The Army Capstone Concept: the Army wants your comments - Page 6

Steve the Planner · 10-03-2009

Michelle:

Agree that we are probably reaching a word (and concept) limit without further input.

By now, I suspect we are debating an early draft that has already cleaned up a lot.

I'm actually looking to understand more about how it deals with the future.

Unspoken in a lot of the discussion is, in fact, how much we are seeking to adapt past solutions to current and future problems. It is both a human and organizational foundation.

My best guess is that when we are in a place with a confused mission, we are always vulnerable. No matter how big or how many resources are committed.

The one question which I feel confident about as a future scenario is neither winning nor losing in long-term festering problems that we, as a nation, will not commit so abundantly to as to pursue a definitive end, but for which we have some minimum objectives that do not fully encompass controlling the people, land and resources, psychologically or physically.

Is that a realistic scenario for the future, and how does the Army prepare for that?

Steve

slapout9 · 10-03-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. C

I just read an article in the September-October 2009 of Military Review by LTC (RET) Tim Challans, Ph.D., "Tipping Sacred Cows: Moral Potential Through Operational Art."

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...031_art006.pdf

The author discusses Systemic Operational Design (SOD), and I pointed this article out because of his perspective on problem-solving as a framework.

I think the capstone document would be stronger if a framework other than "problem-solution" was used. I've probably reached my word limit for how many times I can write that in one discussion thread.

I doubt if I'm the only person who will read the capstone and take issue with the framework and how the authors arrived at their solutions. I'm trying to be helpful and suggest how to build a stronger position.

I posted that article when it first came out because of his discussion of action theory although he says the theory is not well known any Cop will tell you the motive comes first....even crazy people have a motive. He discusses some of the drawbacks of thinking of Strategy as Ends,Ways and Means. Really Good Stuff in there.

William F. Owen · 10-04-2009

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dr. C

I just read an article in the September-October 2009 of Military Review by LTC (RET) Tim Challans, Ph.D., "Tipping Sacred Cows: Moral Potential Through Operational Art."

http://usacac.army.mil/CAC2/Military...031_art006.pdf

There are so many things wrong with that article, I hardly know where to begin. Prominent among the errors is the assertion that the Luftwaffe bombed London to force a capitulation. - Completely untrue.

The author also says,

Quote:

We can avoid the logical error of instrumentalism (that which may work in practice, but not in theory) only by disclosing our paper trail of reasoning.

WHAT? If he seriously believes that, then how does he define the purpose of Strategy? Surely Strategy is INSTRUMENTAL! - It is used to get something done!
If the secret of SOD is merely holding reasoning and assumption to rigour, then why not say that. Theory you cannot put into effective practice or use to inform practice is utterly useless.
The role of "theory" in military thought is to check the relationships between intentions, practices and actions. The primary source of useful military theory is history. - which SOD seems mostly to ignore.

1.) There is no evidence that SOD is any better or more valid an idea than Manoeuvre Warfare or EBO - there is simply no reason (body of evidence) to believe this.

2.) I hate to rain on the author's parade, but there is substantial evidence that the flow down effects of SOD were very much responsible for problems in the Lebanon. He talks of "Israeli SOD Theorists" - I know of only one, and his standing is not high, except in the US SOD commercial consultant world.

3.) There are no "ethics" in military theory. The ethical dimension is merely how well or poorly a course of action sets forth the policy! Killing civilians generally undermines political objectives. - More over this is a bizarrely "White Christian" view of the world. Many many folks in the world consider killing civilians to be the heart of their strategy.

So yes, the article is nice convoluted wordy romp through various philosophy and theory, but so what?

Null Hypothesis · 10-15-2009

From page 16: "Consistent Messages and Actions. Because future operation will occur in and among the people, under the unblinking eye of the media, and against threats savvy enough to present competing narratives, Army actions and messages must be congruent with and consistent with policy and objectives."

Redundant because the Army should be acting within policy and objectives in the first place (commander's intent?).

Confusing because it addresses the obvious with an air of presenting a unique solution.

When was the last time the Army presented a congruent and consistent message in a timeframe useful to the maneuver commander that didn't take thousands of staff hours to produce, let alone in an environment where there is an enemy actively trying to kill them?

Recommend fixing the title to something less wordy. Perhaps, "War."

nh

SJPONeill · 3 Weeks Ago

I just finished working my way through the draft. I hope that it is as has been said previously an early draft that has been polished up since. It definitely reads like a document that has a number of drafters who have worked in isolation and then complied the document. While I believe that the intent for this capstone publication is admirable, from it's current form it still has a long way to go.

If there is one single recommendation, I would make, it is that it needs to be placed in the hands of someone who really knows how to write. Its written structure is horrible with massive sentences and paragraphs that mix ideas and concepts in a most unuser-friendly manner. There is some great content in it but extracting it is just too hard - as it is I doubt you could get too many troops reading a publication that should be as well-thumbed by junior leaders as by senior ones.

My notes file is too big to upload here so will forward it back via our TRADOC LNO.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
The Army wants your comments on its new Capstone Concept	SWJ Blog	SWJ Blog Feed	0	09-22-2009 05:30 PM
Capstone Concept will change Army doctrine	SWJED	TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference	13	09-06-2009 01:42 PM
Capstone Concept will change Army doctrine	SWJ Blog	SWJ Blog Feed	0	08-27-2009 01:30 PM
BG McMaster on the Army Capstone Concept (Quicklook Notes)	SWJED	TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference	16	08-19-2009 11:04 PM
Efforts Intensify to Train Iraqi Police	SWJED	The Whole News	6	01-16-2006 01:27 PM

10-03-2009	#101
Steve the Planner Council Member Join Date: Apr 2009 Location: Maryland Posts: 248	Michelle: Agree that we are probably reaching a word (and concept) limit without further input. By now, I suspect we are debating an early draft that has already cleaned up a lot. I'm actually looking to understand more about how it deals with the future. Unspoken in a lot of the discussion is, in fact, how much we are seeking to adapt past solutions to current and future problems. It is both a human and organizational foundation. My best guess is that when we are in a place with a confused mission, we are always vulnerable. No matter how big or how many resources are committed. The one question which I feel confident about as a future scenario is neither winning nor losing in long-term festering problems that we, as a nation, will not commit so abundantly to as to pursue a definitive end, but for which we have some minimum objectives that do not fully encompass controlling the people, land and resources, psychologically or physically. Is that a realistic scenario for the future, and how does the Army prepare for that? Steve

10-15-2009	#104
Null Hypothesis Registered User Join Date: Oct 2009 Posts: 1	From page 16: "Consistent Messages and Actions. Because future operation will occur in and among the people, under the unblinking eye of the media, and against threats savvy enough to present competing narratives, Army actions and messages must be congruent with and consistent with policy and objectives." Redundant because the Army should be acting within policy and objectives in the first place (commander's intent?). Confusing because it addresses the obvious with an air of presenting a unique solution. When was the last time the Army presented a congruent and consistent message in a timeframe useful to the maneuver commander that didn't take thousands of staff hours to produce, let alone in an environment where there is an enemy actively trying to kill them? Recommend fixing the title to something less wordy. Perhaps, "War." nh

3 Weeks Ago	#105
SJPONeill Registered User Join Date: Nov 2007 Location: Near the Spiral, New Zealand. Posts: 2	I just finished working my way through the draft. I hope that it is as has been said previously an early draft that has been polished up since. It definitely reads like a document that has a number of drafters who have worked in isolation and then complied the document. While I believe that the intent for this capstone publication is admirable, from it's current form it still has a long way to go. If there is one single recommendation, I would make, it is that it needs to be placed in the hands of someone who really knows how to write. Its written structure is horrible with massive sentences and paragraphs that mix ideas and concepts in a most unuser-friendly manner. There is some great content in it but extracting it is just too hard - as it is I doubt you could get too many troops reading a publication that should be as well-thumbed by junior leaders as by senior ones. My notes file is too big to upload here so will forward it back via our TRADOC LNO.