Thus you may now see why some of us tend to
Quote:
Originally Posted by
selil
". . .
* 'Centralized control and decentralized execution are not distributed nor are they an asymmetric advantage or capability. Reading through the document I'm flabbergasted by the total lack of understanding of distributed systems knowledge.'*
From the document it suggests that all air and space assets will require the commander of those assets to be contacted prior to their utilization or change in mission status. In other words on first blush what is discussed as de-centralized execution is actually reinforcement of silos of command and control.
Interesting reading having just finished Robb's book.
snicker at some of the pronouncements that come forth on air warfare... :wry:
And one reason I'm not a Robb fan.:(
Very good catch, BTW
The tendency toward ever increasing centralization
an movement of decision making to ever higher levels is short sighted and inimical to combat. Given a big busy war, it'll disappear but as long as our efforts are relatively small scale as in Iraq and Afghanistan, the beast will live. It should not.
Centralization generally is more efficient -- it is almost never more effective.
Over control invaded the Army during Viet Nam. Battalion Commanders in the post 1967 period found they had few Captains, few senior NCOs but had plenty of new Lieutenants and Instant NCO Sergeants. The kids were incredibly dedicated and smart but were short on experience. They had to be watched constantly. Thus begun "engineering for success." Micromanagement, simply put.
When those LTC became senior Generals, they came up with bright ideas like issuing all LRS units digital cameras and modems so the troops could send pictures back to TOCcus Giganticus so that proper decisions could be made. Of course, the troops would have 'accidentally dropped' their megabuck megapixel cameras on the jump to get rid of the weight -- and the over the shoulder management. That never occurred to said Generals (and in fairness, neither did their well paid and theoretically experienced and supposedly apolitical Sergeants Major who forgot that they got paid to keep the Flags from doing dumb stuff warn them of the problem).
We have developed processes over the years due to a number of factors. Initially the Signal Corps operated all the Radios due to the complexity; all the FOs were Officers because they had an education and could do the math. By WW II, that had changed, yet for bureaucratic reasons, both habits died only slowly. One is still around.
Fast forward to today. Not a reason in the world for LTs to be FOs (other than populating the FA Branch), for UAV steerers or Cround FACS to be pilots. Nor is there any reason to think a General in Tampa or Doha can make better decisions than a Brigade or Battalion commander on the ground in the 'Stan or Iraq.
I understand network centric warfare and I understand big pictures. Most of us do to one extent or another. I also understand that the US Army tends to opt for technical solutions to training problems and that those solution do not work more often than they do work. Lack of training and failure of technology then contribute to experience. The cost is generally higher casualties for us.
Innovation and initiative have long been tenets of US doctrine; both have been resoundingly squashed in recent years, not by design but by fear. Fear of failure and fear of not remaining competitive. Zero Defects has much to answer for...
"Centralized vision, decentralized execution" is Commanders Intent (a General Officer thing) and trust the troops to do the job without telling them how to suck eggs, not much more. Leadership is know your job, do your job and be fair. I submit he who over controls is violating all three precepts. Viet Nam may have created a monster but it's time to kill it; we train better today, much better and there's a lot of talent out there that is being consumed by over control.
