Assessment of Effects Based Operations

[Hajduk]

Here's a stab at it:

I always felt that EBO, EBAO, CA whatever you want to call it was the institutionalization of conducting warfare where every military or political leader can read and rehash a concept to look and sound like he has the answer to the future conduct of war.

Other than confusing the heck out of everybody in the room & battlefield, as seen during the Isreali-Hez war, the whole EB(A)O / CA debate was always sterile and somewhat to good to be true.

To me it seems that CA-EB(A)O was intended to codify what yesterday's military greats and statesmen (Alex the Great, Ceaser, Nap, Claus, Patton, Churchill) possessed either by shear luck of talent or what I always thought was the key CHARACTER.

Its not hard to agree with Gen. Mattis that such concepts might work within a closed system but the 'total' complexity of war demands for a specific type (or specific group) of people to conduct war.

Some people are born to be warriors some are not. I think EB(A)O was thought to be the holy grail, or at least the road to it, of conducting war where anyone could just open the book and follow it full circle to ultimate success on the battlefield.

[Ken White]

Some people are born to be warriors some are not. I think EB(A)O was thought to be the holy grail, or at least the road to it, of conducting war where anyone could just open the book and follow it full circle to ultimate success on the battlefield.

The former is absolutely correct and the EBO thing is simply the latest in a long line of attempts to allow anyone to successfully fight a battle or a war.

That's deemed necessary due to DOPMA and the US insistence that all _______(Insert rank and specialty of choice) are absolutely equal in skills and attributes. That's patently nonsensical. Better training would help but even that will not make a cautious metric lover into an intuitive commander.

Cav Guy was right in his comment above; the systems guys will be back. I've seen about four or five iterations along the same line in an attempt to force decision codification over the past 60 years. None of 'em worked, the next one won't either.

It's an art, not a science...

[Hajduk]

Cav Guy was right in his comment above; the systems guys will be back. .

I agree that the 'system guys' will always look for a reason (justification) to unleash the wrath of their calculators and powerpoint presentations. I would only allow them to exist within the experimentation departments (where failure is acceptable).

The dying breaths of the systems nerd were heard a while back with the changed order of affairs in today's hotspots reached unacceptable proportions. Now, its about time that leaders (that don't get hard ons when they see a "super-cool" ppt slide from a vitamin-d deficient concept developer) are at the strategic level making decisions that will change the way future concepts and doctrine (and their developers) are influenced and written.

Gen Mattis is in no way new to the game

[William F. Owen]

I suggest that good doctrine and concepts should use no words that do not appear in the UKs 1924 field regulations! Plain simple, and all about killing His Majesties enemies!

[slapout9]

I have been very busy the last 2 weeks at my day job and have not had a chance to post much. After reading the full document Mattis may produce some very good things without throwing out the baby with the bathwater. On page 6 of the memo just under the comments by General Kelly and Dave Killcullen are four ideas that will be retained by current Joint Doctrine. What is unusual is these are all very important "Systems Thinking Concepts." Real systems thinking concepts are not fuzzy or complicated and should be kept as apparently Mattis intends to. The rest of the stuff should go as Mattis is apparently going to do. Time for a return to the "Enemy As A System."

[jcustis]

The joint force must act in uncertainty and thrive in chaos, sensing opportunity therein and not retreating into a need for more information.

And right here I see something that typifies this great general. If he said the enemy was at the bottom of that cliff, I need you to jump off it to kill them...I'd peek first, but would figure out how to make that poncho into a parachute real quick.

[William F. Owen]

Time for a return to the "Enemy As A System."

This force me to ask why? Does it help? Is it useful?

OK, having read up on systems theory to help me understand Shimon Naveh's work, I can see very little merit in it's application to military thought. - I also think Naveh is mostly wrong.

The problem is ambiguity. If the enemy is a system, then he is usually self healing, adapting and evolving, and all the other bumper stickers that add complexity.
Why do I want to get into a competition tracking and understanding this?
Why don't I just kill and destroy any part of him I come across?

Systems Theory seem to be a starting point that wants to advocate clever and complex solutions.

Yes, everything may be a "system", but like the OODA loop, why does thinking that way help?

[Ron Humphrey]

This force me to ask why? Does it help? Is it useful?

OK, having read up on systems theory to help me understand Shimon Naveh's work, I can see very little merit in it's application to military thought. - I also think Naveh is mostly wrong.

The problem is ambiguity. If the enemy is a system, then he is usually self healing, adapting and evolving, and all the other bumper stickers that add complexity.
Why do I want to get into a competition tracking and understanding this?
Why don't I just kill and destroy any part of him I come across?

Systems Theory seem to be a starting point that wants to advocate clever and complex solutions.

Yes, everything may be a "system", but like the OODA loop, why does thinking that way help?

The most notable concern that I hear over and over is exactly as you say,
ambiguity.

The real effect in using any type of systems approach should be IMHO simply being able to more quickly identify, or recognize opportunities, changes taking place, weaknesses, strengths, etc. KISS principle works in life because most of us would rather be able to just pick a direction and go with it at least knowing that everyone is on the same page(even if it turns out to be the wrong page).

The problem with refusing to not only accept that some systems approach may be necessary if one is to truly be able to address the larger environment, is that it may be in the end, the only way to actually define what will be the most effective KISS principle with which to approach the particular situation.

Think formulas in math, they are useful because they allow us to figure out answers to given problems sets without actually having to go through all of the extra steps. Thus problem solving is simplified and thus hopefully more within the comfort zone of most those who have to use them.

For every part of the enemy you decimate there exists another portion yet unidentified which will most likely fill the vacuum. Now in a normal war or LE circumstance it is probably doable to say that you'll just keep eliminating until their all gone.

In the current world climate exactly how long do you think it would take to actually do that, or is it even more likely that at some point you will have eliminated so many that a new stock of problems develops from the results of those which is even more menacing and perhaps less defined by cause and more defined by revenge/personal loss. This is what they mean by the statement you can't kill your way out of an insurgency. I submit thats probably true to some extent in ANY battle.

[William F. Owen]

This is what they mean by the statement you can't kill your way out of an insurgency. I submit thats probably true to some extent in ANY battle.

I will ponder the rest of your post at length, but I just wanted to pick up this.

You are exactly right. Insurgents are defeated just like everyone else.

Insurgencies fail, or are defeated because the insurgents gives up. He is militarily defeated. He may not have been defeated solely by military means but, as an armed opponent, he suffered defeat.

All the so called non-military aspects of COIN are aimed at detracting from the effectiveness of someone using force. If an insurgency did not use armed force, it would not be a military or police problem.

Understanding an Insurgency as "a system" merely allows you to kill and arrest the right people. The defeat of the Shining Path, in Peru being one of the best examples I know. The bigger the system, the larger the amount of people have to be taken out circulation.

[slapout9]

Hi Wilf, the answer to your question on the benefit is...well I would be hard pressed to come up with a better answer than Ron Humphrey gave.
EBO is complex and not worth it. Systems thinking is simple and will bring clarity to the situation when done properly.

The real effect in using any type of systems approach should be IMHO simply being able to more quickly identify, or recognize opportunities, changes taking place, weaknesses, strengths, etc. KISS principle works in life because most of us would rather be able to just pick a direction and go with it at least knowing that everyone is on the same page(even if it turns out to be the wrong page).

The problem with refusing to not only accept that some systems approach may be necessary if one is to truly be able to address the larger environment, is that it may be in the end, the only way to actually define what will be the most effective KISS principle with which to approach the particular situation.

Ron that is quote of the week type stuff....very well said.

[Ron Humphrey]

Hi Wilf, the answer to your question on the benefit is...well I would be hard pressed to come up with a better answer than Ron Humphrey gave.
EBO is complex and not worth it. Systems thinking is simple and will bring clarity to the situation when done properly.




Ron that is quote of the week type stuff....very well said.

by your praise

One thing I learned fairly quickly in corrections was that although things are never simple, their not always as difficult as they seem either.

[William F. Owen]

Systems thinking is simple and will bring clarity to the situation when done properly.

Slap mate. I want to believe! - the religious side of me!

..but can you give me an example? How does thinking of the IRA or a Soviet Style Motor Rifle Regiment, as "a system" help me defeat him?

I totally get that deep understanding of how something mechanical, cybernetic or even chemical allows me to use the minimum force to sabotage it, but how do I apply that to real world enemies and threats? - which are endlessly "open" systems, are they not?

[William F. Owen]

Systems thinking is simple and will bring clarity to the situation when done properly.

This is now get. I am now interested in "Systems Thinking" IF it makes things simpler. Only took six months but I got there....

I am still implacably against the SOD, chin rubbing, "oooh... very complicated," "not for mortals" variety that SAMs and CAC seem so fond of. That stuff is just a recipe for disaster.