The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments

[marct]

Hi Wilf,

I see no gross oversimplification. Maybe useful reductionism?

That's an interesting, and probably very useful, distinction IFF the difference were spelled out in the document . For example, the "term "adaption" (and its variants "adaptive", "adaptability", etc.) are used fairly often in the ACC, but there is no specific definition for what that is supposed to mean. Now, I happen to use both the term and concept fairly often ('sides that, I spend a fair bit of time drinking with biologists and occasionally lecture in Biotechnology classes), so I know what the term means in biology as well as in sociology / anthropology.

While the term isn't defined, the "meaning" that can be ascribed to it based on both immediate and total context is closer to a Spencerian idea of the concept (he's the dude who coined the phrase "Survival of the Fittest" with all of the Eugenicist implications). However, as the term is used by people who have been in the field, the implied meaning is much closer to that of Darwin's concept, i.e. the ability to sort through multiple options quickly and select one that should work and, if that fails, to create one on the spot.

In Spencer's version of the concept, there is an implied teleology of "this is the best", while in Darwin's concept, it's closer to "it works and didn't cause a catastrophic failure" (no implied teleology).

So, what does this have to do with "gross oversimplification" vs "useful reductionism"? Well, a gross oversimplification leaves implied meaning wide open to interpretation, while a useful reductionism restricts interpretation of key characteristics (NB: usually by pointing towards an expansion of them in other documents). In the case of "adaption" in the ACC, we have a case of gross oversimplification, since the teleological implications of the two main interpretations have radically different implications for training and organization.

Does this speak to an inability to be able to write short, clear and concise Concepts and Doctrine notes? - in that long, turgid, complex document are perceived to be more insightful that 3 page of clearly expressed ideas?

I'm not sure that it is an "inability" in the classic sense of "they don't know how to do it", so much as "they are structurally unable to do it" because of the functional requirements for the document. From what I can gather, the ACC is not only supposed to be a model of how the US Army currently views future warfare, it is also a PR piece in budget negotiations, a guideline for future training / mobilization requirements, and a venue for politically powerful factions to argue for their pet projects. In short, it is written by a committee that does not have either a single goal or a single vision.

Personally, I think they are making a critical error in the way it is written. I would argue that they could still achieve their PR (and budgetary) goals while writing a concise, if not short, document. I think we can certainly see that some of the people are trying to do just that, while others are obfuscating parts of the document and still others are attaching "earmarks" to it.

Does describing your future enemies as "hybrid," make you seem more accepting of challenge, and thus able to ask for more money?

As far as I can see, the term is a mere buzz word to increase the fear reaction in political readers and with the public. Analytically, it is silly since I can't think of a fight in the past millennium (at least!) that didn't involve "hybrid" factors (including Frederick the Great).