Quote Originally Posted by pvebber View Post
Great discussion, wish I had more time...

But this not the "new" in this paper - its essentially the EBO argument.

The problem is it states a premise that is *WRONG*!

we may WANT to reduce complex sytems to something we humans can understand but this is a fool's errand! By their nature, complex systems are irreduble at a certain point and models that reduce them in complexity below that point by introducing cause and effect assumptions cease to be useful.
So we should throw up our hands and give up? What do you suggest as an alternative?

We seem to all be in agreement about the piece parts - its the way warden assembles them that appears to be the crux of the issue.

The purpose of a model is prediction. You set the dials and levers on the model, you turn the crank, and see what. IF you simplify a complex system to the point where it is "understandable" - ie you get predictable outputs from the inputs - then you have BROKEN IT. By definition you get different outputs from a complex system each time you turn the crank. That is called emergent behavior and is the key caracteristic the differentiates a complicated (but causally simple) system from a complex one.
Again, potentially depends on what crank you pull. Some have more predictable effects than others.

Complex systems have the inherent property of surpring you.

There are apsects of complext systems that are simple. Like power grids and supply chains. BUt the entirety of system of the kind Warden represent with the 5 rings is not.
Like I said, the predictability is part of the information you should be making decisions on.

The anaolgy I see here is one to medicine. Warden appers to me as an oncolologist who is a practioner of chemotherapy.

[I deleted the middle of your analogy for space reasons, good analogy for your arguement]

Yes chemotherapy is an indespensible form of treatment, but it is not applicable to every disease and it does not makes sense to redefine medicine to oncology becasue of a desire for chemotherapy to "reach its full capability".
Except that oncology only affects cancer, while airpower has the potential to affect almost any situation involving the use of armed force (IE, airdropping HDRs to folks would be analagous to giving someone an IV of nutrients when their digestive function has ceased).

Additionally, as I have been repeating, Warden is not just talking about airpower - he is talking about changing how we approach strategy, then saying that the better strategic methodology will result in us using airpower a lot more because it is more effective. You are conflating his arguement about the strategic process with the effects of changing that process- they are separate ideas.

Assuming that because hospitalization is expensive, that means that simultaneously injecting chemotherapy drugs, based on simplified models of how a human bodyworks, will be effective, is not a logical argument.
Same comments as above.

Particularly given the fact carrying the analogy perhaps too far, that you only actually treat a real patient every 10 or 15 years, the rest of the time you just deal with your simplified model and ASSUME that the results will apply to the real patient.
I disagree. A better analogy would be surgery, where a surgeon might use simulations and operate on a cadaver to keep proficiency, with the cadaver being exercises. Additionally, I would argue that airpower is probably the best exercised and rehearsed element of the US military. While the army has NTC and JRTC, and the Navy does do JEFXs, I would argue that Red Flag is probably the highest level and most extensive rehearsal in the world. Not to mention a lot of studying of the real-world system going on in between.

The individual parts of Wardens argument are sound. No one is arguing the 'necessary" part. Its the way he puts them together and says "and therefore... we need to redfine medicine, and completely change the way we treat disease, and if your patient's illness doesn't fit this mode, then we should not be treating them" that has us scratching our heads, like the doctors in the analogy.
See above- separate the change in process from Warden's expected result that we will use airpower more. You're harping on the chemotherapy, when really Warden is saying the diagnosis is the important part.

The unfortunate part is that Col Warden has reputation of being an airpower advocate, which colors people's perceptions of any arguement he makes. It would be interesting to see what the reaction would have been had someone else written a similar paper.

pvebber, not saying you don't have valid points - I just have a different perception of the arguement. As I said, I conceed fully that the more complex a system is, the more difficult the application of Warden's theory will be - but again, that doesn't mean his points are invalid.

V/R,

Cliff