The Warden Collection (merged thread)

[Cliff]

Fighter Jocks are great folks.

Aww, shucks... I didn't know you cared, Ken!

One of my best friends was once one, many good acquaintances are or were. However, most pilots suffer from two minor problems as war fighters (IMO, obviously...); they're conditioned to using checklists and what they do relies on knowledge and acceptance of the theory and laws of Physics. Problem with that is you cannot develop a checklist for people activity and war fighting is an art, not a science. A rather lawless art at that...

These are problems? Just kidding. I agree about the checklists. I also agree about the physics. Disagree about the people... at least where air-to-air folks like Warden (he was a FAC early on but finished up as a F-15C guy) are concerned. One of the awesome parts of air-to-air fighting is that you are constantly faced with a different problem precisely because the other guy is also trying his best to kill you. Good air-to-air pilots understand the human dimension and try to use it to their advantage. There's a good deal of art to it... Not to say that there aren't good TTPs, or that some folks don't use them like cookbooks. I think that's true in any military effort, though- TTPs exist as a starting point, and how far beyond them you get depends on how capable you are at progressing.

Back to the "in theory" bit. That's the rub -- theory and actuality often differ, intelligence is rarely adequate to the degree he envisions and that entails making assumptions. That's always dangerous and the Intel guys won't ordinarily do it, they're rather -- excessively, some say -- cautious that way.

Agree on the intel!

That leaves the final stategery up to the decider -- who will decide based upon his gut feeling and his assumptions rather than on the precision that Warden's strategy demands for best execution. We have literally seen that in operation several times over the past ten (20 ? Back even unto DS/DS?) years when several decision makers had the power but not the knowledge to make decisions (and that in a system that strongly militates against disagreeing with the Boss).

Valid, I think Warden would argue that we should work on this.

Warden's theories have merit, his process is sensible in some situations. Neither his nor any other 'system' has the route to the always best solution. Nor is anyone likely to develop a better idea because, as he said: "Conversely, the morale side the human side is beyond the realm of the predictable in a particular situation because humans are so different from each other..." Totally true. Might work better if every 'implementer' (and every opponent...) was another Warden -- they have not been and will not be.

Interesting point on the implementer mattering...

His follow on to that last quote: "Our war efforts, therefore, should be directed primarily at the physical side" goes circular -- we're back to needing quite accurate physical Intel. We've almost never had that and are even more unlikely to do so in the near future...

Good intel is a must. I still argue that knowing the end state you want to achieve should be the starting point... even if you can't know EXACTLY how to get there it is probably best to have a direction.

Good insight Ken, thanks.

V/R,

Cliff

[Ken White]

Aww, shucks... I didn't know you cared, Ken!

I duz -- but it's totally like play-tonic. Not to say you can't get the random kiss to make sure the ungodly are paying attention.

One of the awesome parts of air-to-air fighting is that you are constantly faced with a different problem precisely because the other guy is also trying his best to kill you. Good air-to-air pilots understand the human dimension and try to use it to their advantage. There's a good deal of art to it...

Unquestionably and most of you guys almost certainly do that one on one bit at altitude far better than would I. You even excel at the small groups in conflict thing. The problem I've noted is when multiple groups doing different things on the ground intrude in the air oriented bubble, things sometimes get connfoozed and much the skill set falls into the non productive (sometimes even mildly counterproductive... ) realm. Skill sets have specificity by definition.

I think that's true in any military effort, though- TTPs exist as a starting point, and how far beyond them you get depends on how capable you are at progressing.

Totally true. There are green suiters with skill sets not amenable to close combat or even generic land warfare. To include, regrettably, some in high places.

Interesting point on the implementer mattering...

That's really the only thing that is slightly more important than good or at least adequate Intel -- the wrong guy in the job will almost inevitably make flawed decisions. The Military personnel system with its strong tendency to make like Peas in the Pod militates (bad pun...) a median personna. Mediocrity is akin to median. We need round pegs for round holes -- you can put a square peg in a round hole but it's less than optimum and it'll be smaller than desirable...

Good intel is a must. I still argue that knowing the end state you want to achieve should be the starting point... even if you can't know EXACTLY how to get there it is probably best to have a direction.

And I certainly agree. I suspect Warden, Slap and pvebber can also agree. the issue then becomes which of us is the designated Elector of Directions...

The implementer, acting on the Intel available...

Be careful up there...