TLDR: SITREPs Need a Reboot

The Company Egg Hunt shouldn't be your SITREP focal point

---

Announcement

Check out the release of the Harding Project short film this Friday at 9am CT.

Click here to view!

---

Picture a brigade commander, hunched over a smartphone, trying to decipher 20 pages of Situation Reports (SITREPs) crammed into a series of emails. This is the weekly reality for commanders at every level and a clear indicator that SITREPs need a fundamental change.

Instead of providing the clear and concise picture commanders need to make informed decisions, SITREPs have devolved into bloated exercises in bureaucratic box-checking, prioritizing quantity over quality. The cynical view among staff officers is that SITREPs are written by staff officers for the next higher set of staff officers. This perpetuates a system where information is passed up the chain, sanitized and repackaged at each level, ultimately providing little value to each commander at echelon.

Photo courtesy of LTC Torrence.

The problem is threefold: excessive length, unfocused content, and limited senior leader engagement. SITREPs routinely balloon to multi-page narratives burying any useful information in a sea of verbosity. They often devolve into platforms for good news stories, painting a rosy picture that often fails to reflect the reality on the ground. This deluge of positivity can lull senior leaders into a false sense of security, hindering their ability to identify and address emerging problems. Furthermore, the sheer length of these reports discourages meaningful engagement. A new commander might initially respond with diligent questions and guidance, but the inevitable demands of a busy job often reduce their engagement to a cursory "thanks," a few minor comments, or even silence.

FM 3-0 makes it clear that effective command depends on a balance between the art of command and the science of control. Commanders rely on judgment, experience, and intuition to inspire and lead, while control provides the tools and processes for execution. Well-written SITREPs can bridge this gap by providing the commander with a realistic understanding of the situation, enabling informed judgment and facilitating the exercise of control.

Instead of lengthy narratives, we need concise, focused reporting that highlights key challenges, identifies trends, and articulates specific requests for support. We must move away from a culture of "good news only" and embrace honest assessments, even when they reveal shortcomings.

We must refocus the SITREP on its core purpose: providing commanders with the information they need to make decisions and ensure their intent is being met. This requires a doctrine-guided shift in both format and content. Utilizing doctrine as a baseline ensures that our reporting processes adhere to established principles of mission command and help the commander understand, visualize, describe, and direct.

To guide my company commanders, I've implemented a SITREP format (not in line with any of my higher headquarters SITREP formats) that focuses on answering the following questions:

1. Priorities: Where are you focusing your efforts and resources? (FM 3-0, p. 65: Commanders frequently face competing demands for limited resources. They resolve these competing demands by establishing priorities.)

2. Contributions: How did your team contribute to the missions you support in your AOR? (FM 3-0, p. 48: Convergence requires leaders to understand how their operations contribute to the overall operation and their respective roles in achieving or exploiting the conditions set by the higher headquarters.)

3. Challenges: Have you run into any unexpected challenges that disrupted your plans? If so, how did you respond? (FM 3-0, p. 199: Changing conditions and transitions may impact the teamwork and cohesion of a formation; both require adaptation and leader attention.)

4. Lessons Learned: What have you learned that could add value to the rest of the team? (FM 6-0, p. F-1: The after-action report provides observations and insights from the lessons learned that allow a unit to reflect on successes and shortcomings of the operation as well as share these lessons…)

5. Support Needed: How can my staff or I help you? (FM 6-0, 1-6: Staffs support commanders in making and implementing decisions and in integrating and synchronizing combat power. Effective staffs multiply a unit’s effectiveness.)

6. Successes: Are there any good news stories you want to highlight? (ADP 6-22, 5-5: Positive reinforcement such as tangible incentives (time off) as well as intangible rewards (praise or recognition) can enhance motivation.)

Aligned with doctrine, these questions encourage critical thinking, promote initiative, and foster a culture of open and honest communication. They provide a framework for concise, actionable reporting that directly supports the commander's understanding and decision-making.

We must embrace the messy, complex reality of our operational environment and equip our commanders with the tools they need to navigate through uncertainty. Every word in a SITREP should serve a purpose, conveying essential information to inform the commander's understanding and guide their actions. We must shift our mindset from writing simply to report what happened, to writing to inform what will happen.

---

James J. Torrence is an active-duty US Army Signal Corps officer and a LTG (Ret) James M. Dubik Writing Fellow. He is a graduate of the United States Military Academy. He has a Doctorate in Strategic Security and multiple graduate degrees including an M.S. in Strategic Design & Management, an M.S. in Cybersecurity, and a Master of Military Art & Science. He has deployed twice to Afghanistan as a battalion communications officer and has served in various military leadership positions in the United States, Germany, Belgium, Korea, and Israel.