The concept of "adaptation"

[RJO]

As an outsider looking in, I wonder if anyone would be able to point me to any papers, books, or other publications that analyze the concept of adaptation from a military perspective. I'm an evolutionary biologist, and my people have been talking, thinking, and getting confused about adaptation for nigh on 200 years. But have there been specific, detailed analyses of this concept in the military sphere? It's popular now to say that forces must be adaptable, that quick adaptation is needed in small wars, that insurgents adapt to counterinsurgents, etc.

Since I'm coming from the academic side of the house, there may well be a three volume work by some nineteenth-century German on Theorie der militarisch Adaptation that everybody studies at the War College but that I don't know about; if so, I'd be glad to be educated.

If there isn't such an analysis, I might be interested in writing one. (Not in three volumes, though.)

Many thanks.

Bob

[marct]

Hi Bob,

No idea if there is or not, I'll let others answer that one, although I suspect hat most of the use of the term comes via the management literature - a sort of watered down Spencerian version.

Personally, I would really like to see your thoughts on it. I've been playing around with the Gould's concept of punctuated equilibrium to try and get a handle on culture area modes of warfare. I also suspect that there could be some really good work done using Bill Calvin's concept of Darwinian Bootstrapping to explain the phenomenon.

Marc

[TT]

There is a reasonably substantial literature that focuses on what I would call ‘change in military organizations’.

But a first question that needs to be asked is what do you mean by ‘adaptation’?

I know, I know, a picky semantic question but important nonetheless. ‘Adaptation’ has many meanings in this literature, which does lend to a degree of confusion about what is being discussed/analyzed. ‘Innovation’ is the other widely used term that often lacks semantic clarity.

To give you a starting point, some authors define ‘innovation’ (as in military innovation) as major change in the aims, strategies (ie warfighitng concepts) and/or structure of a military organization’. The emphasis here is on ‘major’. So, as an example, the adoption of the warfighting concept of maneuver warfare by the US Army and Marine Corps would be innovation in this schema.

Adaptation would, in contrast, be minor changes or alterations that improve (or not, as the case may be) something that the military does but that does not have significant.major implications for aims, strategies and/or structure. Hence adaptation covers a wide range of adjustments that military organizations and military organizations constantly undertake. As some examples, developing new foot patrol techniques would be adaptation; equally, the Army’s FCS as it was originally conceived be would be adaptation - to my mind but I am still working on this - for ultimately while the FCS entails the wholesale rethinking of the character of the platforms the Army uses, it was still be to based on a ‘division’ structure, the new platforms would do pretty much what the old ones did, only differently, and it would be used for the much the same purpose as traditional heavy armour divisions were to be used (to fight a peer on a conventional battlefield). So adaptations can small or large.

The foregoing is probably more confusing than enlightening (typically academic, then), but it does get at some of the distinctions. But the extant literature is substantial enough that even this somewhat rough and ready semantic nit-picking helps to distinguish what is of interest to you.

Also, of course, are you interested in organizational adaptation (or adaptability) or individual adaptability?

And if there is some 19th Century German military thinker who has dealt with this, I would be keen to know about him or her as well – though preferably with the reference to an English version. My Deutsche is pretty restricted to ordering a large beer, asking where the bathroom is and saying ‘thank you and ‘please’ …..

[SteveMetz]

There is a reasonably substantial literature that focuses on what I would call ‘change in military organizations’.

But a first question that needs to be asked is what do you mean by ‘adaptation’?

I know, I know, a picky semantic question but important nonetheless. ‘Adaptation’ has many meanings in this literature, which does lend to a degree of confusion about what is being discussed/analyzed. ‘Innovation’ is the other widely used term that often lacks semantic clarity.

To give you a starting point, some authors define ‘innovation’ (as in military innovation) as major change in the aims, strategies (ie warfighitng concepts) and/or structure of a military organization’. The emphasis here is on ‘major’. So, as an example, the adoption of the warfighting concept of maneuver warfare by the US Army and Marine Corps would be innovation in this schema.

Adaptation would, in contrast, be minor changes or alterations that improve (or not, as the case may be) something that the military does but that does not have significant.major implications for aims, strategies and/or structure. Hence adaptation covers a wide range of adjustments that military organizations and military organizations constantly undertake. As some examples, developing new foot patrol techniques would be adaptation; equally, the Army’s FCS as it was originally conceived be would be adaptation - to my mind but I am still working on this - for ultimately while the FCS entails the wholesale rethinking of the character of the platforms the Army uses, it was still be to based on a ‘division’ structure, the new platforms would do pretty much what the old ones did, only differently, and it would be used for the much the same purpose as traditional heavy armour divisions were to be used (to fight a peer on a conventional battlefield). So adaptations can small or large.

The foregoing is probably more confusing than enlightening (typically academic, then), but it does get at some of the distinctions. But the extant literature is substantial enough that even this somewhat rough and ready semantic nit-picking helps to distinguish what is of interest to you.

Also, of course, are you interested in organizational adaptation (or adaptability) or individual adaptability?

And if there is some 19th Century German military thinker who has dealt with this, I would be keen to know about him or her as well – though preferably with the reference to an English version. My Deutsche is pretty restricted to ordering a large beer, asking where the bathroom is and saying ‘thank you and ‘please’ …..

Good point. The U.S. military, at least, uses the concept of "transformation" rather than "adaptation." Nagl's work on militaries as "learning organizations" (as well as Sullivan's Hope Is Not a Method) might be useful.

On the U.S. military's approach to transformation, Fred Kagan's Finding the Target is good. I published an essay entitled, ""America's Defense Transformation: A Conceptual and Political History" in Defence Studies last year. (I can send a .pdf if anyone wants it).

[marct]

Hi Steve,

On the U.S. military's approach to transformation, Fred Kagan's Finding the Target is good. I published an essay entitled, ""America's Defense Transformation: A Conceptual and Political History" in Defence Studies last year. (I can send a .pdf if anyone wants it).

I'd like a copy of that one.

[SteveMetz]

Hi Steve,



I'd like a copy of that one.

So send my your email already.

[Tom Odom]

I would also suggest going to the Combat Studies Institute and CGSC Press page

There are a number of books and papers that speak to adaptation, transformation, and learning. For starters look at:

Leavenworth Paper (LP) No. 1: The Evolution of U.S. Army Tactical Doctrine, 1946-76, Major Robert A. Doughty. (HTML) (PDF)

LP No. 4: The Dynamics of Doctrine: The Changes in German Tactical Doctrine During The First World War, Timothy T. Lupfer. (HTML) (PDF)

LP No. 12: Seek, Strike, and Destroy: U.S. Army Tank Destroyer Doctrine in World War II, Dr. Christopher R. Gabel. (PDF)

LP No. 16: Deciding What Has To Be Done: General William E. Depuy and the 1976 Edition of FM 100-5, Operations, Major Paul H. Herbert. (HTML) (PDF)

Research Survey (RS) No. 5: Standing Fast. German Defensive Doctrine on the Russian Front During World War II: Prewar to March 1943, Major Timothy A. Wray. (HTML) (PDF)

RS No. 6: A Historical Perspective on Light Infantry, Major Scott R. McMichael. (PDF)

CSI Report (CSIR) No. 1: The Evolution of the Tank in the US Army, 1919-1940, LTC Kenneth M. Steadman. (HTML)

CSIR No. 8: Discussions on Training and Employing Light Infantry, MAJ Scott R. McMichael. (HTML) (PDF)

CSIR No. 14: Sixty Years of Reorganizing for Combat: A Historical Trend Analysis, CSI Faculty. (HTML) (PDF)

Secret of Future Victories, Paul F. Gorman, General, U.S. Army, Retired. (HTML)

Watershed at Leavenworth- Dwight D. Eisenhower and the Command and General Staff College, MAJ Mark C. Bender. (HTML)

In Tribute to General William E. DePuy, Generals Thurman, Talbott, & Gorman. (HTML) (PDF)

Center for Military History U.S. Army GHQ Maneuvers of 1941.

Understanding the "victory disease" from the Little Bighorn to Mogadishu and beyond, Timothy Karcher. Paper #3. (PDF)

[TT]

RJO,

Tom has given you an excellent list of works. I can offer more but it would be helpful if I had an idea of what is of most interest to you. The literature is fairly extensive (as Tom's list makes evident) and some of it is very focused on particular aspects of change in military organizations (ie, a number of works on the role of organizational culture in military change, among other aspects). Some of it is historical, some is what might be termed 'analytical narratives' (they analyse a particular case, past and near present) and some of it is theoretical (or somewhat so). So the problem I have (looking around my office) is where to start.

TT

PS. Steve is quite right that the current buzz term for the US military is 'Transformation' but I did not want to go there.

[RTK]

As an outsider looking in, I wonder if anyone would be able to point me to any papers, books, or other publications that analyze the concept of adaptation from a military perspective.

Bob,

To get back to the original question of the topic, I'd steer you towards this book:

Company Command: Unleashing the Power of the Army Profession by Nancy Dixon, Nate Allen, Tony Burgess, Pete Kilner, and Steve Schweitzer.

This is the story of how Companycommand.com and Platoonleader.com (not using those web addresses anymore since they fall under the AKO umbrella now) came into being. A pretty good summary of what these two forums do can be found here. CNN even covered it here.

Other examples? Your using one right now. You'd be surprised how many people in the Profession of Arms use this daily and dialog back and forth in the background. SWJ, Companycommand.com, platoonleader.com, and professionalsoldiers.com are all communities of practice that exemplify adaptation at work.

[Tom OC]

The process of gaining generalized control over conditions in the environment or situation, typically involving the generation of new resources or the more efficient allocation of existing resources among both individual and collective entities in order to secure new capabilities for the system.
-Parsons, Talcott. 1951. The Social System. Free Press.