SMALL WARS COUNCIL
Go Back   Small Wars Council > The Small Wars Community of Interest > TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference

TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference Discuss issues from the TSLC.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 03-02-2010   #161
Bill Jakola
Council Member
 
Bill Jakola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 66
Default I forwarded your questions to the doctrine people.

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
Sorry Bill, I've really tried to understand this, but I cannot.

How is that different from planning done by skilled people?
Mission narrative? Commanders need to state the mission as clearly and simply as possible. That's it. What else is there?

How is a mission statement prepared by "design" different from one prepared done by skilled and competent folk.

Any chance someone without an AKO can get hold of this?
William,

I am not the 5.0 expert and although it seems to make sense to me; I have forwarded your questions to the doctrine people to help find answers to your qustions. Also, I asked about getting access without ako.

Bill
Bill Jakola is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #162
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default Amen Brother

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
Can a man get an Amen from the congregation...

I've read the draft doctrine...

I've heard the rationales and anecdotes...

It has been made clear to me that if I don't see the difference between competent planning and design, then perhaps I'm just too dense...

I don't think I'm that thick...

(Edit to include) Snake Oil...
Or, Injun Joe's Slo-Motion Potion--good for trifles, snifles, and carbine rifles, zits, fits, and sagging ####.

Only 15 bucks a bottle through this special offer. But wait! There's more if you act now. We'll also throw in a free copy of FM5.01(R), COIN by Design. When you order , don't forget to include that R (for ridiculous)
__________________
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
wm is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #163
selil
i pwnd ur ooda loop
 
selil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Belly of the beast
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
William,

I am not the 5.0 expert and although it seems to make sense to me; I have forwarded your questions to the doctrine people to help find answers to your qustions. Also, I asked about getting access without ako.

Bill
Bill I don't have AKO access. I do however teach Design. In fact I teach architectural design and analysis of networks. Though information technology is woefully far afield of waging war (though some would say they are the same).

There are a host of design methodologies and decision making techniques. From the ubiquitous and flawed waterfall model (stuff roles down hill), to the Boehm (and others) spiral models of iterative processes (also used by ISO/ANSI and others).

Planning on the other hand can use the same techniques, and other strategies such as structured analysis. I will say if you really want to screw up design and analysis you will have to ask the Air Force for their expertise. In my view design is an umbrella for planning but we're likely just making word salad anyways.

Not that I expect this to happen.

If TRADOC wants to officially ask me to review the document (FM for Design), release the document to me, and acknowledge that release. I will provide a synopsis of my findings. <- Why that? Stupid people making threats about professors getting FOUO info when they disagreed with the findings. And, heck I won't even charge them $15K that they pay others
__________________
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
selil is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #164
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by selil View Post
In my view design is an umbrella for planning but we're likely just making word salad anyways.
"Design" is more of a power word than "plan"; it conveys more of a "God like" height .

More seriously, I think it reflects the extreme engineering orientation of a lot of military doctrine. Not that that is bad per se, but it can have certain, hmmm, let's say "epistemological limitations" when it comes to dealing with lived reality.

Selil, you mentioned ISO. Did you ever look at the old ISO 9004? It's an intriguing example of how fuzzy "design" has to get once you add nasty people into it (like the "enemy") who insist on doing things their own way.

Quote:
Originally Posted by selil View Post
If TRADOC wants to officially ask me to review the document (FM for Design), release the document to me, and acknowledge that release. I will provide a synopsis of my findings. <- Why that? Stupid people making threats about professors getting FOUO info when they disagreed with the findings. And, heck I won't even charge them $15K that they pay others
15k?!?!?! Drat!
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
marct is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #165
selil
i pwnd ur ooda loop
 
selil's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Belly of the beast
Posts: 2,112
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by marct View Post
More seriously, I think it reflects the extreme engineering orientation of a lot of military doctrine. Not that that is bad per se, but it can have certain, hmmm, let's say "epistemological limitations" when it comes to dealing with lived reality.
The engineering bend to education and waging war I think is an effect of attempting to put everything in quantifiable terms. The push of the quants relies on the engineers to make it happen. Though the word design is definitely part of the qual side of the house. "Good" design can have horrible metrics.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marct View Post
Selil, you mentioned ISO. Did you ever look at the old ISO 9004? It's an intriguing example of how fuzzy "design" has to get once you add nasty people into it (like the "enemy") who insist on doing things their own way.
I'm currently a SME on the ISO/TC WG for "Societal Security". I was appointed by the US ANSI chair to help with the technical questions they had. Not much for me now but it was interesting for awhile. So, I've also worked with 900X, 2700X and a few other ISO standards.


Quote:
Originally Posted by marct View Post
15k?!?!?! Drat!
I know I'm cheap but I am a gray beard. I just never was a general.
__________________
Sam Liles
Selil Blog
Don't forget to duck Secret Squirrel
The scholarship of teaching and learning results in equal hatred from latte leftists and cappuccino conservatives.
All opinions are mine and may or may not reflect those of my employer depending on the chance it might affect funding, politics, or the setting of the sun. As such these are my opinions you can get your own.
selil is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #166
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

I have to say, I'm really intrigued by this "Design" stuff because it's proto-form "Systemic Operational Design" failed under fire in real operations, in terms of being unable to produce clear and concise orders.
The classic being the one that told an Infantry Brigade Commander to "Render the enemy incoherent within the operational area."

Moreover, what I read about "Design" makes no sense. I've come to the conclusion that planning is the product of skilled people, based on experience. "Understanding the problem" cannot be held to be a separate or discrete process, as in military operations you have to plan for not having understood the problems correctly, because the enemy is trying to make a mess of your plan - and often you have to compensate for your guys making a mess of your plan!!!
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #167
MikeF
Council Member
 
MikeF's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Chapel Hill, NC
Posts: 1,177
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by William F. Owen View Post
I have to say, I'm really intrigued by this "Design" stuff because it's proto-form "Systemic Operational Design" failed under fire in real operations, in terms of being unable to produce clear and concise orders.
The classic being the one that told an Infantry Brigade Commander to "Render the enemy incoherent within the operational area."

Moreover, what I read about "Design" makes no sense. I've come to the conclusion that planning is the product of skilled people, based on experience. "Understanding the problem" cannot be held to be a separate or discrete process, as in military operations you have to plan for not having understood the problems correctly, because the enemy is trying to make a mess of your plan - and often you have to compensate for your guys making a mess of your plan!!!
Hi Wilf,

I agree. Much of the late 1990's systems based problem solving techniques were useless in the field. Even down on the battalion level, I've received orders that said we were focused on security, governance, economics, and no social reforms. I'd say, "No Sh*t, but what do you want me to DO?" I rarely got a response.

Design, as I understand it is a means to take a complex situation, sort through it, and finish with a simple order. In terms of MDMP, it's a way to really wrestle and determine your facts and assumptions before jumping into IPB and COA development.

Here's a brief outline of how I did it on the company level for y'all's critique.

Phase One: Shaping the Environment

1. Understanding the Environment
- Conflict Ecosystem- fill in the bubbles of Dr. K's chart.
- Cultural Immersion- develop empathy and understanding of the internal stakeholders' grievances and vulnerabilities
- Prepare a General Area Survey. How did/do the previous and current stakeholder's define the problem?
- Develop a Hypothesis on the Situation

2. Testing the Environment
- Conduct reconnaissance and surveillance to gather intelligence to confirm/deny hypothesis.
- Conduct leader engagements to gather intelligence to confirm/deny hypothesis

3. Defining the Environment
- Full out planning process. Facts and Assumptions are determined based off initial efforts and decisions are made. Commander determines how the world is and how he wants to influence it. Simple OPORD is endstate.

4. Influecing the Environment
- Develop the Message
- Conduct Psychwarfare to get the truth out
- Conduct Deception operations as needed to assist in your initial penetration during clearance.
- Disruption Operations. Targeted raids, ambushes to prepare the environment by disrupt the enemy's infracstructure, maneuver, and morale.
MikeF is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #168
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default FM 5.0 Final Approved Draft - Feb. 25, 2010

Hi Folks,

Bill Jakola has sent me a copy of the final approved draft of FM 5.0 for posting here. You can download it from here (NB: this is the updated location)
Cheers,

Marc
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/

Last edited by marct; 03-04-2010 at 03:01 PM. Reason: updated URL
marct is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #169
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default

The following extracts from FM 5.0 point out what I find to be a fatal flaw in the "Design" construct.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FM 5-0 FINAL APPROVED DRAFT 25 February 2010
3.26 Commanders use design to ensure they are solving the right problem. When commanders use design, they closely examine the symptoms, the underlying tensions, and the root causes of conflict in the operational environment. From this perspective, they can identify the fundamental problem with greater clarity and consider more accurately how to solve it. Design is essential to ensuring commanders identify the right problem to solve.

3-36. Three distinct elements collectively produce a design concept as depicted in figure 3-1. Together, they constitute an organizational learning methodology that corresponds to three basic questions that must be answered to produce an actionable design concept to guide detailed planning:
  • Framing the operational environment—what is the context in which design will be applied?
  • Framing the problem—what problem is the design intended to solve?
  • Considering operational approaches—what broad, general approach will solve the problem?
The first paragraph (3.26) says that design helps one figure out what problem one is supposed to solve. That is, the design frames the problem. But the second paragraph (3-36) says that the problem frames the design. Unless "design" is being equivocally in these two paragraphs, this seems to say that design aids one to understand the problem by understanding the problem.
Or, maybe I'm just as dense as Hacksaw.
__________________
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris

Last edited by wm; 03-03-2010 at 07:39 PM.
wm is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #170
Ron Humphrey
Council Member
 
Ron Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,099
Post Just a quick response,

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
The following extracts from FM 5.0 point oput what I find to be the fatal flaw in the "Design" construct.

The first paragraph (3.26) says that design helps one figure out what problem one is supposed to solve. That is, the design frames the problem. But the second paragraph (3-36) says that the problem frames the design. Unless "design" is being equivocally in these two paragraphs, this seems to say that design aids one to understand the problem by understanding the problem.
Or, maybe I'm just as dense as Hacksaw.
Without trying to either defend or attack said statement
Riddle me this


Plan to build a house

< make it a steel house
-no nevermind make it out of bamboo
< and build it in a jungle next to a waterfall

Seems to me sometimes a problem can very well define direct the design-

Ready for incoming
__________________
Quote:
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron Humphrey is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #171
wm
Council Member
 
wm's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: On the Lunatic Fringe
Posts: 1,237
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
Plan to build a house

< make it a steel house
-no nevermind make it out of bamboo
< and build it in a jungle next to a waterfall

Seems to me sometimes a problem can very well define direct the design-
I agree completely. But I'd say you are using plan and design where the FM is using design and design (or design concept). Consider Figure 3.1 in the FM that portrays the three frames that make up/ (constrain?) the design: environmental frame, problem frame, and operational frame. I tried a similar thought experiment to yours, but since it is snowing where I am, my problem was set in a different environmental niche:

Context: I was left behind by the TRADOC team on a distant range while visiting the Arctic Region Test Center in Alaska (probably due to my snide comments about FM 5.0).

Environment Frame: I'm in a frozen, snow covered wasteland.
Problem Frame: I need to provide myself shelter
Operational Frame: I only have natively available material to use to build the shelter.

What is it about these three parameters that will drive me to see that a good solution (aka design concept) is to build an igloo?

By the way, for those familiar with how the Army assesses training, do the three frames remind anyone besides me of task, condition, and standard?
(I'll be charitable and accept that maybe my way of trying to understand what is really meant by the environmental, problem, and operational frames is colored by my experiences and does not demonstrate the creative thinking that, along with critical thinking, is a necessary precursor to successfully design according to paragraph 3-1 of the FM.)
__________________
Vir prudens non contra ventum mingit
The greatest educational dogma is also its greatest fallacy: the belief that what must be learned can necessarily be taught. — Sydney J. Harris
wm is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #172
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default

Hi WM,

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
Context: I was left behind by the TRADOC team on a distant range while visiting the Arctic Region Test Center in Alaska (probably due to my snide comments about FM 5.0).

Environment Frame: I'm in a frozen, snow covered wasteland.
Problem Frame: I need to provide myself shelter
Operational Frame: I only have natively available material to use to build the shelter.

What is it about these three parameters that will drive me to see that a good solution (aka design concept) is to build an igloo?
Of course, FM 1C-E hasn't been released yet, so what you will obviously need to do is to hire a doctrinal consultant (at 15k Selil says) to study the problem. Personally, I think that this is really a failure of strategic vision ("Alaska? Ar you crazy! I'm going to the DR!"), but we could debate that endlessly. I will note, however, that if you had an embedded HTT they might, assuming they actually had an area specialist, note that asking the natives for their suggestion would be a good idea .

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
I'll be charitable and accept that maybe my way of trying to understand what is really meant by the environmental, problem, and operational frames is colored by my experiences and does not demonstrate the creative thinking that, along with critical thinking, is a necessary precursor to successfully design according to paragraph 3-1 of the FM.
Right. Obviously, you need to put your immediate situation in a global, strategic context in the same manner as a congressman: immediately call for a full investigation to take place in the DR .
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
marct is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #173
Hacksaw
Council Member
 
Hacksaw's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Lansing, KS
Posts: 361
Default Fourth Dog in the Fight

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Humphrey View Post
Without trying to either defend or attack said statement
Riddle me this


Plan to build a house

< make it a steel house
-no nevermind make it out of bamboo
< and build it in a jungle next to a waterfall

Seems to me sometimes a problem can very well define direct the design-

Ready for incoming

Does this qualify as a dog pile... even so it was instigated by SWC version of "bring it on"...

Ron, I don't think anyone would argue that it is best to determine where and what type of house one wants to build prior to laying a foundation

What most of us would argue is that a good plan kind of strives to understand the problem well enough to answer those questions... if not the plans staff is an abysmal collection of dope smokers (not beyond the realm of the possible - I've been accused of just that in the past)...

However, I will accept that Design might (MIGHT) be a useful construct at the strategic level in response to a question by the president that says, "CDR, USSOUTHCOM I really want to help the people of Haiti who have been so tragically impacted by the misfortune of geography, what can we do"

At that point I'd like his planners to assist their brothers in USAID in thinking through what should vs. what can be done in support and why... and offer those thoughts back to the CinC for his contemplative thought prior to sending 1st AD on RORO to provide security (note we could do this, but probably don't want to)...

If tactical units get orders/tasks that are so froggy that a young officer (see MikeF response) must use design to figure it out... shame on the issuing staff's CDR, CoS, G3 and staff... that is problem of professionalism and not a gap in doctrine
__________________
Hacksaw
Say hello to my 2 x 4
Hacksaw is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #174
Ron Humphrey
Council Member
 
Ron Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,099
Post Marc, beat me to it, but

I would have taken one step further back in the process

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
I agree completely. But I'd say you are using plan and design where the FM is using design and design (or design concept). Consider Figure 3.1 in the FM that portrays the three frames that make up/ (constrain?) the design: environmental frame, problem frame, and operational frame. I tried a similar thought experiment to yours, but since it is snowing where I am, my problem was set in a different environmental niche:

Context: I was left behind by the TRADOC team on a distant range while visiting the Arctic Region Test Center in Alaska (probably due to my snide comments about FM 5.0).
1- Call them on your trusty lil sat phone(which I'm sure you have on you) and say your sorry for your slight over exuberance.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
Environment Frame: I'm in a frozen, snow covered wasteland.
Problem Frame: I need to provide myself shelter
Operational Frame: I only have natively available material to use to build the shelter.
Use the time waiting for a ride to dig a hole in the snow to get out of the wind(something which may very likely lead you to consider adding a roof to the mix)

Use the snow from the hole to build a beacon snowman so they can easily locate you(might help if its a monument to TRADOC's greatness)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
What is it about these three parameters that will drive me to see that a good solution (aka design concept) is to build an igloo?
Think Marc addressed this one well (asking locals)

Quote:
Originally Posted by wm View Post
By the way, for those familiar with how the Army assesses training, do the three frames remind anyone besides me of task, condition, and standard?
(I'll be charitable and accept that maybe my way of trying to understand what is really meant by the environmental, problem, and operational frames is colored by my experiences and does not demonstrate the creative thinking that, along with critical thinking, is a necessary precursor to successfully design according to paragraph 3-1 of the FM.)

Although I get that they might seem similar it might be of note That the former do tend to lead to ones expectation of a (how to ) to be found in the document.

Hasn't that been one of our biggest complaints about Doctrine in the past

Ill leave it to the pro's to defend the approaches and/or written word, Just figured I'd share why at least so far from what I've read it makes sense to me.

Course I'm really not the target audience
__________________
Quote:
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron Humphrey is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #175
Ron Humphrey
Council Member
 
Ron Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,099
Post I don't disagree with much of this

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
Does this qualify as a dog pile... even so it was instigated by SWC version of "bring it on"...

Ron, I don't think anyone would argue that it is best to determine where and what type of house one wants to build prior to laying a foundation

What most of us would argue is that a good plan kind of strives to understand the problem well enough to answer those questions... if not the plans staff is an abysmal collection of dope smokers (not beyond the realm of the possible - I've been accused of just that in the past)...
Of course good planning attempts to account for variables and possible branches from the original guidances. Perhaps a more relevant question; is that really what lies at the heart of this issue.

Or is it more likely that when one goes about the task of providing effective guidance part of the well thought out planning should include the fact that even given perfect orders those like Mike will still more often then not have to do some of what he stated do to the proximity to the actual application of said plan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post
However, I will accept that Design might (MIGHT) be a useful construct at the strategic level in response to a question by the president that says, "CDR, USSOUTHCOM I really want to help the people of Haiti who have been so tragically impacted by the misfortune of geography, what can we do"

At that point I'd like his planners to assist their brothers in USAID in thinking through what should vs. what can be done in support and why... and offer those thoughts back to the CinC for his contemplative thought prior to sending 1st AD on RORO to provide security (note we could do this, but probably don't want to)...

If tactical units get orders/tasks that are so froggy that a young officer (see MikeF response) must use design to figure it out... shame on the issuing staff's CDR, CoS, G3 and staff... that is problem of professionalism and not a gap in doctrine
So do you mean you'd want them to design various approaches to provide the administration with viable options?
__________________
Quote:
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron Humphrey is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #176
marct
Council Member
 
marct's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Ottawa, Canada
Posts: 3,682
Default Getting away from igloos for a moment....

I think one of the key phrases is in 3.26 "Commanders use design to ensure they are solving the right problem. [ emphasis added ]". Now, part of the problem with this comes right afterwards:

Quote:
When commanders use design, they closely examine the symptoms, the underlying tensions, and the root causes of conflict in the operational environment.
Who defines what are the "root causes"? There is an underlying assumption that the commanders will be able to identify them which, IMO, is all sorts of hubris.

Quote:
From this perspective, they can identify the fundamental problem with greater clarity and consider more accurately how to solve it. Design is essential to ensuring commanders identify the right problem to solve.
In theory, this sounds wonderful, but what if the underlying problem is some ID10t error of a politician or a trans-national corporation with lots of "friends" in DC? Should this be understood as a doctrinal rationale for the assassination of home grown (i.e. US politicians)?

Okay, I'll admit that may appear to be a touch on the reductio ad absurdam side but, given the beliefs of many in the world, I don't think it is too far out. There is what I can only describe as a very dangerous lack of limits placed on the way this concept is expounded.
__________________
Sic Bisquitus Disintegrat...
Marc W.D. Tyrrell, Ph.D.
Institute of Interdisciplinary Studies,
Senior Research Fellow,
The Canadian Centre for Intelligence and Security Studies, NPSIA
Carleton University
http://marctyrrell.com/
marct is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #177
Ron Humphrey
Council Member
 
Ron Humphrey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Kansas
Posts: 1,099
Question Gawrsh, Y you wanta get all serious and take all the fun outta it

Quote:
Originally Posted by marct View Post
Who defines what are the "root causes"? There is an underlying assumption that the commanders will be able to identify them which, IMO, is all sorts of hubris.
Interestingly enough the underlying assumption for me here would be if they couldn't they'd be taking the time to find someone who could.

Quote:
Originally Posted by marct View Post
In theory, this sounds wonderful, but what if the underlying problem is some ID10t error of a politician or a trans-national corporation with lots of "friends" in DC? Should this be understood as a doctrinal rationale for the assassination of home grown (i.e. US politicians)?

Okay, I'll admit that may appear to be a touch on the reductio ad absurdam side but, given the beliefs of many in the world, I don't think it is too far out. There is what I can only describe as a very dangerous lack of limits placed on the way this concept is expounded.
In regards to the first you fight the battles your given not the one's you choose(sorta) wasn't there this old saying about spilled milk

As for limitations, have you seen anywhere yet that the final products already well institutionalized are going away?
__________________
Quote:
Any man can destroy that which is around him, The rare man is he who can find beauty even in the darkest hours

Cogitationis poenam nemo patitur
Ron Humphrey is offline  
Old 03-03-2010   #178
Bill Jakola
Council Member
 
Bill Jakola's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hacksaw View Post

If tactical units get orders/tasks that are so froggy that a young officer (see MikeF response) must use design to figure it out... shame on the issuing staff's CDR, CoS, G3 and staff... that is problem of professionalism and not a gap in doctrine
Hacksaw,

Well, like I said before, I’m no experts on FM 5.0 or design but here is a view as I see it.

Our doctrine is changing to meet the complexity and competitive nature of the environment in which we now must operate. For example, battle command, the art of maneuvering forces and managing violence shifts toward mission command, to reflect the reality that the instrument of military power is also largely a national tool for doing many things traditionally outside the military’s purview.

FM 3.0, describes full spectrum operations (FSO) as Offense, Defense, and Stability Operations, which means leaders must be grounded not only in the tactics, techniques and procedures of force on force, but also in integrating capabilities with others in a battlespace that’s increasingly crowded and transparent.

Therefore, if we decentralize capability and authority to lower tactical levels, to empower the edge, then leaders at these levels need mission command type orders that are broad and not so prescriptive that they can’t develop the situation on their own.

I see design as the means that empowers these junior leaders to do just that—develop the situation.

Bill Jakola
Bill Jakola is offline  
Old 03-04-2010   #179
William F. Owen
Council Member
 
William F. Owen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The State of Partachia, at the eastern end of the Mediterranean
Posts: 3,947
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill Jakola View Post
Our doctrine is changing to meet the complexity and competitive nature of the environment in which we now must operate.
....but that is simply not true.
a.) It could be that the doctrine was always very poor and badly written. No one seems to want to ask that one.
b.) Warfare simply cannot get more complex and competitive than it was 600-1,000 years ago! - however the US Army can be less-skilled than it was in understanding the application of force for political purpose.

The vast majority of what is getting written is simply addressing imagined problems. I have yet to see a "So what" document that manages to get past that.

Quote:
For example, battle command, the art of maneuvering forces and managing violence shifts toward mission command, to reflect the reality that the instrument of military power is also largely a national tool for doing many things traditionally outside the military’s purview.
So essentially you are saying people do not understand the application of military power? - Regular and Irregular Warfare are not mysteries. We know exactly what works and what does not. The only place confusion exists seems to be in Western Armies concepts and doctrine.

Quote:
FM 3.0, describes full spectrum operations (FSO) as Offense, Defense, and Stability Operations, which means leaders must be grounded not only in the tactics, techniques and procedures of force on force, but also in integrating capabilities with others in a battlespace that’s increasingly crowded and transparent.
What capabilities and who is the crowd? How is the battlefield more transparent than it was in 1970?

Bill, not giving you a hard time for fun. I really struggle with this stuff as I see smart men telling me things that make no sense once I hear it, or see it written down.
__________________
Infinity Journal "I don't care if this works in practice. I want to see it work in theory!"

- The job of the British Army out here is to kill or capture Communist Terrorists in Malaya.
- If we can double the ratio of kills per contact, we will soon put an end to the shooting in Malaya.
Sir Gerald Templer, foreword to the "Conduct of Anti-Terrorist Operations in Malaya," 1958 Edition
William F. Owen is offline  
Old 03-04-2010   #180
Infanteer
Council Member
 
Infanteer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 347
Default

Why does doctrine progressively get more complicated and misty - the estimate process is turning into a doctrinal thesis. I'm waiting for the Doctrine guy who chucks most of the manuals and is able to issue doctrinal pamphlets that can be carried by, issued to, read and understood by all leaders at all levels. When I show this stuff to my Sergeants, they laugh and say "whatever". Pretty bad when doctrine is spit out and not read by 95% of the target audience.
Infanteer is offline  
Closed Thread

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
BG McMaster on the Army Capstone Concept (Quicklook Notes) SWJED TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference 30 09-06-2009 01:42 PM
Capstone Concept will change Army doctrine SWJED TRADOC Senior Leaders Conference 13 09-06-2009 01:42 PM
Efforts Intensify to Train Iraqi Police SWJED The Whole News 6 01-16-2006 01:27 PM


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.9. ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Registered Users are solely responsible for their messages.
Operated by, and site design © 2005-2009, Small Wars Foundation