The danger of Mission Command - another boring entry

It's report in Reuters that an Army Colonel will be charged in the Abu Ghraib scandal. It's the scandal involving Private First Class Lynndie England, who has since been found guilty. If you've not seen the various pictures associated with the scandal, well, you're probably not interested in this entry.

It's well-known, amongst the interested, that no high-ranking officers were implicated in the scandal. Lots of noise here and there, demanding that the punishment should be meted to those higher up in the hierarchy. well, now a Lt. Col is being charged.

There is this military term called "Mission Command" which forms the backbone of both the US and British Armed Forces. What "Mission Command" entails, which is captured in both armed forces' doctrine include (drawn from here) :

A philosophy of command that has three enduring tenets:

1. timely decision making
2. the importance of understanding a superior commander’s intention, and
3. a clear responsibility to fulfil that intention

In order to achieve these aims, decentralised command, freedom and speed of action, and initiative is very much favoured. Enabling the achievement of these aims, a Commander give his orders in a manner that ensures his subordinates understand his intentions, their own missions and the context of those missions. Subordinates are told what effect they are to achieve and the reason why it needs to be achieved. Subordinates are allocated the appropriate resources to carry out their missions. A Commander uses a minimum of control measures so as not to limit unnecessarily the freedom of action of his subordinates. Subordinates then decide within their delegated freedom of action how best to achieve their missions.

The doctrine of "Mission Command" requires delegation of authority and the freedom to carry out actions consistent with the intent of the Commander. As a philosophy, "Mission Command attempts to maximise human creativity, initiative and diligence.

Well, is Abu Ghraib an extreme example of "Mission Command" and the application of the doctrine with the overarching philosophy of understanding and fulfilling intentions of Commanders in a speedy, efficient and responsible manner? Or is the maltreatment of detainees (not prisoners of war) an expected outcome that is tacitly accepted? Is "Mission Command", as espoused by Lord Nelson, only practicable when soldiers and sailors (no airmen then) were right honourable gentlemen (arguable).