OODA Rethought

[Steve Blair]

This is why I am not a fan of the whole 4GW/Maneuver Warfare/Boyd Rulez clique.

There are valuable things within each context, but the some of the DNI crowd just is creepy to me, and their Boyd evangelism comes across as cult-worship.

Quite so. There are aspects of MW that I like, but on the whole I tend to find 4GW to be more of a marketing ploy than an actual theory. Boyd's historical analysis is also sketchy, and I've never been convinced that his theories really hold up outside of the context in which he originally conceived them (gun-based air to air combat). That doesn't mean that there isn't value in the stuff, but you need to be willing to accept what works and reject what doesn't without drinking a full glass of the Kool-Aid.

[William F. Owen]

Boyd's historical analysis is also sketchy, and I've never been convinced that his theories really hold up outside of the context in which he originally conceived them (gun-based air to air combat).

Boyd's use of military history is THE main problem with his work and insights, all of which makes sense if you have HIS view of military history and human behaviour.

OODA is at best an idealised process to describe what learning should/could be. I am not convinced that this is what Boyd intended it to describe.

[TSgalpin]

OODA is at best an idealised process to describe what learning should/could be. I am not convinced that this is what Boyd intended it to describe.

Very astute. Based on my own research, I can tell you that Boyd's work is not well understood or well used in defense circles. It actually is typically better understood (if less often referenced) in business.

To understand Boyd and the OODA loop, you need to be familiar with Boyd's body of work. OODA is not like METT-TC or C4ISR as a methodical doctrine acronym to be memorized.

30 second Boyd was a legendary cold war era fighter pilot. After that he was the scientific developer of energy maneuverability theory - what is now the guiding aeronautical engineering equation of tactical fighter design.

After becoming s scientist in his own right responsible for fundamentally changing aeronautical engineering; then he started to come up with stuff like the OODA loop.

OODA is not a doctrine for how you should think.

OODA is a psychological model (represented by a rather nice process flow diagram on wikipedia) that shows an opponents decision making process in a manner that you can exploit it. It is an equation for manipulating a situation no different than game theory manipulates economics or engineers use physics to alter machine performance.

OODA is a way to exploit and manipulate your opponents mind. What he thinks, and how long he needs to think.

Example - Poker. By exhibiting certain behaviors, I can influence other players at the table to make assumptions about my hand. A Bluff in poker is the classic example of using an opponent's observation to manipulate his decision making.

Now many examples have been shown where speed of maneuver does not necessarily create an advantage. Making one's own OODA loop faster is the lowest common denominator of applying an OODA loop. It is popular because it's easy. Not because it's the best application of OODA.

Now By the way - Chess has little to do with OODA. In a friendly match between amateur players it's possible to use OODA just like you would in a Poker game, commercial negotiation, or establishing enfilade. But Chess has a very limited number of moves, a small enough number of tactics and scenarios that a chess master has them all memorized. Chess matches are decided by who has the best memory, and in timed matches who has the fastest pattern recognition. That subject has been highly researched by psychology and neurology. Trying to manipulate the OODA cycle of a chess master is about as easy as manipulating your opponents OODA cycle in tic tac toe. I'm sure it's possible, but against a good player, it's exceedingly difficult and probably involves distraction off the game board. (Seriously, when was the last time you won a game of tic tac toe? Can you trick the other player into losing?)

OODA is just a psychological model that theoretically explains and predicts the effect of properly executed surprise, bluff, and misdirection.

Have you ever gotten information overload that caused you to panic because you couldn't keep up? It happens to quarterbacks in the NFL, and CEO's in board meetings. The OODA loop is a way of modeling the psychology that allows you it intentionally induce panic in your target, rather than waiting for luck to favor you. Shock and Awe is an application of OODA psychology to induce paralyzing emotions in an opponent.

But like any equation used in science or engineering, it's only useful if you understand how to apply the equation/theory and have enough tactical/technical ability to execute the application.

Which is why guys that do math for a living tend to make great utility of OODA methodology, and shooters don't get it. It's abstract theory, not a instructional acronym. The military is not known for it's ability to indoctrinate creative implementation of graduate level theory at a broad tactical level.

But You don't need F=MA to understand that steel on target kills. You don't need E=MC^2 to understand that a small nuclear device can destroy a city. And you don't need to know OODA process theory to appreciate that a good bluff, feint, or misdirection can be used to trick your enemy into doing what you want them to do. Good training doctrine can and should teach the craft without confusing riflemen with sophisticated theory. If this exposition made sense to you; please find away to pass on the technology of psychological manipulation of the enemy without misrepresenting it with four easily mistaken words to a culture obsessed with acronyms.

When John Boyd said "get inside an enemy's decisions cycle" he meant to change the amount of time it takes your enemy to react, to decide what to do. Boyd would feed his opponents information at a rate that would dictate how long it would take his opponent to react. And give the enemy information that would make him react predictably. Just like Musashi suggesting to appear slow, weak and tired; than attacking fast and hard. It's about manipulating your opponent's mind and response.

Read Boyd's personal history. His political strategies for promoting EM theory and the light weight fighter program. Boyd constantly manipulated his political opponents to achieve his goals. And succeed as a colonel advancing his agendas in the Pentagon by out maneuvering dozens of generals. Boyd's genius in OODA was to codify formal psychological theory into a form that is relevant to general strategic and tactical application.

So you guys are good - tell me what I missed, tell me what I got wrong.

Thanks for the forum.

[William F. Owen]

Very astute. Based on my own research, I can tell you that Boyd's work is not well understood or well used in defense circles. It actually is typically better understood (if less often referenced) in business.

Thanks for the compliment. I would agree Boyd's work is poorly understood, but I am extremely skeptical about how useful it was in the first place, other than his work for the USAF.

As a military thinker and theorist, I think you can safely ignore Boyd and come to no harm. If you want to know what's wrong with modern military thought, then his name comes up pretty quickly.

OODA is a psychological model (represented by a rather nice process flow diagram on wikipedia) that shows an opponents decision making process in a manner that you can exploit it.

So it shows you how your enemy thinks? I submit that this is a fallacy. It shows you how you think you think, and not how you actually do. There is a vast body of simulation and C2 staff evidence to show that commanders rarely based their decisions on what they know or can observe.

Example - Poker. By exhibiting certain behaviors, I can influence other players at the table to make assumptions about my hand. A Bluff in poker is the classic example of using an opponent's observation to manipulate his decision making.

So OODA can be used to describe "Deception" and "Distraction." - both of which are methods of gaining "surprise." - How is this useful? A more skilled player may well detect your "bluffing." In real world operations the feedback needed to sustain that rationale is almost always totally absent, until you are committed.

But Chess has a very limited number of moves, a small enough number of tactics and scenarios that a chess master has them all memorized. Chess matches are decided by who has the best memory, and in timed matches who has the fastest pattern recognition.

OK, so why is Chess NOT a competition of OODA loops? Because the options are limited? Isn't pattern recognition somehow important? - eg Understanding?

I'm not sure I am THE Boyd sceptic here, but I'm in the top-5. If you read through my posts here, on other threads, I think you'll see why I am no fan of Boyd. Nothing personal against they guys, except I want to run a big red pen through a lot of his slides.

[William F. Owen]

On a more positive note, something I recently discussed with Fanz Osigna and Chet Richards is that OODA does have a good use for formulating the procedures and processes associated with operational learning. This is currently being done by IDF, and in a slightly different way the UK as well - though I am more familiar with the IDF process...

That is how to take those things troops and commanders learn from on operations and ensure that they become best practice for all in theatre. This goes someway to ensuring that the enemy is hopefully learning slower than you are, but that has little to do with speed and everything to do with actually doing it in an audit-able, methodical and systematic way.

[Hacksaw]

and I thought we had little in common!!!!

[slapout9]

Wilf, you all ready understand OODA and so do most other Army folks, except we call it maintaining the initiative. If you maintain the initiative you are inside his OODA loop because he is always reacting to you. I don't know why the OODA people want to make it so mysterious.

[Fuchs]

http://tachesdhuile.blogspot.com/201...some-boyd.html