I realize everyone knows this but one item above hit a nerve. Speed and aggressiveness are needed at times and certainly have a place but they are not always beneficial. From Cliff:
Warden is saying that speeding you attack reduces the ability of the enemy to react, and thus makes him more predictable (see his figure 3).
Boyd said somewhat the same thing. Both were fighter pilots and both understood the laws of physics and aerodynamics. One's experience can color one's thinking in subtle ways...

Aircraft must react in rather predictable ways (I would never say Airmen -- and Soldiers, Sailors and Marines -- tend to also do that ) but people, units, governments are far less predictable and can even be erratic...

My observation has been that on both a tactical and strategic levels, and with respect to efforts in war and other than war, that statement is far from universally true. In fact, speedy action aimed at creating a set of reactions can fail in its intent due to a variety of circumstances, nor least failure to successfully achieve your aim. Politics can intrude and delay effects...

The other guy can interfere. A fair example is our old bete noir, Saddam. He told us what he was going to do; give weapons to all, release the prisoners from the jails and wage unrestricted guerrilla warfare. He gave Medals to two Russian Generals (who advised him to do that) and we completely ignored or missed all that even though our admittedly kinetic action was rapid. Shock and Awe it was not...

There is also nothing wrong with deliberately not being speedy to entice the competitor or opponent to overextend. Subadai did that repeatedly 800 years ago and he also at the time loosely controlled large Armies literally hundreds of miles apart (without GPS and Satcom, no video ). That doesn't mean it is a technique not still useful, particularly at the strategic level...