Eaton fires broadside at Cheney

[jmm99]

than to discourse apart - ships passing in the night are not productive. That having been said, let's go through your points.

from BW
1. Ensure that you make it clear that you are not dividing a single "threat" into bands, but rather using bands to highlight and differentiate distinct, but related entities that combine to make a common problem.

The 10-ring is self-explanatory. It is not static, but folks in more lower rings may jump up; and folks in that ring may move down to lower rings. E.g., the guy who was running the middleman, who was running Zazi according to DoJ, was an AQ top finance man who was shifted into Astan operations. Rather than a dartboard, I'd view the construct more in terms of quantum chemistry or physics where particles move back and forth between energy levels (quantum jumps).

My 9-6 rings (4 rings) were based on positing four different components which I somewhat arbitrarily assigned to AQ: special operations forces (e.g., 9/11), financing folks, propaganda folks, and their special forces (aimed at force multiplication from groups in the lower numbered rings). Any particular component is not assigned to a specific ring, but can jump between rings - closer to or further from the leadership ring, or closer to or further from the "insurgent" groups in rings 5-1.

My 5-1 rings were completely arbitrary - simply to fill out a 10-ring target. Again, there will be quantum jumps between rings, moving closer or further away from the AQ "groups & teams" (rings 9-6).

Keep in mind that all of these folks are loosely networked (a given because of the jumps between rings) and fluid. Hence, nodes and connections will always exist, but they will appear to be transitory. That's why the Internet is a key element. E.g., as an example, a webpage is here today, but gone tomorrow; however, another webpage will exist somewhere, which will key folks into the new url address.

In short, we are dealing with an open, complex system which is resilient to linear tactics or effects based operations.

from BW
2. To apply "Defeat-Disrupt-Deter" I would apply Defeat to the 10-ring; Disrupt to the 6-9 rings; and Deter to your 1-5 rings.

I'd view this a bit differently, but we might end up the same. As to the 10-ring, "Defeat" is the ultimate objective and obvious. But, a clear head or heart shot is unlikely (although we almost had one at Tora Bora, and several times before 9/11). If we get one, fine; but don't count on it.

Moreover, in reading Zawahiri's Knights' discussion of the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood, the publicly known figures (in AQ's case, UBL & Zawahiri) are not necessarily AQ's real top figures - there may be a small number of "shadow partners" who are very secure. If that sounds conspiratorial, it is - AQ is a conspiracy.

On that theme, you crack a conspiracy by identifying it and cracking it from the outside in. The principal attack, which will be time-consuming, is to attack rings 9-6 (their "groups and teams") - realizing we are shooting at a moving and jumping target. So, "Disrupt" is probably as good as any tag word for that process.

As to the 5-1 rings (the "domestic insurgents"), the major practical problem to "Deter" is the sheer variety of motives and causes for what are in effect brush fires. Huge amounts of energy, lives, money and lost opportunities are eaten up in putting out brush fires (e.g, Vietnam, Iraq and Astan). In the end, at best, you will be shooting 50/100 by taking on the 5-1 rings (ave. is 2.5). The average in taking on the 9-6 rings is 7.5.

from BW
3. You may want to make your "Target" look more like a Dartboard than a Bullseye to help clearly communicate that even within each ring there are esential differences that must be addressed uniquely.

I think the concept of quantum jumps handles the interchanges between rings by the varied "particles" in the rings. Just think of the visual patterns illustrating quantum mechanics and quantum chemistry. You need not the higher math.

from BW
4. Strategic success lies in the 1-5 rings, as this is the base of support that makes the whole thing work. The soulution-set for this ring must also be rooted far more in Civilian led policy than anything the security community would offer in support. Take these rings away and the rest withers (though like a weed, is prepared to spring back to life if nurtured by conditions of poor governance as assessed by each of these distinct populaces own perspectives).

No, strategic success vs. AQ lies in disruption of the 9-6 rings (the higher value targets, albeit not the highest value target) - their "groups and teams". How would you disrupt SOCOM ? Not a question to be answered publicly, but that is the counterpart analogy.

There are non-"M" things that could be done (the "DIE" options), and that we probably could agree on, that would help a "Deter" strategy in rings 5-1; and perhaps even more so in ring 0 - which is the far larger part of the World (and from which rings 5-1 come). However, those are tied up in what considers the better (note I didn't say "best", which is Utopian) Worldview that the US should have in the future. That is a more difficult geo-political topic.

Your thoughts ?

Regards as always

Mike

[Bob's World]

I probably wouldn't use a ring construct myself, as too many would apply Warden targeting to it, or as bad, draw too many similarities between players placed within the same ring. But as I said, it can be helpful, so long as one understands the players it is placing in the rings, rather than using the rings to understand the players...

As to "Defeat" on AQSL. This is a debate that I continue to irritate the "Capture/Kill" gang with. C/K can never be more than a supporting effort to any defeat strategy, and that true "defeat" of a political, non-state UW HQ like AQ comes when you rob them of their base of support by out competing them to take away the rationale for their existence. If you simply remove this HQ without doing so it will be replaced by a new, more sophisticated organization (evolution), and if you take out leaders they are easily replaced as well (and the intel guys rarely do a good job of laying out the pros and cons of keeping a guy in place vice who is likely to replace him, etc. So a huge aspect of Defeat of AQ lies in the "Deter" of the nationalist insurgent movements.

Deter: Not our job to help every f'd up government in the world either suppress or support its populace more effectively. Some governments just really need to evolve or be replaced from within, and insurgency, like forest fire, is a great, though harsh, way to clear out the dead wood, disease, and insects.

No, the primary focus of the US in this deter ring should be to target the perception that the US is responsible in some way for either the government as a whole, or the specific failures of the government that are eating at the populace. This is why the hair stands up on the back of my neck when I see everybody jumping on the SFA bandwagon with a focus on the training and equipping aspect of it. Those should be seen primarily as vehicles to get you access in general to work on the development of professionalism through the conduit of the security forces; all very very carefully tailored in execution to enhance US credibility and influence with the people, while mitigating any perceptions of undue US influence and control over the government. Tricky business this, and no place for well intended, highly motivated armatures that have their focus on the wrong purpose for their action.

Disrupting the network is just good suppressive fires. You can never break it so long as there is a target audience of supportive populaces out there, but you can attrit its effectiveness and need to do so.



A good case study is that of the LIFG (Libyan Islamic Fighting Group). This is a nationalist insurgency in Libya that primarily wants to rid Libya of the Qadhafi government. They have their roots in Libyans who traveled to Afg to fight the Soviets, and employ an Islamism ideology to support their movement. They associate with AQ as they buy into their larger purpose of reducing Western influence in the region and return to a purer form of Islam, but also try to distance themselves from AQ as well. They accept AQ support, and were the number 2 (behind Saudi Arabia) provider of manpower to the "foreign fighter node" of the AQ network operating in Iraq.

Many look at Qadhafi's recent recanting of his sins against the West as good, and his pledge to assist the US and UK in their war on terror as a good thing. Looked at just a little harder one sees, that like the Saudis, when he pledges to help with the war on terror, what he is really getting is a green light to brutally suppress his own insurgent populace in the name of "GWOT," in exchange for Western support of his regime, and worse, strengthening the rationale of those same insurgent populaces to target the US in the process.

What the West should do is accept Qadhafi’s offer, but contingent upon him meeting with leaders of key populace groups in his country, to include those labeled as "terrorists" by our intel guys, and opening communications and designing and implementing governmental reforms. Any SFA with Libya should be designed with this in mind and focused far more on enabling the reforms rather than on helping Qadhafi’s attempts to crush the LIFG.

Also, it is critical that we do not anoint or recognize movements such as the LIFG as "AQ." As this strengthens the perceptions of legitimacy, purpose, and effectiveness of the AQSL. BL, is that our goal should be for the Libyan populace, to include LIFG, to see the West as the enabler of good governance rather than an obstacle to the same. All of this must be supported by an overall policy and strategic communications on a grand scheme of reducing Western influence over the populaces and governments of the region.

(Note, any change of governance, be it Qadhafi in Libya, or the Saudis in Arabia, must be in perception and fact an internal affair; and we must support and endorse whomever prevails. If you don't have a ballot box that works, sometimes the only way a populace can trend toward self-determination and greater democracy is through popular insurgency or military coups...messy business, but we've been there ourselves, so should be more empathetic of those who seek to follow our lead)

Many say "Too hard, too idealistic, too much inertia in what we're doing to change."

To those I say fine, you've made your choice; enjoy your GWOT, because you just signed up for a lifetime supply of it.

[slapout9]

As to "Defeat" on AQSL. This is a debate that I continue to irritate the "Capture/Kill" gang with. C/K can never be more than a supporting effort to any defeat strategy, and that true "defeat" of a political, non-state UW HQ like AQ comes when you rob them of their base of support by out competing them to take away the rationale for their existence.

Which is exactly what you would learn if you did Warden's ring analysis. In his theory there are always at least 2 systems that have to be analyzed, they are your system and the larger environmental system in which the enemy operates. The larger system is where you can affect(cause) the smaller system to achieve the desired effect(result). That is why in older versions of his work you will see 5 ring charts placed side by side or one on top of the other to see possible collision points between the systems. And you will also learn that often the best way to affect one system is by acting through another system which at first glance may appear unrelated.

[Bob's World]

Slap, I'll take your word for it. I'm happy to make strong postions on things I have spent a lot of time doing or thinking about, but Warden's rings are something I am merely aquainted with.

Any tool that help visualize and break down a complex problem is good. I just caution that the best tool applied incorrectly or to any problem that happens to come up, is likely to fall short. So, "proceed with caution," but by all means proceed!

[slapout9]

Slap, I'll take your word for it. I'm happy to make strong postions on things I have spent a lot of time doing or thinking about, but Warden's rings are something I am merely aquainted with.

Any tool that help visualize and break down a complex problem is good. I just caution that the best tool applied incorrectly or to any problem that happens to come up, is likely to fall short. So, "proceed with caution," but by all means proceed!

Bob, much of what you say is in direct alignment with Warden.....you just use different terminology. The problem goes to his original article "The Enemy As A System" people naturally just jump to thinking that if they just analyze the Enemy that everything will work out. It want.

To expand a little the largest system to be analyzed is he what he calls the Market system as opposed to calling it the environmental system. If you think of it that way you will begin to see just how big and complex the support structure can be for an insurgency. Most war theories never dreamed of having to contend with the fact that somebody could get a wire transfer over the internet and order supples and have them shipped to them by UPS and then go blow somebody up and report back to a higher authority over a cell phone.

Which is why I say the moment you begin to think of A'stan as a country as opposed to part of a larger Market System and develop a strategy based upon that thinking you have already lost.

[Ken White]

Any tool that help visualize and break down a complex problem is good. I just caution that the best tool applied incorrectly or to any problem that happens to come up, is likely to fall short. So, "proceed with caution," but by all means proceed!

Couldn't agree more...

[Bill Jakola]

Which is exactly what you would learn if you did Warden's ring analysis.

Colonel John Warden's use of five concentric rings to represent relative importance of targets associated with each ring from inner to outer as Leadership, System Essentials, Infrastructure, Population, and last the Fielded Military is an arbitrary model that has two fatal flaws.

First, it ignores the enemy—in Clausewitzian speak it ignores the “clash of wills”; the enemy always gets a vote, so targeting only five elements in a rigid prioritized format allows the enemy to take advantage of our predictability and does not provide for those enemies (like al Qaeda) who refuse to organize to support this model.

Second and more critically, the Warden five rings model does not support achieving the political goal. Colonel Warden tells us always to target these same five categories irrespective to the political goal.

Major Bill Jakola

[slapout9]

Colonel John Warden's use of five concentric rings to represent relative importance of targets associated with each ring from inner to outer as Leadership, System Essentials, Infrastructure, Population, and last the Fielded Military is an arbitrary model that has two fatal flaws.

First, it ignores the enemy—in Clausewitzian speak it ignores the “clash of wills”; the enemy always gets a vote, so targeting only five elements in a rigid prioritized format allows the enemy to take advantage of our predictability and does not provide for those enemies (like al Qaeda) who refuse to organize to support this model.

Second and more critically, the Warden five rings model does not support achieving the political goal. Colonel Warden tells us always to target these same five categories irrespective to the political goal.

Major Bill Jakola

Hi Bill,
Point 1: Glad you brought that up because this where most people get stuck.......You never ever just choose one ring!!!! You want to attack all 5 if possible. You want to attack the Whole System in Parallel for the simple reason that the enemy will respond....in an uncertain environment and unpredictable environment.......so your best option to reduce the uncertainty is to attack the whole system and reduce his future options.

Point 2: It assumes the Politcal Objective will be given to the military arm of government at which time you choose military targets that will support the Polical Objective. Which is step one of his system "Design The Future".

[Bill Jakola]

Hi Bill,
Point 1: Glad you brought that up because this where most people get stuck.......You never ever just choose one ring!!!! You want to attack all 5 if possible. You want to attack the Whole System in Parallel for the simple reason that the enemy will respond....in an uncertain environment and unpredictable environment.......so your best option to reduce the uncertainty is to attack the whole system and reduce his future options.

Point 2: It assumes the Politcal Objective will be given to the military arm of government at which time you choose military targets that will support the Polical Objective. Which is step one of his system "Design The Future".

Slap,

There is not one scintilla of proof that attacking the whole system in parallel will cause the enemy to "respond" or "reduce his future options"?
Also again Colonel Warden's model is arbitrary and is not the “whole system”.

Major Bill Jakola

[slapout9]

Slap,

There is not one scintilla of proof that attacking the whole system in parallel will cause the enemy to "respond" or "reduce his future options"?
Also again Colonel Warden's model is arbitrary and is not the “whole system”.

Major Bill Jakola

We did it almost perfect in Afghan invasion one and then we never finished the job.....we went to Iraq.

Point 2 What would you consider the whole system? Did you read my previous post about how you have to start with the larger system, not the enemy system?

[Surferbeetle]

...throwing out the bathwater.

Colonel John Warden's use of five concentric rings to represent relative importance of targets associated with each ring from inner to outer as Leadership, System Essentials, Infrastructure, Population, and last the Fielded Military is an arbitrary model that has two fatal flaws.

Just because are no grand unified theories of physics, engineering, or war for that matter does not mean that discrete models of system components fail to a provide a certain utility. Many of us make a good living understanding when and when not to apply various models to describe various circumstances. Clearly stating assumptions and limitations up front is one way to define the parameters under which models apply and allow for the benefits resulting from peer review as to the applicability of the model to the circumstance.

I would be interested to hear if you are advocating for the silver bullet CvC solution or...

Major Bill Jakola

Bill,

I, like many here, prefer it when posters keep their military rank to themselves when presenting ideas and opinions in this forum; doing so allows the poster's contributions to stand or fall upon merit without the undue influence that rank brings to a post. Places like BCKS are examples of how posting rank can stifle discussion, and believe it or not there is life beyond our rank

Best,

Steve

[Bill Jakola]

...throwing out the bathwater.




Bill,

I, like many here, prefer it when posters keep their military rank to themselves when presenting ideas and opinions in this forum; doing so allows the poster's contributions to stand or fall upon merit without the undue influence that rank brings to a post. Places like BCKS are examples of how posting rank can stifle discussion, and believe it or not there is life beyond our rank

Best,

Steve

Steve,

Thanks for the tip; I will drop the rank.

Bill Jakola

[jmm99]

If Jakola is Finnish, just sign Bill the Finlander. Finlanders are never wrong, even if they are only half-Finlanders.

If Finnish, Kippis; if otherwise, Cheers

Mikko

[Steve the Planner]

Surfer's comment:

"Just because are no grand unified theories of physics, engineering, or war for that matter does not mean that discrete models of system components fail to a provide a certain utility. Many of us make a good living understanding when and when not to apply various models to describe various circumstances. Clearly stating assumptions and limitations up front is one way to define the parameters under which models apply and allow for the benefits resulting from peer review as to the applicability of the model to the circumstance."

Five concentric rings??? Let's see. A lot of this looks like Christhaller's Central Place theory and Gravity Models routinely used to establish retail real estate locations based on intersecting background competitive demand factors over a non-isotropic plan, offset by intersecting resource and transportation patterns.

Let's see? Maybe like a regional transportation systems dynamics model showing the interaction of influences like land use/population, demand, feedback loops, optimizations, and causal factors across a metropolitan area over, say a decade, with linkages to resource, political and environmental factors on a jurisdictional basis?

Whether modeling weather, flow characteristics, traffic, demographics, or resource planning, we all have seen plenty of models that can indicate plenty of things. At grad school (Hopkins), I had a professor for Quantitative Methods that insisted we develop multi-factor input/out models with a calculator and show your work. He was not trying to teach us to do the math, but to understand the elements, structure and interaction of the model. GIGO.

And all that is without the complexity of human factors.

Steve

[slapout9]

STP, looks alot like ASCOPE in the COIN Tactics FM to.

[Surferbeetle]

Five concentric rings??? Let's see. A lot of this looks like Christhaller's Central Place theory and Gravity Models routinely used to establish retail real estate locations based on intersecting background competitive demand factors over a non-isotropic plan, offset by intersecting resource and transportation patterns.

Let's see? Maybe like a regional transportation systems dynamics model showing the interaction of influences like land use/population, demand, feedback loops, optimizations, and causal factors across a metropolitan area over, say a decade, with linkages to resource, political and environmental factors on a jurisdictional basis?

Whether modeling weather, flow characteristics, traffic, demographics, or resource planning, we all have seen plenty of models that can indicate plenty of things. At grad school (Hopkins), I had a professor for Quantitative Methods that insisted we develop multi-factor input/out models with a calculator and show your work. He was not trying to teach us to do the math, but to understand the elements, structure and interaction of the model. GIGO.

And all that is without the complexity of human factors.

Steve,

Greatly appreciate the post; as always you add interesting things to consider. Complexity...

Some of my reading this week has included a paper by Andreas Sandburg (Models of Development, January 21, 2003)

The central question of development is: how does structure emerge from a structureless state without an external organizing force? The answer
seems to be that self-organizing processes are able to produce complex
structures from simple initial states. In biological systems a major factor
appears to be diusion of chemical factors guiding growth or dieren-
tiation. The interaction between dierent diusible factors can create
pattern forming instabilities giving rise to dierentiation of initially ho-
mogeneous tissue. By following gradients axons can connect with the right
target cells, setting up neural networks. This paper is a review of models
of biological pattern formation and development.

USAID Value Chain Analysis Case Studies (Date Sector report and value chain development program, by Rocky Walsborn)

Iraq is now in a position to modernize the date industry by moving up the value chain, from production to the end market. The value chain divides into four key elements or stages in the handling of dates:

...and QEPM modeling...

Do you have any how to reference links for using your cited models in GIS?