Page 6 of 7 FirstFirst ... 4567 LastLast
Results 101 to 120 of 121

Thread: SFA as part of a campaign design: supporting operational requirements (part 1)

  1. #101
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    If we were working on a project in "real time and space" involving me, you would find that explosions would not occur within the project.


    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    What I perceive not to be as utopian would be working toward governance in white space and gray space areas, which (1) avoids folks becoming "accidental guerrillas" (still waiting for that book); and (2) allows formation of a governing structure (indigenous) which is willing to control or prevent VNSAs from operating transnationally from the region. I'd expect there would be lots of quid pro quos in such an arrangement - as well as the need for real reciprocity.
    I could accept that and, you're right, it is less Utopian.

    Quote Originally Posted by jmm99 View Post
    PS: What is ontology ? The study of Ontos ? They were neat.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ontology

    "Ontology (from the Greek ὄν, genitive ὄντος: of being <neuter participle of εἶναι: to be> and -λογία: science, study, theory) is the philosophical study of the nature of being, existence or reality in general, as well as of the basic categories of being and their relations."

    But I like your version of ὄντος better !
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  2. #102
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Historical study ....

    of the target HN security forces with development of an indigenous ethos - as in this post. Seems a logical approach to answer the initial question "Where am I ?"

    -----------------------------
    Now, if someone will critique my own KG lesson so-far learned in SFA. My perception of Figure 1-3 (attached) from FM 3-07.1 Security Force Assistance (May 2009) is that SFA has a very broad charter, which cuts across a number of other charters.

    Looking at the legal basics only, I get this (leaving aside a lot of Titles 10 & 22 stuff which is inside baseball - political hardball) from FM 3-07.1:

    LEGAL AUTHORITY FOR SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE

    B-2. If the Secretary of State requests and the Secretary of Defense approves, U.S. forces can participate in security force assistance. The request and approval can go through standing statutory authorities in Title 22, U.S. Code. Title 22 contains the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the Arms Export Control Act of 1976, and other laws. It authorizes security assistance, developmental assistance, security force assistance and other forms of bilateral aid.

    B-3. The request and approval for security force assistance might also occur under various provisions in Title 10, U.S. Code. Title 10 authorizes certain types of military-to-military contacts, exchanges, exercises, and limited forms of humanitarian and civic assistance in coordination with the U.S. ambassador to the host nation. In such situations, U.S. forces may be granted status as administrative and technical personnel based on a status-of-forces agreement or an exchange of letters with the host nation. This cooperation and assistance is limited to liaison, contacts, training, equipping, and providing defense articles and services. It does not include direct involvement in operations.

    Assistance to police by U.S. forces is permitted but, generally, Department of Defense (DOD) does not serve as the lead government department. Without receiving a deployment or execution order from the President or Secretary of Defense, U.S. forces may be authorized to make only limited contributions during operations that involve security assistance.
    ....
    LEGAL CONSTRAINTS ON THE SECURITY FORCE ASSISTANCE MISSIONS

    B-18. U.S. law and regulation play a key role in establishing the parameters by which military forces may conduct security force assistance missions. These parameters tend to constitute constraints on the activities of military units. They range from the rules of engagement in combat situations to the ability to spend government funds in furtherance of a training or support mission.

    GENERAL PROHIBITION ON ASSISTANCE TO POLICE

    B-19. Historically, DOD is not the lead government department for assisting foreign governments. DOS is the lead when U.S. forces provide security assistance-military training, equipment, and defense articles and services-to host-nation governments. The Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 specifically prohibits assistance to foreign police forces except within specific exceptions and under a Presidential directive. When providing assistance to training, DOS provides the lead role in police assistance through its Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. The President, however, may delegate this role to other agencies. This was done in 2004, when the President signed a decision directive granting the commander, United States Central Command, authority to train and equip Iraqi police.

    TRAINING AND EQUIPPING FOREIGN SECURITY FORCES

    B-20. All training and equipping of foreign security forces are specifically authorized. U.S. laws require Congress to authorize expenditures for training and equipping foreign forces. The laws of the United States also require DOS to verify that the host nation receiving the assistance is not in violation of human rights. The Secretary of Defense may authorize deployed U.S. forces to train or advise host-nation security forces as part of the mission. In this case, DOD personnel, operations, and maintenance appropriations provide an incidental benefit to those security forces. Numerous other programs to assist foreign forces are paid for with funds appropriated by Congress for that purpose. Consultation with a staff judge advocate or legal advisor early in the planning ensures the availability of funds for missions to train and equip foreign forces.
    Am I on target for the scope (attached diagram) and the basic legal charter ? Any adds or caveats ?

    ------------------------------
    The next thing is a question - answer not found in FM that I could see; and question coming from the definition in the Commander’s Handbook for Security Force Assistance (JCISFA 14 Jul 2008)

    1.1 Security Force Assistance (SFA) is defined as unified action to generate, employ, and sustain local, host nation or regional security forces in support of a legitimate authority.
    ....
    Security forces include not only military forces, but also police, border forces, and other paramilitary organizations at all levels of government within a nation state, as well as other local and regional forces.
    Is it the intent for SFA to include militias ("other local and regional forces") within the charter ? How about "irregular forces" that cannot meet the GC III Art. 4 test ?

    E.g.,

    Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949.

    Art 4. A. ....

    (1) Members of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict, as well as members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces.

    (2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, including those of organized resistance movements, belonging to a Party to the conflict and operating in or outside their own territory, even if this territory is occupied, provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

    (a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
    (b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
    (c) that of carrying arms openly;
    (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.
    Militias could come under 4A(1) or 4A(2), but could also be a GC Common Article 3 organization, depending on how far out you want to go. Military forces are obviously under 4A(1), but police, border forces, and other paramilitary organizations may or may not, depending on the HN's domestic laws. Police, for example, are normally considered civilian under the GCs.
    Attached Images Attached Images

  3. #103
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default Definitions and such

    Hey JMM,
    As with other Joint and Service pubs there are sometimes going to be some inconsistencies and disconnects. The original idea as a force employment concept was that it did not matter who was doing the assistance as long as it was oriented on a security force which represented a legitimate authority. From JCISFA's perspective this means:

    Security Forces Assistance (SFA) is defined:

    as unified action to generate, employ, and sustain local, host nation or regional security forces in support of a legitimate authority.

    • Unified action comprises joint, interagency, intergovernmental and multinational community activity in cooperative effort with non-governmental organizations, international organizations, and private companies to ensure and support unity of effort in SFA.

    • Security forces include not only foreign security military forces, but also police, border forces, and other paramilitary organizations at all levels of government within a nation state, as well as other local and regional forces.

    • Foreign Security Force Partners are developed to operate across the spectrum of conflict -- combating internal threats such as insurgency, subversion and lawlessness (FID), defending against external threats, or serving as coalition partners/peacekeepers in other areas.

    • To be successful, SFA must be based on solid, continuing assessment and include the organizing, training, equipping, rebuilding and advising of the forces involved. It is critical to develop the institutional infrastructure to sustain SFA gains.

    • The resulting forces must possess the capability to accomplish the variety of required missions, with sufficient capacity to be successful and with the ability to sustain themselves as long as required.

    Now - wrt authorities, again it goes back to conditions and objectives. The authorities in U.S. code exist for reasons, but there may be cases when exceptions must be made in order to meet the objectives. This can get tricky, as you may not know you need to see k those exceptions until its too late, or until you really need it. Paragraphs 1206 and 1207 are historical examples of how exceptions were made and then reviewed for re authorization. I'm not sure we need permanent exceptions, but we do need a better understanding of what constraints and limitations they impose on our broader strategy to see if they still fit, or should be adjusted. An option I think wrt to design is that it may give you a far enough outlook to anticipate where you need exceptions and then be able to go forward to the law makers with case in hand. An alternative would be to create the means in other USG agencies to reduce the amount of exceptions required, however, this seems harder then anticipated, and almost everybody runs out of Schlitz before DoD.

    Hope that answered more questions than it created, but its late and I need to put my kids to bed

    Best, Rob

  4. #104
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default To be honest, ...

    from Rob
    Hope that answered more questions than it created, but its late and I need to put my kids to bed ...
    No - as to questions answered; but, yes, as to paying attention to family - not one of my strong points at your age.

    Anyway, 1st question was whether I had basic legal framework right.

    Next question was legal scope of forces to be assisted. Different legal rules in play depending on legal status:

    1. Regular armed forces (can include incorporated militias)

    2. Unincorporated militias (if standards of 4A(2) are met)

    3. Irregular militias (not under 4A(2); maybe GC CA 3 ?)

    4. Police, border guards & paramilitary (gendarmerie ?) - may be military, but often considered civilian.

    Is SFA intended to include all of the above ?

    No more complex than that.

    Don't know what Paragraphs 1206 and 1207 are; and from whence ?

  5. #105
    Council Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Rocky Mtn Empire
    Posts
    473

    Default JMM -- Hyvaa Huoamenta!

    Yep. Basically includes the whole shooting match.

    The expansion of the definition of target security forces is a major component of the SFA concept, since there were previously serious restrictions on target FSF. Additionally, doctrine writers outside the special forces community inadvertently (I hope) hemmed us in to dealing only with "host nation" forces. These restrictions proved unmanageable when we faced the enormity of the efforts in Afgh and Iraq.

    Sections 1206 and 1207 (and now others, I believe) refer to sections of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), but you're the lawyer. As Bob's World (sorry to have to agree w/him again, Rob) mentioned in an earlier post, these temporary measures need to be codified more permanently in legislation such as the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act.

    Look all that up and tell us what you think.

  6. #106
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default OE - no worries

    COL Jones is a smart guy, a valued contributor to the discussion and we are lucky to have him here (and back in uniform).

    As to the point...

    As Bob's World (sorry to have to agree w/him again, Rob) mentioned in an earlier post, these temporary measures need to be codified more permanently in legislation such as the Foreign Assistance Act or the Arms Export Control Act.
    I'm just not sure. Sometimes I think we need a restructuring to make things more permanent, but at other times I wonder what 2nd and third order effects will accompany such changes. What I mean is that its just not the question of "what" that is at issue, but its the discussion of "why", and what the implications are that also must be discussed. Too many things are just "changed" without the type of due deliberation that makes them work right as opposed to just different. Part of what bothers me is the idea that legislators might make changes without understanding why, and what that means wrt national security, executive vs. legislative authorities, etc. While the current system is not as effective as we require, and as such is not efficient, it does keep the discussion between Congress and the Executive going. I was watching such a discussion recently (last month) between (I think it was the HASC) and Under Secretary of Defense for Policy Flournoy, GEN Petraeus and ADM Olsen. There were a number of discussion points that came up that I think keep Congress learning.

    The stakes are however not one sided, there are serious implications for not being as effective as we might be. However, one could also argue that making the $$$ and authorities readily available have not always proven wise either and sometime result in expenditures that don't really buy much, don't contribute to the objective, and as such serve to erode domestic political will - how may zeroes in 9 trillion?

    How does this relate back to design? I think if you are looking further out you can begin the education further out, and start to way the costs associated with the objective to shape expectations. Wrt OTERA, the map to the policy objective should be at least laid out with the big objectives, and those should be scrutinized to ensure they make sense in the context of the broader campaign plan and areas of contingent development.

    If it is a crisis, and there are extraordinary requirements then the discussion between Congress and the Executive should dress them as such.

    This may not make for the most effective SFA, but I do think it makes for us thinking it through. Development of another state's or organization's FSF capabilities and capacities, for purposes that may out live your own needs to be thought out. As such maybe, just maybe the appropriation of the means to do so should be thought out, and should be seen in light of the domestic political context as well.

    Taking the kids to Watkin's Farms today - just NE of K.C. should be neat, but will be off the net for the rest of the day I think.

    Best, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 05-30-2009 at 02:58 PM.

  7. #107
    Council Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    4,021

    Default Hei, Vanha kotka ...

    Hyvää päivää. Olen tietämätön lakimies metsässä. Kiitos paljon, avuksi.

    (trans) Hey, Old Eagle ... Good day. I am an ignorant lawyer in the woods. Thanks much, for the help.

    The fact that you know the "good morning" greeting implies one of two things: (1) you got up early in those Helsinki mornings; or (2) you stayed up very late to reach those Helsinki mornings.

    Anyway, I will proceed as directed - Olen hyvä poika. But, I am starting on the Accidental Guerrilla.

  8. #108
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Here is my one big caution on SFA.

    I believe there is direct analogy between Poplace based conflicts within and between states to the dynamics of populace based conflicts that we are all far more familiar with within and between households.

    So, travel if you will to a typical neighborhood in Bob's World. Down the street there is a house where the husband is a bit of a jerk. The kids are in trouble a lot at school, and the wife feels neglected and misunderstood and has a bit of a wandering eye these days... Everyone in the nieghborhood knows and talks about this particulalr family, and truth be told are closer to the same situation in their own homes than they would care to admit. Maintaining a healthy household is continuous business, and the happiest households are those with the best communications and mutual respect, not the ones that are the richest or most effectively run.

    So, you decide you want to help out this poor sap down the street. He is the COIN conducting party, and his family is the insurgent party. The guy at the grocery store who chats up the wife is conducting UW, and so are those bad influences at school that talk the kids into much of the trouble they find themselves in. As a concerned neighbor helping a fella out, you are the FID party.

    So, you decide to focus on SFA. That if this guy just had better skills at keeping his wife and kids in line, then it would solve the problems...

    If you don't fully appreciate the nature of populace based conflicts, and are not tuned in on the particulars of the household you are stepping in to "help," you could be simply making this guy way more effective at being the controlling jerk he has always been, and exacerbating the very problem you were seeking to cure.

    So, is SFA a valuable tool that we need to devleop? Absolutely. Do we already have a bag of tools being used improperly? Equally absolutely. I just wish we would put as much effort into understanding the problem we are seeking to fix as we do into developing new tools to fix it with.

    Starting with, why are we the ones going around and meddling in the household affairs of so many of our neighbors in the first place? Oh, 65 years ago it was a rough neighborhood, and we stood up and led a neighborhood watch program and saw the neighborhood through a very rough time? Ok. Good on us. But that problem cleared up some 20 years ago and now our efforts are a lot less appreciated. We still have a role, we just need to tailor it to the current environment.
    Last edited by Bob's World; 05-31-2009 at 01:03 PM.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  9. #109
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Here is my one big caution on SFA.

    I believe there is direct analogy between Poplace based conflicts within and between states to the dynamics of populace based conflicts that we are all far more familiar with within and between households.

    So, travel if you will to a typical neighborhood in Bob's World. Down the street there is a house where the husband is a bit of a jerk. The kids are in trouble a lot at school, and the wife feels neglected and misunderstood and has a bit of a wandering eye these days... Everyone in the neighborhood knows and talks about this particularly family, and truth be told are closer to the same situation in their own homes than they would care to admit. Maintaining a healthy household is continuous business, and the happiest households are those with the best communications and mutual respect, not the ones that are the richest or most effectively run.

    So, you decide you want to help out this poor sap down the street. He is the COIN conducting party, and his family is the insurgent party. The guy at the grocery store who chats up the wife is conducting UW, and so are those bad influences at school that talk the kids into much of the trouble they find themselves in. As a concerned neighbor helping a fella out, you are the FID party.

    I have been pushing this since I came here. The most modern doctrine or lessons learned are in the realm of Domestic Violence/Stalking type situations (including a lot of failures). The neighborhood you described is one I worked in for a long time and points out how dynamic and changing the situation is and you have to address all the variables to have any chance at success.

    Where I disagree is so many separate doctrines FID,UW,COIN,SFA understand it as a violent system and address the root causes, which is always the people.

  10. #110
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default I think the answer to that

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    Starting with, why are we the ones going around and meddling in the household affairs of so many of our neighbors in the first place?
    is that tired but still true 'someone's gotta do it.' The last 20 years have shown that it isn't likely to get done if we do not engage the issue.
    Oh, 65 years ago it was a rough neighborhood, and we stood up and led a neighborhood watch program and saw the neighborhood through a very rough time? Ok. Good on us. But that problem cleared up some 20 years ago and now our efforts are a lot less appreciated. We still have a role, we just need to tailor it to the current environment.
    It was my observation 65 years ago a lot of the neighbors we were helping did not like us one little bit. Five years later I was a bit older and realized that a lot of them really didn't like us much at all -- but were quite willing to seek our aid in any form, take it and still not like us. As time has passed, I've seen little change. People will take what we offer and will try to use and manipulate us. Our nominal 'enemies' have done that for over a century -- and they have been and are today tacitly if not sometimes actively aided by many of our nominal 'friends' who distrust us. Many with good cause as we, like every nation, have simply pursued our own interests as we should. The problem is that we are quite large, rambunctious and have a ripple impact on too many.

    We've been interfering with others for over 200 years; this is not a recent or Cold War thing and to try to say it is to deliberately obscure a rational view of history. That 200 plus year legacy will never go away, it is the cause of much hatred of the US around the world and we will try to act like it might be mitigated only at great cost. Your prescription is dangerous.

  11. #111
    Council Member Bob's World's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    2,706

    Default

    Ken,

    You can't compare America's engagement 200 years ago with our engagement 65 years ago. The former we were a little tiny maritime nation focused on commerce and expanding beyond the Blue Ridge to settle the Ohio valley and Gulf states. 65 Years ago we took the baton from England to lead the western effort to contain the Soviets and lead the free world.

    To keep implementing a family of policies, programs, institutions and perspectives with a government system all designed to address a world that was emerging out of WWII is what is dangerous.

    America has a major role in the world, that has not changed. We just need to adapt that role for the current environment.

    As I look back on history every major power has collapsed under the efforts of attempting to maintain a Status Quo that was favorable to them in the face of a changing environment that all of the rising powers were taking advantage of to fuel their own rise. This is how we displaced the Brits. If we do not learn from history and embrace change it will be how the Chinese displace us.

    When you are caught in a rip tide and you are young and strong you figure "sure, they say go parallel to the shore and conserve your strength and swim to shore once you are free of the current, but I know I am different and I can just power through this."

    Well we have been swimming hard against the current and it is tiring us far faster than anyone would have predicted. Time to get out of the rip, and then chart a new course to a better future. A lot of people on the shore are watching with great interest, but I don't see any of them risking their own hide to come out and help us.
    Robert C. Jones
    Intellectus Supra Scientia
    (Understanding is more important than Knowledge)

    "The modern COIN mindset is when one arrogantly goes to some foreign land and attempts to make those who live there a lesser version of one's self. The FID mindset is when one humbly goes to some foreign land and seeks first to understand, and then to help in some small way for those who live there to be the best version of their own self." Colonel Robert C. Jones, US Army Special Forces (Retired)

  12. #112
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default a little further out there

    I see allot of the last few posts leading back to Marc's desire to see a "grand strategy" that employed all the resources, not in raw sum, but in the right proportion to the objective(s). This might require the Will to follow a totally pragmatic and apolitical (in the sense of U.S. domestic turbulence) vision. There is something approaching total commitment at that point maybe, to the point where all else falls away from the desire for the objective.

    I think the only way you get there - meaning the big "W" will, is you face an existential threat (or perceived and hyped to become one) because preservation of one's primary interests trumps all else (unless you can't see it); fear from being politically isolated (think the post 9/11 USG - and for that matter most western democracies) is also a good motivator.

    If you really do have an existential threat, then the cost are probably justified, even if your political enemies undermine you when things cool off, or when they think they understand enough to assume the risks of doing so (not personal, just politics).

    I guess my point is two fold with that:

    1) goes to the former HASC member who remarked that we were going to have to explain it to the public in such a way that it was politically safe

    2) goes to the fact that I don't see any member of Congress rushing to give up any power, the collection of which is how they stay in power, and it is only when such an apparent transfer of power would benefit them by giving them more power elsewhere that they will cede it (there are probably a few exceptions - maybe)

    OK - I know there are some great work groups out there trying to address some of this, they may have luck on the Executive side - as long as it gives the executive more power - or allows him to use existing power better, but I did not see any members of Congress in that last interview I mentioned earlier asking which laws DoD would like to see permanently weakened, abolished or changed to make DoD more effective at winning the wars (or contingency ops abroad or whatever is the proper political terminology for war). I could have missed it, it could have went down behind the scenes, but I did not see it on C-Span. I know there are HASC and SASC staffers who are aware of the problems so I'm guessing their bosses are as well, but still no new news?

    Back to Marc's point about a grand strategy that links theater and regional objectives together and results in the all the right tools being employed in ways that support their effectiveness - I can't see it until the threat justifies it, or until Palpatine takes over.

    Back to design, I guess we need to get better at working inside the existing legal framework, and I think design supports that.

    Best, Rob
    Last edited by Rob Thornton; 06-01-2009 at 12:07 AM.

  13. #113
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Rob, you may see you theory implemented here (US). The effects of the auto industry layoffs will really start hitting shortly and we may have a long hot summer. Security Force Assistance may be required. I bet DHS has already downloaded your paper.... they need some strategic thinkers over there.


    Is Design Systems Thinking sure looks like it?

  14. #114
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hi Rob,

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Back to Marc's point about a grand strategy that links theater and regional objectives together and results in the all the right tools being employed in ways that support their effectiveness - I can't see it until the threat justifies it, or until Palpatine takes over.
    Honestly, I'm as cynical about it as you are - at least in terms of actual design and implementation. What I think can and, honestly, must be done is to get that grand strategy together at the level of principle, and then make certain that all missions meet the criteria of those principles; obviously modified by circumstances.

    Outside of any particular issues of effectiveness, this serves to establish a moral justification / baseline for the world to see.
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

  15. #115
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Hey Marc - I know you are - I just thought it was great that we'd been working several angles and came back to a point you made earlier but one we did not fully explore at the time because we may not have had all the pieces on the table.

    Best, Rob

  16. #116
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    Salp - I do think design theory can be used on any number of complex issues - I'd made a recommendation on the CAC blog (CAC had put up a blog about the reasons there may be a shortage of 04s) that HRC use the process of design to look at their HR strategy for FGs. Initially the naming convention had been the Operational Design Process (at least when I was introduced to it last year), and ultimately the Army had decided to go with just "Design". I like this better, because the nature of what your "designing" should characterize what your are doing, e.g. "functional" vs. "operational".

    I'm not sure it will work for our auto industry problem as a problem unto itself. I think the auto industry problem a part of a much larger economic and domestic political issue. I think this is the limitation of design, or any other type of applied theory, as long as you are predisposed to an outcome then everything you observe can be bent to support that outcome. This is where trying to pursue what could be a discreet end in the context of social engineering (all politics) can protract and exacerbate the problem - people start reacting when what they value is put at risk. If done before hand, design might tell you that and give you an indication of the most likely outcomes, however if the object of desire is too irresistible, or the political tolerance is insufficient, then its just static.

    Best, Rob

  17. #117
    Council Member Ken White's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Florida
    Posts
    8,060

    Default We'll comntinue to disagree on this, I expect.

    Quote Originally Posted by Bob's World View Post
    You can't compare America's engagement 200 years ago with our engagement 65 years ago. The former we were a little tiny maritime nation focused on commerce and expanding beyond the Blue Ridge to settle the Ohio valley and Gulf states. 65 Years ago we took the baton from England to lead the western effort to contain the Soviets and lead the free world.
    In reverse order, I'm quite aware of that. I'm also aware of the fact that you used the correct word; 'took.' Because that's exactly what we did and FDR masterminded it -- and they know it; so do the French -- and both those nations recall Suez. Not fondly, either.

    I did not attempt to compare Americas engagement 200 years ago to 65 years ago (aside from the fact that 65 is included in the 200...). What I did was remind you that we have been interfering in other nations for that period and they all remember it -- again, not fondly -- no matter how much you want to downplay it. Those hard feelings have been inculcated over many years, including the last 65 and they are not going away. So I didn't make any such comparison -- you elected to misunderstand or misstate what I did write. For proof of an attitude toward us that was engendered more than 65 years ago, talk to South Americans...

    We are seen as a looming threat by almost everyone; that in my observation in over 20 nations for over 60 years has always been true. It waxes and wanes but it never completely goes away.

    So anyone who thinks a nice new shiny USA will win friends and influence people is, I believe, quite mistaken -- and as I said, dangerously so.
    To keep implementing a family of policies, programs, institutions and perspectives with a government system all designed to address a world that was emerging out of WWII is what is dangerous.
    I do not think we are doing that. I in 45 years of guvmint service witnessed a lot of changes -- slow, to be sure -- but changes.
    America has a major role in the world, that has not changed. We just need to adapt that role for the current environment.
    I'm comfortable that is being done and comfortable that it does not appear to be in accordance with your model; as I said, the neighborhood really is no better. It's really worse, in many ways.
    As I look back on history every major power has collapsed under the efforts of attempting to maintain a Status Quo that was favorable to them in the face of a changing environment that all of the rising powers were taking advantage of to fuel their own rise. This is how we displaced the Brits. If we do not learn from history and embrace change it will be how the Chinese displace us.
    Heh. Are you serious? You hope to stop that? Do the math -- and do not forget India...

    Neither need be a threat unless we make them one.
    Well we have been swimming hard against the current and it is tiring us far faster than anyone would have predicted. Time to get out of the rip, and then chart a new course to a better future.
    Better future? Not likely in your lifetime; resource allocations among other things will mess that up
    A lot of people on the shore are watching with great interest, but I don't see any of them risking their own hide to come out and help us.
    Heh. Thank you for making my point; you did not comment on the most important element in my post above so you may have missed the import of of it. Recall what I wrote on that topic:

    ""Our nominal 'enemies' have done that for over a century -- and they have been and are today tacitly if not sometimes actively aided by many of our nominal 'friends' who distrust us. Many with good cause as we, like every nation, have simply pursued our own interests as we should. The problem is that we are quite large, rambunctious and have a ripple impact on too many."" (emphasis added / kw)

    You can totally ignore that as a comment from me -- if you ignore that FACT in your strategic planning, you will do this nation a grave disservice.

  18. #118
    Council Member slapout9's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Posts
    4,818

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Salp - I do think design theory can be used on any number of complex issues - I'd made a recommendation on the CAC blog (CAC had put up a blog about the reasons there may be a shortage of 04s) that HRC use the process of design to look at their HR strategy for FGs. Initially the naming convention had been the Operational Design Process (at least when I was introduced to it last year), and ultimately the Army had decided to go with just "Design". I like this better, because the nature of what your "designing" should characterize what your are doing, e.g. "functional" vs. "operational".

    I'm not sure it will work for our auto industry problem as a problem unto itself. I think the auto industry problem a part of a much larger economic and domestic political issue. I think this is the limitation of design, or any other type of applied theory, as long as you are predisposed to an outcome then everything you observe can be bent to support that outcome. This is where trying to pursue what could be a discreet end in the context of social engineering (all politics) can protract and exacerbate the problem - people start reacting when what they value is put at risk. If done before hand, design might tell you that and give you an indication of the most likely outcomes, however if the object of desire is too irresistible, or the political tolerance is insufficient, then its just static.

    Best, Rob

    Rob, Dr. Jack just released a Design Handbook which I am reading now. Design is going to be a big hit. It is Systems Thinking without the baggage that goes with the term. Seems to have kept some of the SOD stuff and gotten rid of the confusing parts. Today Systems Thinking is almost automatically associated to computers that nobody knows what it means anymore. The Design theory will probably take care of that plus it sounds cooler and more human friendly.

    You are definitely right about the economy, deign would work only if the higher level policy issues(mainly energy) were solved first so the auto industry could do some type of intelligent designing and planning.

    Sometimes I think we actually lost the Cold War because planning was so associated with Communism that we just decided to just let stuff happen, very bad move. We know longer hold any type of initiative over our Economic situation because of this ,we just react from one crisis to another. I don't the present administration understand the true magnitude to this. I keep waiting for the Army Greenmen party to hook up with the other Green party and then we might have a chance.


    One last question just exactly what does Operational mean as you use it? Does it mean the organization has come to life and is now working?

  19. #119
    Council Member Rob Thornton's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fort Leavenworth, KS
    Posts
    1,510

    Default

    One last question just exactly what does Operational mean as you use it? Does it mean the organization has come to life and is now working?
    Slap, naw - I just mean in terms of the design which identifies operational objectives, develops an operational approach to meet those objectives (complete with what are decisive, shaping and sustaining) - and ultimately identifies the range of requirements.

    Dr. Jack just released a Design Handbook which I am reading now
    Yep, I like his HB.

    Gotta run - Best, Rob

  20. #120
    Council Member marct's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Ottawa, Canada
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    Hey Rob,

    Quote Originally Posted by Rob Thornton View Post
    Hey Marc - I know you are - I just thought it was great that we'd been working several angles and came back to a point you made earlier but one we did not fully explore at the time because we may not have had all the pieces on the table.
    True, although, in my more morose moments, I tend towards a less sanguine interpretation.

    Turning and turning in the winding gyre
    The falcon can not hear the falconer;
    Things fall apart; the centre can not hold;
    Mere anarchy is loosed upon the world,
    The blood-dimmed tide is loosed, and everywhere
    The ceremony of innocence is drowned;
    The best lack all conviction, while the worst
    Are full of passionate intensity
    Okay, I admit it! An excuse to quote one of my favorite poems !
    Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
    Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
    Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
    Senior Research Fellow,
    The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
    Carleton University
    http://marctyrrell.com/

Similar Threads

  1. What is JCISFA, what is SFA, and how does it fit in the greater scheme of things-PT 1
    By Rob Thornton in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 03-05-2010, 03:48 PM
  2. SFA capability is rooted in Individual Talent (part 1)
    By Rob Thornton in forum Training & Education
    Replies: 45
    Last Post: 05-21-2009, 09:30 PM
  3. Operational Design Process and Security Force Assistance
    By SWJED in forum FID & Working With Indigenous Forces
    Replies: 6
    Last Post: 06-10-2008, 09:03 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •