Quote Originally Posted by Presley Cannady View Post
"Agreed. So the question is whether or not the degree of accuracy in a quantitative model is more or less likely to get someone killed than not using it. In the medical profession--where life and death is equally, and probably more frequently, at question--the answer's obvious."
My observation has been that the success rate of good intuitive commanders is about 75%; that of their more numerately inclined peers is about 35-40%. My observation has also been that Medical Doctors are Like Economists; if you don't like what one says, ask another. Had a Grandfather who was a Doctor. He contended after over 50 years of practicing medicine that it was more art than science.

My observation of the Medicos leads me to believe that their numbers probably would roughly co8incide with my combat commanders...
"...doesn't overwhelm the value gained from predicting behavior in the aggregate. Optimization doesn't guarantee perfection, only a good bet that practice that considers it is better than practice that doesn't."
I agree with that for many actions and activites. I do not agree that it is correct when applied to warfare -- or Blackjack -- by most people.
"..blah blah--all accurate and probably not all that helpful when faced with a real need to plan and execute.
Blah blah is never helpful in anything. Aphorisms and metaphors have their place. So do numbers and models. Warfare mostly is not one of those places.
On the other hand, you can plainly see the value in quantitative methods in force flow planning, bridging, navigation, decision trees, acquisitions (jokes go here), etc. These methods should and do prove their worth the same way tradition does--by being tested under specific conditions time and time again and under fire. We generalize their lessons at our own risk.
Having undergone the pain of coping with 'force flow planning' on numerous occasions, I can tell you that it usually gets totally screwed up -- frequently but not always dues to human error -- and then a human has to unstick it. Bridging is an Engineering endeavor and obviously needs several skills to do it efficiently -- not so many are needed to do it effectively. I've seen a number of matrices and decision trees fail totally -- usually at some cost in pain and suffering. Acquisitions, as you say...

Actually, very few things are "tested under specific conditions time and time again and under fire." That's because almost every effort attempted under fire is subject to the vagaries and variances of the mission, the particular enemy at a given point and time, the terrain and the type or lack of vegetation thereon, the troops one has available (and even with the same troops exactly, time will affect their abilities and effectiveness), the time of year and of day as well as that available and in any situation, not just COIN but mid level or major war, civilian considerations (and that can include own as well as international political constraints, like Rules of Engagement, media coverage and such). Throw in human foibles and you have too many variables so you will build a model upon which you cannot rely above the 50% level -- I like my fights to have better odds and that can usually be arranged.

BTW, don't conflate tradition and experience -- or principle and application.