There is an essential distinction between the action of _Commanders_ and that of _Staff Officers_ however capable. It is true that Staff Officers are not mere clerks or messengers. There is often imposed on them the duty of explaining to the immediate executive agents the intention of their Chief, so as to solve ambiguities or remedy misunderstandings, and to create identical views on the situation, especially if it be rapidly changing. But it is outside the scope of the Staff to interfere with the exercise of Command--that is, on their own authority, to urge, or approve, or condemn any particular action on the part of Subordinate Commanders. To do so is to usurp the function of their Chief, and to form a lateral interference with the direct chain of responsibility. Such action commonly leads to a struggle of conflicting temperaments, contrary to all discipline, and tends to produce anarchy in the Command. Only one man can command. It is true that the nominal Commander has not always been this one man, owing to some physical, intellectual, or moral deficiency in his character. In that case his action is necessarily guided by a substitute, who will really inspire the operations, but whose influence should always be concealed. Even in this case, however, it is essential that the Chief must rely on _one_ man only. Should he turn for advice and guidance to more than one, his action will soon follow divided courses, owing to alternate predominance of contradictory counsels. Counter-orders will unfailingly ensue, with the inevitable result, neatly summed up by the French as “ordre, contre-ordre, désordre.” In War, it is not true that “in a multitude of counsellors there is wisdom.” We know that “Councils of War never fight,” and that the greatest Commanders have always regarded them as a detestable and cowardly subterfuge. Success can never be expected when, instead of the decision of one, the counsels of many prevail. CHAPTER XXIII PSYCHOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF ARMIES