the enemy. That kind of discipline is part of control, and, as such, it is not appropriate to modern tactics. It is rigid, paralyzing, and utterly destructive of initiative.

Self-discipline is different. It is a moral force. As FMFM I states, war is also fought on the moral level. Here, in the matter of discipline, tactics and the moral level intersect. Self-discipline morally obligates every Marine to cooperate with every other Marine to achieve the common goal-in battle, a decision. The obligation is internal, in each individual; it is something he feels, powerfully. He is pulled from within to do everything he can to support his fellow Marines.

Imposed discipline is useful, if at all, only in the earliest stages of training. For maneuver warfare to work, every Marine needs a potent self-discipline. Why? Because in maneuver warfare everyone must harmonize his efforts - cooperate-at a very high level of initiative.

We can see self-discipline at work in many cases where we also see effective cooperation. This is most evident in successful athletic teams. Team players constantly take it upon themselves to back up their teammates. In baseball, the first baseman immediately covers the catcher on a play at home plate. The shortstop routinely backs up a ground ball to the third baseman, and the outfielders cover each other on flyballs. In hockey, rarely does only one player rush the goal. In football, offensive linemen don't stand by idly on a pass play if no defensive player faces them. They block the first defender to show himself. This cooperation among teammates cannot be enforced by a coach. It depends upon the self-discipline of the individual players.

While Marines have long been noted for their military discipline, we must focus our thinking on the fact that military discipline is self-discipline. What else can we say about it?

First, we can say that it is a heavy responsibility, because it is a personal responsibility. No one can shirk it by blaming someone else. No one else can be at fault when each individual is responsible for his own discipline. A discipline failure-often, a failure to act-is a personal failure. It is automatically the full and sole responsibility of the individual who failed.

Second, as military discipline, it is absolute. There is no time off. If, in a given situation, someone else is in charge, that does not in the least absolve others from their responsibility to attain the objective, the common goal. It does not reduce to any degree their responsibility to ensure effective cooperation within the unit and beyond it. All share alike discipline's demand that they do everything in their power to gain a decision. No one can "drop his pack," even for a moment. 

In this respect, Marines have an advantage. It has been traditional in our Corps for every Marine always to think of himself as a Marine, on duty or off. We see it whenever off-duty Marines take the initiative to help out at the scene of a traffic accident, or act as leaders in their community or church, or otherwise do more than their share. They do so because of something inward, not because they are being compelled through control. That something is self-discipline, and it is not limited to one aspect of life. It is a mind set, a way of thinking and behaving. It runs through everything. It is as much part of garrison life as of combat, of combat service support as of the infantry, of time off as of duty time. It is, ultimately, a way of life.

SUMMARY

Modern tactics depends on cooperation, not control. Cooperation, in turn, depends on self-discipline. As a leader of Marines, you must create a climate in which self-discipline, with the high level of initiative it requires, can flourish.

That climate of demand for and support of self-discipline depends upon you. Words are easy; anyone can give an occasional pep talk on the merits of self-discipline. People judge your actions, not your words, in determining their own actions. If you create a climate where self-discipline is expected, you will get it. There will always be some who are incapable of disciplining themselves. We must recognize those individuals for what they are: people who are unfit to be United States Marines. Those who are fit to be Marines will respond to a climate of self-discipline.