The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[Xenophon]

I'll cover Fires since all the big picture stuff has been well covered above by those well qualified to cover it.

In the Combined Arms Section of Chapter 3....:

Implication
Combined Arms Operations: Because future enemies will attempt to counter U.S. significant advantages in communications, surveillance, long-range precision fires, armor protection, and mobility, the Army must provide the Joint Force Commander with combined arms forces capable of operating in a decentralized mode, conducting area security operations over large areas, and capitalizing on joint capabilities at all echelons.

...the need to decentralize fires is mentioned. But, in Appendix B, Lines 1664-1672....

Fires.
Required Capabilities from the 2005 Army Capstone Concept
The future force requires the capability to conduct long-range precision surface-to-surface fires and aviation strikes in the context of a joint operating environment in order to complement joint counter-precision and counter-anti-access capabilities.
Additional Required Capabilities
The future force requires the capability of improved integrated joint fire control networks that provide more effective application of all source fires and effects, from theater to tactical levels to include precision fires and suppressive fires.

...decentralization is not mentioned at all. What IS mentioned is the need for joint fire control networks. Ok, roger, computer systems are shiny and sometimes speed up mission processing and they can do cool stuff and let you watch pirated movies in the TOC. Good. Great. Grand. Wonderful. But in order to achieve the kind of responsiveness and decentralization needed, the approval process needs to be decentralized as well. You can distribute guns and personnel and comm gear easily, but the ability and authority to approve fire missions CANNOT be decentralized without better training of the junior leaders that will need to approve the mission so that their senior leaders are comfortable ceding that authority to them. Computers can provide faster and easier "application of all source fires and effects", but speed is only one factor in "more effective".

Bottom Line: Recommend adding to the Fires Additional Required Capabilities section these two items:

1. The future force will require surface-to-surface fires units that are capable of decentralization of individual fire support systems, command and control systems, and personnel.

2. The future force will require improved and redesigned training, education, and development of junior leaders* in order to produce personnel capable of providing accurate, responsive, and appropriate** application of fire support capabilities.


*- By junior leaders I mean NCOs and junior officers
**- By appropriate I mean both the right munition for the intended target (kinda covered by the training establishment) and how to mitigate risk to civilians, when the risk is too great and fires cannot be used, and when the risk should be ignored i.e. almost never (this is not covered at all in the training establishment, beyond lame, shallow powerpoint presentations about ROEs).

My bureaucracy-ese has yet to be developed, but I'm sure the Army has the capability to wordsmith those into something more confusing and stale.

[Rob Thornton]

Orignally posted by Marc in reply to Wilf:

Serious question here, do you think it is because they don't know what worked or because they don't know why it worked (or something else)?

Marc, I'd say both.

Wrt to both - I think to have a better shot at it you have to:

first do the hard work of determining what conditions you are actually trying to change as they relate to the problem (assuming you know the problem)

second determine which tasks will change those conditions and assign MOEs to each specific task to help you know if you are indeed doing the right things

third assign MOPs to that task to help you know if you are doing the right things well enough

I've attached a variation of an image we are using in the new SFA Planner's Guide we will probably release next week on FSF Force Development

In this variation the logic is aimed at both the operating force and the generating force.

However, if you don't have the logic going in, then you are forced to accept the additional bias that goes with looking over your shoulder and trying to recreate conditions as they were vs. just how you remembeer them, or how you wish they were. Even armed with it going in, you still need to have sufficent indicators to tell you when you are off track.

If you never do this, then you are free to chalk it all up to art, and interpretation.

Best, Rob