experience, it became clear that no person had the cognitive capacity, the
physical presence, or the knowledge of everything happening across a
complex battlefield to effectively lead in such a manner. Instead, my
leaders learned they must rely on their subordinate leaders to take charge
of their smaller teams within the team and allow them to execute based
on a good understanding of the broader mission (known as Commander’s
Intent), and standard operating procedures. That was effective
Decentralized Command.
So, we divided into small teams of four to six SEALs, a manageable
size for a leader to control. Each platoon commander didn’t worry about
controlling all sixteen SEAL operators assigned, only three: his squad
leaders and his platoon chief. Each platoon chief and leading petty
officer only had to control their fire team leaders, who each controlled
four SEAL shooters. And I only had to control two people—my two
platoon commanders.
Each leader was trusted to lead and guide his team in support of the
overall mission. Those junior leaders learned that they were expected to
make decisions. They couldn’t ask, “What do I do?” Instead, they had to
state: “This is what I am going to do.” Since I made sure everyone
understood the overall intent of the mission, every leader worked and led
separately, but in a unified way that contributed to the overall mission,
making even the most chaotic scenarios much easier to handle.
* * *When Task Unit Bruiser deployed to Ramadi, Iraq, Decentralized
Command played a crucial role in our success. We supported many
large-scale operations and participated in virtually every big push into
Ramadi, as coalition forces established footholds in enemy territory.