reed11b writes regarding the MW Essential Premise #3: Weapons, organizations, techniques, procedures, concepts of operation, and training to accomplish these must be oriented towards achieving higher quality "fast transient" actions when confronted with such situations.

The historical failure of airborne operations would stand in strong contrast to any historical support for this theory. The AH-64 deep strike failure in OIF is another historical counterpoint. Decentralized control provides greater “maneuverability” then emasculating the force structure TO&E
Reed
Hmmm. I probably need to talk about a SPECIFIC example here. Some will say that airborne operations were not historical failures. Even the German air assault on Crete in 1941--catastrophic in casualties as it was--proved an operational success.

The crux of the issue here is "maneuver" in the MW sense of the term and "decisive maneuver" which is what most airborne operations sought to accomplish on the battlefield, which was generally confined to a single, decisive, vertical envelopment. This is not what MW "maneuver" means, particularly when we are talking about the OODA loop. What "maneuver" means in this context is the imagery of two wrestlers, each seeking leverage over his opponent. There are many, many maneuvers--not just one that is judged to be decisive ahead of time. Indeed, the wrestlers aren't sure what pin or hold is going to win the match for them...or whether they're going to win on points.

Most airborne operations sought to achieve a military fait accompli on the battlefield--and this requires a very high degree of certainty regarding the situation to pull off. That's quite different from MW/OODA, which is designed to work in situations of relatively poor certainty/high uncertainty. The problem with airborne operations is that, once the troopers are on the ground, their ability to execute fast transients is extremely limited against certain kinds of enemies. So you want to ensure that the blow truly is decisive just by landing it where you land it, and not depend on the flexibility of the airborne force to overcome signficant opposition once it's on the ground.

Bottom line--you can't execute just ONE "fast transient." In this MW essential premise, the OODA Loop is judged to be an interative process that constantly repeats/cycles, and you have to execute "faster" and "focused" overall/in aggregate, if not in any single iteration. Airborne ops execute one fast transient (operational-level insertion to tactical employment on the ground) and then they can have severe difficulties after that.

Lest anyone think I'm poking the paratroopers in the chest here, let me just say that it works very much the same way for amphibious operations. The one crutch that amphib forces have that airborne forces don't is the potential for very high throughput of follow-on reinforcement and logistical sustainment, provided sufficient facilities are seized early on, compared to purely vertical envelopment. Interestingly, the USMC's initial and tentative forays into Distributed Operations and Ship To Objective Maneuver tended to be much more reminsicient of airborne operations, with all the attendant advantages and disadvantages regarding being able to mount consecutive "fast transients" once on the ground....