As a dedicated IO guy myself, I found the whole EBO/EBA class rather stimulating. I actually received the 2-day JFCOM version of the class recently, and then had to turn around and give an hour-long block of instruction on this topic to my unit. What I discovered through this experience is the same conclusion most of you have reached concerning EBO; namely, it is a tech-centered concoction that is in danger of becoming yet another "TOC drill." I, and some others in my unit, felt that the ONA, as it was presented and explained by its creators, ignored the human dimension in conducting the Systems of Systems Analysis. One could argue that this would be covered during the PMESII analysis; however, like most of the Good-Idea Fairy brainchildren that end up in our doctrinal manuals, ONA, SOSA, and EBO are really tailored to strategic-level planning, and have little relevance in their current mutations at the tactical-operational level.

As I realized my audience was becoming either lost or narcoleptic, I tried to put this beast in a context I knew they could understand. Repeating several times that EBO's are enablers, I used the simple analogy of the rifle platoon assaulting an enemy position. Basically, if you had your Main Effort (assaulting element) and a Supporting Effort (SBF element), who would be conducting the EBO? By applying the KISS principle, I had hoped I could make EBO understandable to 'Joe'. I think I was successful.

One of the best ways I ever heard it put came out of CAC at Leavenworth: "IO is a thing, and EBO is a process."

Basically, we do information operations, and the Effect-Based Approach is the way we go about doing them.

Hope I didn't confuse the crap out of anyone...