New Vision for Joint Concepts

[William F. Owen]

See here

This strongly implies to me that the good General has run out of patience with the "new war" club, and wants to get back to basics. If I am reading this right, then that is to be applauded.

I could quibble with portions of what he says, but the intent seems clear and useful. The problem I see is actually ensuring that this policy lasts. I don't think it's going to stop the silly ideas being held to rigor - and that is the problem.

A great many silly concepts are accepted on the basis of no evidence, or evidence that has no historical grounding. -EBO being an excellent example. The other common trick is the fabrication of history or the use of very poor history such as that which was used to promote Maneuverer Warfare.

I really like the intent, but I suspect it will be long uphill struggle.

[Gian P Gentile]

Wilf:

Agree.

This is an impressive document in its clarity of purpose and articulation of intent. We are lucky to have General Mattis in charge of these matters.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

He is rightly critical of the current DoD concept-development process which allows projects that have uncertain or problematic results, coupled with a modest sense of practicality, to thrive. I like that he posits that when writing new concepts there should be greater use of simple, concise language, rather then the current trend to use “trendy buzz-phrases” to describe, in some cases preexisting, concepts. Concepts with merit should be thoroughly vetted and validated by the joint community before being included in doctrine. Those concepts judged to be unfeasible or duplicative should be ceased to be worked on any further. Only in very rare cases should DoD continue to prolong work on concepts with an uncertain chance of successful achievement.

One the best parts: “Under the current system, concepts have proliferated to the point that their sheer number confounds meaningful analysis. Many of the concepts are poorly scoped in terms of subject area. New concepts often are initiated by bureaucratic fiat vice conceptual need – to fill a predetermined hierarchy, lend weight to a new office or justify a new assessment.”

Amen!

[Rob Thornton]

Wilf said:

This strongly implies to me that the good General has run out of patience with the "new war" club, and wants to get back to basics. If I am reading this right, then that is to be applauded.

it may be more along the lines of making sure the basics are not lost, and new concepts are vetted and integrated.

Best, Rob

[Steve Blair]

Wilf said:

it may be more along the lines of making sure the basics are not lost, and new concepts are vetted and integrated.

Best, Rob

I suspect this is somewhat closer to the truth.

[William F. Owen]

it may be more along the lines of making sure the basics are not lost, and new concepts are vetted and integrated.

Best, Rob

Possibly but I see this a flow on from his incisive EBO memo.
Additionally:

“Under the current system, concepts have proliferated to the point that their sheer number confounds meaningful analysis. Many of the concepts are poorly scoped in terms of subject area."

I think if the basics were safe there would be no need to state the above.

[Umar Al-Mokhtār]

it is from what point in history you want to position the "basics" from which we have, in Mattis' opinion, deviated from.

I would posit that the basics change in almost a generational fashion as “newspeak” is adopted to replace some of the old terminology. While this may be necessary as completely new concepts come to be recognized ('cyberspace' comes to mind) I think we are often guilty of just renaming an already existing process or doctrine without essentially changing it (GWOT – Long War – OCO - ?) . We play ‘acronym of the week’ with some things.

IMO Mattis wants to get back to say what you mean and mean what you stay and stop with just making s**t up for the sake of making s**t up.

[Boot]

Wilf said:

it may be more along the lines of making sure the basics are not lost, and new concepts are vetted and integrated.

Best, Rob

I would agree with that; Gen Mattis said as much a couple of months ago.


http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20090...stcentury.html

[slapout9]

I would agree with that; Gen Mattis said as much a couple of months ago.


http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20090...stcentury.html

Great post Boot, everybody should watch this and see USAF General Charlie Dunlap congratulate General Mattis for a successfull EBO (Effects Based Operation) in Al Anbar and then General Mattis responds....... and then you have a little debate.

[William F. Owen]

I would agree with that; Gen Mattis said as much a couple of months ago.

http://www.fpri.org/multimedia/20090...stcentury.html

...and good to Frank Hoffman, even if it's the back of his head!

Much he says, I strongly agree with. Some of what he says, I just don't, but he is exactly right about not being able to choose who you fight. Big Wars will happen.