The Warden Collection (merged thread)

[slapout9]

...because he states his strategy in his Posture Statement to Congress not in terms of a "future picture" but as an "evolving posturing of forces" that is realtionship-centric:

Finally got it downloaded, let me read it before I respond.

[pvebber]

Everything in the rings is pysical including people, I am not just talking about ring 3 Infrastructure. Influence a physical leader is affecting a physical system.

I think of war (and societal systems) in terms of physical, cognitive and information domains. The information domain mediates interaction between the physical and cognitive.

The Rings theory is an anthropomorphic construct - it treats nation and social systems as human analogues. The leader is the brain, processes are neural, endocrine, digestive, etc. Infrastructure is the musculature and skeletal systems, populations are various cellular structures and forces are the immune and regenerate systems.

This framework (I don't believe it is a model because it only categorizes components, offering no insight or explanation of function) has a "brain" but no "mind". This is not unexpected considering the stated desire to separate physical from "morale" (cognitive in the broader framework). If one turns this back into human terms, it says that you can compel the mind, by stunning or damaging the body.

That is a rather discomforting analogy.

Just as I don't think that physically attacking the body is an effective way to change someone's mind, I don't that that purely physical attacks will achieve strategic objectives of any sophistication. Breaking a body can prevent it from functioning, but will not necessarily get the mind to agree with you. It also is not a very good way to set conditions that will lead the person not harboring resentment against you after you "target their centers of gravity" to convince them to "give in" to you.

Its not "just physical" unless your objective is simple destruction. If you are trying to achieve a strategic goal other than destruction, then you MUST accept that you can't isolate the physical from the cognitive as no matter how "precise" you are, affecting the physical does not have a predictable result in the cognitive.

This is kinda the point about physical systems....the fact is we can do that....we may choose not to but it is a choice on our part.It is just a physical fact of reality that at anytime we have that capability.

Not if you want to achieve the sort of EXIT Warden talks about (ie one that sets conditions for a constructive peace, not instigating a cycle of violence.
If someone burns your house down to get you to comply (or just burns the 10 objects in it most dear to you), the fact they didn't kill your kids is not likely to endear them to you.

The British could have just killed Ghandi, or massacred his followers. Why didn't they? If you divide the physical from the morale, there is no reason not to employ force as efficiently as possible to achieve an end. Machiavelli would be down with that...

They are, that was actually one of Warden's jobs in the Air Force.

So I guess he must consider that he failed at it??? We have numerous processes in place that do this. Are they not working? If "treat airpower as limitless in applicability" is the solution, what is the problem? How do you implement that?

[slapout9]

This framework (I don't believe it is a model because it only categorizes components, offering no insight or explanation of function) has a "brain" but no "mind".

That is why he calls it mapping the system. It is a map nothing more or less. Understanding function is a differant step.

Just as I don't think that physically attacking the body is an effective way to change someone's mind, I don't that that purely physical attacks will achieve strategic objectives of any sophistication. Breaking a body can prevent it from functioning, but will not necessarily get the mind to agree with you. It also is not a very good way to set conditions that will lead the person not harboring resentment against you after you "target their centers of gravity" to convince them to "give in" to you.

I can tell you from personal experience it works very well.....In LE we call them TASERS they take any will to fight right out of the person. We need Military level TASERS!

Its not "just physical" unless your objective is simple destruction. If you are trying to achieve a strategic goal other than destruction, then you MUST accept that you can't isolate the physical from the cognitive as no matter how "precise" you are, affecting the physical does not have a predictable result in the cognitive.

That is exactly why you need to stay in physical area....you can't analyze someones intentions...it is impossible, he may lie to you.....but you can analyze CAPABILITIES and be prepared to disable,disrupt or destroy them.

Not if you want to achieve the sort of EXIT Warden talks about (ie one that sets conditions for a constructive peace, not instigating a cycle of violence.
If someone burns your house down to get you to comply (or just burns the 10 objects in it most dear to you), the fact they didn't kill your kids is not likely to endear them to you.

It depends on WHO's house you burn down....the rest of the population may love for doing just that!

The British could have just killed Ghandi, or massacred his followers. Why didn't they? If you divide the physical from the morale, there is no reason not to employ force as efficiently as possible to achieve an end. Machiavelli would be down with that...

He was a smart guy. But that is really Warden's ultimate point War is the final option never the first,second or even the third. It is only justifiable when you need to eliminate a threat to your survival.

So I guess he must consider that he failed at it??? We have numerous processes in place that do this. Are they not working? If "treat airpower as limitless in applicability" is the solution, what is the problem? How do you implement that?

I think he was transferred to another job before he finished.



Nicolo Machiavelli, in the Prince, opines that "...men when they receive good from whom they were expecting evil, are bound more closely to their benefactor...". Courtesty of Surferbeatlle from the SWJ Blog.....like I said Nicky was a smart guy....so is Surfer.